Items are more likely to spawn close to the losing player (edit: no they aren't)

[COUM]

The EVO-ruleset (continued...)

Would anyone like to help me with my research?
The other day I finally decided to test a theory, based on:

1. Designer stating items level playing field
2. Knowledge that the game records who the current winner is by stock count(view big screen on Pokemon Stadium)
3. Rubber band affect of Mario Kart items

---

My test was simple, two Mario’s spread apart to each end of FD. 1 Mario is suicided at start of match, items set to high, starman only.
Since I did a quick test, I simply wanted to see which side (half of FD) got to 10 items first.
Trial 1: losers side 10, winners side 2
Trial 2: losers side 10, winners side 3

I posted this in the SBR about a day ago, M3D just recently mentioned he did a test after mine with Falco on Lylat using Pokeballs, and that in 10 games to 4 minutes, the number of items spawning on the losing players side was in that players favor by a ratio of about 2-1.

I plan to record 10 4 minute matches and make note of where each item spawns. I’m not willing to conclusively say anything yet, but so far this definitely warrants more testing. This would be an epic breakthrough.

[Wobbles]

The EVO-ruleset (continued...)

[quote=Me in the same thread]

Well, at this thread’s request I did a bit of “Stage Control” testing. Here’s how I set up the test:

Timed Match, 3 minutes.

Mario 1 sits in the middle of Final Destination. Mario 2 SD’s, then runs over to the right edge.

Items are on high, Franklin Badges only (they don’t bounce around and they’re easy to measure distance with).

Mario 1 is currently the winner. If item bias is real, then Mario 2 will get a larger share of Franklin badges, even though Mario 1 is “controlling the stage.”

Trial 1:

Mario 1: 6
Mario 2: 8
Neutral: 2

At this point, however, I realize that I can’t see all of the stage. I run Trial 2 with Fixed Camera on.

Trial 2:

Mario 1: 22
Mario 2: 1
Neutral : 1

Only one of the Franklin Badges was in a position where both could easily obtain it. 22 of the Franklin Badges that fell, however, were closer to the first Mario, being on the left side or immediately next to him. Only 1 was clearly in Mario 2’s favor for obtaining it. This suggested that controlling the stage was, in fact, more important to item collection than being the losing player.

Trial 3:

Same situation.

Mario 1: 20
Mario 2: 5
Neutral: 2

Mario 1, the winner, still has access to a greater share of the items. I’m going to test this with a different item to see if that makes any difference. I don’t know why it would, but… whatever.

Trial 4: Green Shell Test

Mario 1: 16
Mario 2: 6
Neutral: 3

Trial 5:

Mario 1: 16
Mario 2: 2
Neutral: 4

Keep in mind that Mario 1 is the winner and Mario 2 is the loser. It seems that if the winning player is controlling the center of the stage, he will continue to have the majority of the items. I’m going to try testing this later with Mario 2 at several SD’s, just to see if that has an impact.

[/Quote]

[System_1]

I think people on this board can evade this by saying it can be part of the strategy. When the other guy is losing you can predict where the item is more likely to end up.

Dude…just accept that items will be on for Evo. I don’t like it, not many people like it. But its just the way it is. Personally it will level the playing field for me so I’ll actually have a chance at the money.

[COUM]

Haha, Wobbles, I just saw that post and was about to come post it in here. Thanks for that

[System_1]

Yeah…Wobbles kinda locked this shit down.

[COUM]

Yeah, I didn’t think this was particularly damning even if true (if anything it should shut up those “Brawl is too campy!” morons), but it’s a pleasant surprise to see a counter to the ridiculous Smashboards claims that stage control doesn’t exist.

[nasir]

and Wobbles knocks it out of the park.