You can grab such an item too. Perhaps the ability cooldown item is a bad example, since EVERY character benefits enormously from it. Otherwise I can see a point, though I do not believe that in itself can torpedo the enjoyment of a game, tournament or not. If what you speak of happens (such that your benefit is not equal to that derived by your opponent), then I guess the random whims of fate have stolen a fair game from you, and you lose. Happens in card games and actual sports all the time... they still thrive.
Yes, they do thrive. Bluffing a is a huge part of many card games, which is a direct result of the randomness. In fact, you could say that card games are good because they are random. On the other hand, go play SSBB and tell me its a good thing when you trip right before killing someone, and then they turn around and kill you. How about a competetive Pokemon match where the other guy gets a critical hit KO on that sweeper you baton passed a bunch of stat-ups to. It isn't fun. It is this kind of thing that discourages me from trying to play Pokemon competetively, or get serious about a card game. Some communities seem to enjoy randomness in their competitions. RTS communities do not.
In Beta 1 (can't use 1-A due to the lack of items), the -25% cooldown item is useless to Regulus, as his best build doesn't even use abilities. Similarly, the Rook and TB have very limited uses for the AoE gloves. I hate the random whims of fate and they hate me. If they get involved in something, I walk the other way. I cannot imagine how you could hope to make something a serious game in the RTS genera by adding random elements. There was an RTS game that tried the random element, I think it was the first Empire Earth game (could be mistaken), by adding natural disasters. In the sequal, one of the main changes was the removal of said disasters. RTS people do not like randomness. It gets in the way of skill, strategy, and metagame.
Who cares if balance is achieved one way or another? If dynamically adjusting item costs according to tracked usefulness works, then it works.
I seriously doubt that it will work. As said earlier in this post, Counter Strike tried that and it failed miserably. Besides, the best balance will always be achieved through good, old fashioned patches. Your idea strikes me simply as an easy way out for GPG to not have to balance it properly. It would feel a lot like a hacky workaround. Would it work? Yes. Is it the best way to do it? No.
This is not an issue - if Player A gets Item X, then Player B gets to spend his gold on something else. Further, and assuming there are lesser and greater items of a unique nature to be had in any game... tough. If my enemy exerts the effort to prioritize the pursuit of a good item that can gain him/her an advantage, then good for them. This would be akin to me taking the central flag - good for me.
No. Its not just about him working harder. Haven't you watched games and seen epic comebacks? Aren't those usually some of the best replays, regardless of what game it is? If this idea is implimented, then the slippery slope gets a whole lot steeper. The slope is one of the largest (and unavoidable) flaws with strategy games today, and it is one of the things all developers must be wary of. Things like the War Idol improve gameplay. Map control is something that should be rewarded. Plus, you can always make a push and get the Idol back. This was the reason people were against flag locking; it made the slope far to steep, as the first team to get the flag would eventually win the game. Similarly to OP flag locking, if someone gets a good item first, then there is nothing you can do about it. They will have an advantage for the rest of the match, therefore greatly increasing the effects of the slope. Unlike the War Idol, unique items is not a logical reward for upholding strategic principles. It is a unnecessary gameplay mechanic that makes it even harder to make a comeback. It is giving people an advantage for being in the lead.
