Forum

1) The new rule of restarting on block on Jebus. I never liked Jebus throughout my entire gaming career, almost never played it and didn't hold tournaments on it. But when a couple of years ago I had to take on Blitz-Jebus, I immediately appreciated the scale of the problem - during that tournament I received about 5 requests to assign a restart on a block in layouts where formally there was none, but in fact there was.

I believe that such an addition for Jebus is a half-measure. I don't understand why a block that can be circumvented should be restarted, but, for example, a road leading to a one-way portal on swamp on XL+U should be played out? Or an unbreakable block on 8hm8 in the neighboring zone? Or unbreakable 6k on SM-K? Therefore, I am against such a half-rule, but if people like it, then fine.

Yes, thanks for reminding me, this is also IMHO quite a successful idea - it encourages players to play their matches earlier, gives a bonus to more motivated players (those who don't give up after 2 losses), and also reduces the number of technical results, gives more game results, thereby making the title's prestige higher.

This system does not encourage players to play earlier, but gives an advantage to players ready to play 24/7 over those who have the opportunity to play only one game every two weeks.

For example, the Diamond:Survival final is currently underway, where De_Luxe is playing, who came through 2 losses in the starting rounds and a substitute entry. I think no one would dare say he is unworthy of this final. After all, this is his 2nd consecutive final on Diamond. I think this is the strongest opponent Dave could have gotten in the final.

A player who has already been eliminated makes it to the final! CoolStoryBob! :smile45:
The fact that two strong players met in the final does not mean they deserved it. If we follow this logic, we could just play the final right away without any preliminaries. Here I fully agree with the opinion:

Technically it's an abuse, prestige 0, a loser will never be worthy of winning a tournament, thank you for your attention :smile45:

Well, with a mirror tavern, either both players dig up, or no one does.

CoolStory again. If you leveled Crag Hack and I leveled Tazar, and they both die, then we both dig up Crag Hack or both dig up Tazar, but here's the catch - for one of them he will be level 1.

Yes, indeed, I hadn't thought of it from that angle.

To be honest, I don't even remotely understand the principle of a mirror tavern that could theoretically exist. How can you not violate the principles of mirroring if someone dismisses heroes, fires them, or even just buys them in different slots? How can you not violate the principle of the same class not appearing in two slots while maintaining mirroring? What to do with a dead hero if the second player has him? So many "buts" hinder implementation, it seems to me, although maybe I'm just a noob and don't understand?

3) The much-talked-about incident from Mirrors-2 about the mutual death of the "daddies". I saw this possibility from a long way off, and a couple of years ago I suggested Sav to introduce a reset of dead heroes by analogy with WT, but Sav refused. Then I wrote to Wizard and Baratorch to make such a possibility specifically for mirrors. But they ignored it.

This incident became notorious because of your stubborn bullheadedness, when everyone told you that you were adding nonsense, but you still did everything your own way. Because of a situation that occurs in the game in less than 1% of cases, you deliberately went into conflict. That's essentially the main complaint against you.