Forum

Resetting, of course, didn't work and still doesn't, but I was ready to make it so that leveled-up heroes simply wouldn't appear in the tavern at a certain point, and I considered (and still consider) this to be the right thing to do.

How do these two options fundamentally differ? Besides the fact that such heroes are removed from the pool in the second option, given that the number of heroes is limited. The rejection of resetting can still be somehow understood if digging is considered a normal feature.

Honestly, I don't even understand the principle of a mirrored tavern, which theoretically could exist. How can the principles of mirroring be maintained if someone destroys heroes, fires them, or even just buys them in different slots? How can the principle of not having the same class appear in two slots be maintained, while still preserving the mirroring? What about a dead hero if the second player has him? So many "buts" hinder the implementation, as it seems to me, although maybe I'm just a noob and don't understand?

Apparently, no one has really tried to work out the concept and delve into the details. I also don't see how a mirrored tavern could be implemented in a way that would solve the problem in the case of digging up a leveled-up hero.
If the second player has such a hero, then it is obvious that he will not be able to appear in the tavern. If the second player does not have him, then in principle he can appear in the tavern for both, but why would the hero be leveled up for the second player? Why not the other way around, a level 0 hero, or also a leveled-up one, but with different stats and also lost by the second player.

I see the implementation of a mirrored tavern as follows: there is the same queue of heroes appearing in each tavern slot, which changes every week. And breaking up heroes does not affect this queue, but only pushes the queue back, or removes the top hero in the tavern slot to the end of the queue.

This story became controversial because of your stubbornness, when everyone told you that you were adding nonsense, but you still did everything your way. Because of a situation that happens in the game in less than 1% of cases, you deliberately went into conflict. This is the main complaint about you.

From my perspective, for example, everything looked more the opposite, i.e., the aforementioned stubbornness was shown by the other side, at least to no lesser extent. It's hard to imagine myself in the place of a participant in a tournament on such an imperfect version, but in such a situation, I would be on Vik's side.