Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
It's clear that the idea wasn't well thought out. It's more likely that it was a spontaneous decision, and Wojciech was the first to react. (Just kidding!)
I think what bothers everyone is the moment when one player gains control immediately, while others have to go through many restructuring phases. This is one of the factors that makes Heroes a game of chance to a large extent. And if even a test rule like the one proposed in the first post is introduced, after some time, people will start to get annoyed, and there will be complaints like, "He had more resources," or "My mines had two resource nodes, while his had three." Then, discussions will start about how many resource nodes can be taken, and so on. As for the mirrored map, it's been said enough times that it doesn't balance the game at all, especially in hotseat mode. So, everyone should calm down and play as it is. Otherwise, you can play chess, where white always goes first.