Suggestion for a friendly resource. Worth discussing!

Yes, we heard ;)
Various proposals came from that resource, but in general, that's not the main issue... what they offer to each individual, I don't think it's worth discussing in this thread, and in general, let everyone decide for themselves. It's a different matter what they offer to our entire resource, but personally, I still don't understand from post #1 of this thread (What is the specific proposal?).

In general, they also said that we don't have a clearly developed system for online games. I agree, everything is in the development stage for us. We may have our own system. Over time. However, I think that external experience and cooperation have never hindered anyone.

Indeed, the fact that our online presence is in the development stage, I think no one denies, and that the exchange of "wisdom" is also a useful thing, but in my opinion, they are a little off target. I'll explain:
1. As I understand it, they want to unite players who will professionally play Heroes 3 online, and most likely not on our resource, but on theirs ;)
2. They seem to already have a system that they use, and they are possibly trying to implement it. It is indeed at a more advanced level than ours, but only because it is more established, but because of its clarity, it loses in attractiveness, as diversity is limited. This is good for competitions, but bad for Heroes.
3. As for me personally:
- I am not ready to play Heroes professionally (in my opinion, this is impossible)
- I am also not interested in studying and adopting their system, even though it has partially already spread to our forum ;)
- I am not against playing and exchanging experiences (to the best of my ability)
I agree with Adelaide and Kamikaze on this issue! :)

Added after 10 minutes

So, the question of clarifying the desires should be asked to Papik and Forrest, and whether their desires will coincide with the desires of the other heroes.by players is unknown.

There isn't really a question - it's just that further development of this topic is impossible due to the lack of a specific proposal.
As I understand it, the purpose of your post was to inform that you (as the Administrator) of that resource are not authorized to answer for the proposal made by (Papik and Forrest)?