I'll start from a distance. There is such a profession as an investigator. An investigation begins with the investigator determining for themselves whether the suspect is guilty or not. This allows them to immediately understand what to do—whether to fight for the truth, pin it on someone, or look for another suspect.
Of course, various clues, physical evidence, and other courtroom attributes are secondary here. The main thing is the investigator's personal opinion, their intuition, feelings, etc. And these are based primarily on a purely human impression of the suspect—how they look, how they behave, how they answer questions, etc.
It is quite difficult to confuse an experienced investigator; for most people in a state of stress, their true nature is clearly visible. Even without stress, too. For example, a pickpocket is perceived by people in a crowd as one of them. But a seasoned detective can often identify a pickpocket in a crowd of people just by their appearance, body movements, and shifty eyes.
And only after an opinion has been formed does the collection of evidence for court begin. Sometimes, due to a lack of such evidence, it is necessary to keep the suspect in sight and wait until they finally commit a crime.
The same principle applies to cheating cases—cheaters have a limited set of psychological profiles, and their methods of self-expression are also subject to systematization. In other words, if a person fits such a profile, it's a reason to look at them more closely. And if they aren't even close, you can relax.
Of course, there are many borderline cases, as well as simply intelligent people who know how to hide their second nature not only in the game but also in communication. However, as pressure mounts, many begin to "crack"; after all, conspiracy skills are poorly trained by life, and it is generally accepted to fight for a righteous cause. This is how you can expose comrades who are not our comrades at all.
From the start, Comrade Britva fit into a psychological profile very familiar to me: people who are prone to dirty methods of achieving their goals. The driving motivation here is self-assertion by elevating oneself above others; various competitive disciplines are very conducive to this and therefore attract such people. In itself, this isn't bad, unless it is compounded by other factors, such as:
1) A lack of talents capable of pulling the owner to the top. That is, the thirst is there, but there is nothing to quench it with.
2) A lack of respect for others' opinions of you. This can happen, for example, from an inability or unwillingness to make people like you, and as a result, leads to downplaying the significance of this factor (the "they fear me, therefore they respect me" approach has similar reasoning).
This can manifest, for example, as general shittiness (sorry, Pasha, I couldn't think of a more suitable word) in communication, a tendency to spew bile, bullying neighbors, etc. That is, a desire to replace empathetic bonds with hierarchical ones.
3) An absence (or weak expression) of such an evaluative category as honor and nobility. In Heroes, due to the weakness of means for monitoring rule compliance, much relies precisely on these concepts.
The lack thereof is clearly visible in the manner of communication on the forum—pettiness, a tendency toward nitpicking (not to be confused with punctuality), minor insults (not to be confused with banter and various pranks), backstabbing, etc. In other words, a general sense of dirtiness emanates from the text; there is no generosity of spirit.
Plus, there's a very telling reaction to accusations—an honest and noble person usually feels sincere indignation at the mere fact of any suspicions directed toward them; they might start stamping their feet, tearing their shirt open, issuing a challenge, pressing hard (regardless of how—logic, emotions, or otherwise), etc. That is, they actively defend their honor, usually with overkill, so that the accusers are exhausted by the recoil.
In this regard, I recommend studying the topic on the Portal where accusations of cheating were leveled at Marcon. Personally, I didn't take these accusations seriously right away; I didn't even look at the saves, simply because Marcon doesn't fit the cheater profile at all. And I was convinced of this once more after reading his responses to the accusers—the tone and self-positioning were a 5+.
Britva's responses, however, can be characterized as nothing other than "feeble lying" and "passing the buck." In general, the attempt to bash Valenok amused me; its subtext is easily read: "well everyone cheats, so why can't I?", or "if I'm going down, I'll take someone with me." Of all the moments where Britva psychologically gave himself away, this is perhaps the most obvious.
Added after 24 minutes
Considering this specifically on mini-nostalgia, having DD, a jump to the opponent's treasure zone will hardly be a negative move, regardless of the opp's skill.
2. It is also entirely possible that the opp split their army. One part clears a treasure zone, another, say, the center or another treasure zone. I wouldn't say such a chance is negligible.
3. In fact, an additional motive can be found. The thing is, from the underground, it will likely be possible to DD into the center
4. Passing through off-road cannot be a very bad move in any case. Well, maybe not Dragon Utopia, but a couple of uncleaned hives could actually be there. Considering that roads are the slowest, passing through off-road is definitely a promising option.
Now imagine—you're playing against someone; he jumped over a cliff onto the road to you, then ran off-road into a corner of the resp you had already scouted, found nothing there (in 90++% of cases, that's how it will be), and then went back (on foot or with DD, they say TP wasn't available there).
What is your opinion on such a comrade's skill? Correct—a total noob.
Theoretically, one could imagine the justification for a similar maneuver; for example, if the road to the village goes into the corner, but the off-road trip is made toward the center. Like, "if I find nothing, I'll jump into the neighboring zone and search it."
In that version, it would look strange, but generally tolerable; some logic (mixed with intuition) is present here.
But when an off-road trip is made to a corner of the map (!) from which you can't jump anywhere, and then you have to return back to the same lift... meaning if the opponent is stronger, he'll catch you here, and if weaker, you give him a day or two to get away or gather an army.
That's why I say this move is strictly negative, and I'm surprised that anyone (except Britva) claims otherwise. And Britva is not the kind of person who can write off strange decisions as his own noobishness; after all, he has decent stats and wins tournaments, meaning he is well acquainted with the basics of strategy.
