Forum

Essentially, everything that happened afterwards looked more like a family scandal, with personal attacks, hyperbolization, and so on. Naturally, every available object and argument was thrown into the mix; people stopped holding back.

2 Vik.
That's exactly where I was wrong. I started playing on someone else's turf. I don't like and don't know how to argue, which is why I lost. That's why I'm quitting.

Well, the example of my tournament is too obvious to bring up. Except for the Vitalik-Pit match, everything else was done as it should have been.

Use emojis. If you're talking about the Moscow tournament, about the epic saga with numerous postponements and the subsequent juicy scandal—then I don't know, I don't know.

But if you mean the last CIS final—there's no way around it here. Although there were complaints about the officiating too. I just won't throw words around; when you visit, we'll talk.

I haven't even seen most of these people. Therefore, I can't judge. But for some reason, it seems to me that I would describe them quite differently than you do. Perhaps because you have such a generally benevolent image that people don't show their thorns.

No, I'm telling the truth about the people. Just talk to Horn, Bayazet, Mike—they're from St. Petersburg, all of them early players. Talk to Dust, Yama-Dharma. The communication culture was different in the Dungeon, although I don't think that at its peak it would have lost to Bayu.
And if you push someone, even the most cultured person can tell you to go far away.

Chaos, based on posts in the Dungeon and ProGamer, gave me the impression of a person with a difficult character who is not inclined to avoid conflict.

I wrote about Chaos that he has a fighter's spirit. But usually, he responded blow for blow; he never sought out quarrels himself.

But even if you are right—what follows from that? That the same-era Heroes community was just a group of friends whose main goal was to have a good chat and who didn't care about all these games, sporting ambitions, or who would become champion. Hard to believe. Although anything is possible.

No, they simply knew how to behave decently. And this new vulgar style, where you can so easily tell your interlocutor to get lost, just infuriates me.

Here we need to rely on several other criteria. We are burying the game by removing all its original basic skills.

The Heroes game was fundamentally conceived as a struggle between absolutely different forces and capabilities; it's not for nothing that such diverse castles were created. Each is strong in its own way.

2 R55Max.
Agreed. I wondered with surprise that there is still no turn-based strategy comparable to Heroes 3 in terms of player interest.
Even the "fivers," who seemingly possess a new, improved version—which is excellent in terms of playability, by the way—envy us.
Neither Civilization, nor Europe, nor other turn-based strategies have this many people. We argue, we make mistakes, but people still flock to play online an old game, 12 years aged, with modest graphics. Why? Most likely it's because a special atmosphere was created. I once saw a film where famous beauties had their "faces improved" via computer processing—making them more proportional, correct, symmetrical. And the woman's beauty vanished irrevocably; she became a soulless doll, even repulsive.

So it is with Heroes. Castrate them, make it only a sporting game—and in a year or two everyone will forget about it. Because they cannot withstand competition even from chess in terms of organization.

Let there be WT-TE for determining the champion and playing "fair and square," "by the book." But the original game is needed by ordinary players.
That's why I always wrote that both versions should exist without competing. But if SoD can survive without TE-WT (as it lived before the appearance of TE, as World developed), then TE without SoD cannot (example: Bayu).
Such a paradox; therefore, protect SoD with all your might and everyone will be happy.