CIS-2014 in Minsk.

I've been reading this discussion, of course, but here's my opinion, as a noob of course, and everyone can publicly trash me afterwards and say who do you think you are, and where are you butting in, but I'll write it anyway.
1.
Flaws can be found everywhere, and any good thing will have both followers and critics. What usually isn't criticized is something average; comparing it to football, you can take any mid-table club in the championship that achieves local success, but a year later it drops out and everything falls into place. Heroes is a game that simply blew the minds of a very large crowd of people, and I think people started playing it with Chronicles and Armageddon's Blade. All these so-called flaws (morale, mega-skills, useless skills, water artifacts and buildings) are all part of the gameplay, without which the game loses its qualities.

2.
VT, as I understand it, is a product that came out of TE and was made by local craftsmen, who primarily made the game more comfortable (removed neutral morale, buildings, made classes, balanced magic, came up with creature experience). But now I'd like to ask these questions.
1) Someone already wrote in this thread that all neutrals have turned into zombies that don't have morale and differ only in speed. I completely agree with this. Why do we play? I, for example, play to get emotions first and foremost, to be happy or, on the contrary, to yell when morale triggers at the most inopportune moment; without this fact, a percentage of the enjoyment of the game is already lost. So, does that mean you can just sit there, micro-ing neutrals with one hand according to a template during a battle, and drink beer and eat popcorn with the other? And is this connected with the image of a dad as a person lying not in front of the TV with a bottle of beer, but with his forehead, clicking a mouse on the screen?
2) Splitting from any point on the map, having the Pathfinding skill, is good, but from a gameplay perspective, what is it? When we attack neutrals, we run away from them, but what about this? Running away from yourself or something? Suicide? Well then, why the resurrection?
3) Well, I can sort of agree with creature experience; I played in WoG, it was convenient and fun, but it also gets old, and when two equal players play, the finals are still won on mistakes)
4) Perhaps the only huge plus is the mirror template; here, yes, it's clear who is who, as the English say, and that's it.
5) They removed all unnecessary artifacts, buildings, changed the balance of spells, why? To make it more convenient? Wouldn't it be simpler then to just make a template consisting of only roads, with external dwellings and high-level Griffin Conservatories along them, and mines? And what's in the 5-tile spaces? Forest and mountains, then the game would go even faster: you run, you break, you collect) But the game becomes poorer because of this, no emotions, no thrill or disappointment, so why play? Or is it that every day at work everything is so fun and unusual that you just want to sit at home with a bottle of beer and drive a pony along the road? This is again strictly my personal opinion as a noob about the versions of the game.
3 Conclusion.
Still, SoD, with all its imbalances and unnecessary things, was designed exactly that way, and that is precisely why it captured the attention of such an audience. And now you're sitting here proving to each other who is cooler and who isn't, but my opinion is that the game is made to relax, and the competitive element is necessary for the development of both the game itself and the skill of each individual player. Many come here, some leave, of course, but still, a game should be a game) not a set of template, pre-calculated battles. Thanks for your attention.