You can cheat your way through the campaign by using two paddles too . Hit it softly with one and tether it with the other paddle and hold it , then swing with the paddle thats not tethered . The ball will zip away and the AI won ' t move unless you let go of the tether . I prefer 1 paddle myself just because it makes more sense to just use 1 in a game like this . <| sep |> I got it off heroic a week ago . I ' ve never seen it before that , nor the one off of Renferal or Xavius . <| sep |> AND THAT LOSS TORMENTS YOU STILL <| sep |> Here is the post for archival purposes Author RHavar Content AbstractstrongBlock weight limit voting would move the responsibility of deciding the block weight limit to miners . This represents quite a radical and risky change for bitcoin , but could potentially end years of bike shedding . This proposal tries to protect minority miners and preserve decentralization by requiring a super majority of miners to agree on any changes . DescriptionstrongBlock weight voting would be conditional upon segwit activation , and a require ahard fork to be sanely implemented . There appears to be numerous reasonably safeways to do such a hard fork e . g . first soft fork to miners who support the hard forkbut that is out of scope for this . Block weight limit voting would add a new field to the block header ideal block weight that represents the ideal block weight limit in KiB that the miner of that block would like to be the networks new block weight limit . If more than 95 % of all blocks during a retargeting period are voting for a new weight limitthat represents an increase or decrease from the current weight limit , the newblock weight limit would be moved to where 95 % support exists . As a safety feature , the block weight limit change would be capped at a hard 5 % change per retarget period . QAstrongWhy is it block weight , and not block size ? blockquoteBlock weight is what segwit uses , and a better limit in general . It also wouldn ' t bemuch of a compromise proposal if tried to exclude segwit . Why don ' t miners vote for block weight by making blocks of that size ? blockquoteBecause this would severely disadvantage a miner who wants to have both smaller blocks but also maximize their income . Why is there a 95 % threshold , and not 51 % or somewhere in between ? blockquoteBecause there exists inherent conflicts of interests between miners and bitcoin users , 95 % is a very conservative number that errs on the side of caution and helps protectminority powers against more centralized mining . This number is also well established in soft forks , as miner preference is also only considered a rough proxy for the bitcoin economy at large , it makes sense to be veryconservative . Thoughts ? Support ? Does it have what it takes to end the great block size debates for once and for all ? strong