ENT Gaming

Posted: **Sat Jul 20, 2019 2:54 am**

Replay Link: find it down. i need more help watching replays and gathering evidence pls
Game Name: LTD
Your Warcraft III Username: mudman
Violator's Warcraft III Username: 1ce
Violated Rule(s): maphack
Time of Violation (in-game or replay):
Any further thoughts:

https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=11763826 Right before round 1, adds tk stuff to hold warr

https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=11763842 before round 1, sells ygg and changes build completely as soon as enemy send warr. and before round 4 enemy send

Please help me gather more proof to get this tard. He also on muultiple occasions would vote FF before round starts of his enemy team sending on a loss round.

Posted: **Sat Jul 20, 2019 9:18 am**

map hack confirm he did pretty sure

Posted: **Sat Jul 20, 2019 11:42 am**

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767905.w3g (somewhat suspicious)
- "but we still send" level 1 where one teammate missed second war due to latewisp he insisted on send even with bowman. Result: 46 leaks mid 30 kingleak (insane with 1 bowman)

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767335.w3g (minor)
- 2 people on his team want to send 5 (scout ea, ts, engi) team is confident they can break ea. 1ce heavily against sending 5 and the lane they dont know is turret. Quote from teammate: "well turret, nice we didn't"

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767314.w3g (major)
- His team is bad 2, like seriously awful and he goes 250 aqua,
- He is against sending 2 but supports sending 5, adds in "I like 4 too" (no scout against lod, spawn, aqua, engi) aka 4 and 5 are jackpot
- He also pushes very late (at the start of round 3) when he can see they are not sending 3 (350 aqua no t1 with latewisp sus af)
- After enemies start sending 4 he cancels wisp and max builds with aqua (500 value) to me this confirms mh (he still leaked 19 pigs to 2x bo because karma)

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767298.w3g (fairly suspicious)
- after enemies start to send 4:
(07:32 / Allied) 1ce: well
(07:34 / Allied) 1ce: ob 4
(07:36 / Allied) 1ce: som1

he also adds acolyte behind (significant since infront better for 5+ but worse for 4) when he already had 400 val (100% hold nosend)

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 766314.w3g (minor)
- immediately supports purps question to send 4, (enemy is noscout aqua, lod, ea, malf/engi)

last thing I want to point out is even though some of these replays are somewhat minorly suspicious I think that with the replays above it paints a fairly clear picture. Moreover this player is often quiet when it comes to calling/discussing calls so a quick support for a very obvious call (if u know units) is suspicious for me.

Posted: **Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:22 pm**

epicdeath wrote:http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/view_replay.php?file=11767905.w3g
- "but we still send" level 1 where one teammate missed second war due to latewisp he insisted on send even with bowman. Result: 46 leaks mid 30 kingleak (insane with 1 bowman)

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767335.w3g
- 2 people on his team want to send 5 (scout ea, ts, engi) team is confident they can break ea. 1ce heavily against sending 5 and the lane they dont know is turret. Quote from teammate: "well turret, nice we didn't"

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767314.w3g
- His team is bad 2, like seriously awful and he goes 250 aqua,
- He is against sending 2 but supports sending 5, adds in "I like 4 too" (no scout against lod, spawn, aqua, engi) aka 4 and 5 are jackpot
- He also pushes very late (at the start of round 3) when he can see they are not sending 3 (350 aqua no t1 with latewisp sus af)
- After enemies start sending 4 he cancels wisp and max builds with aqua (500 value) to me this confirms mh (he still leaked 19 pigs to 2x bo because karma)

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767298.w3g
- after enemies start to send 4:
(07:32 / Allied) 1ce: well
(07:34 / Allied) 1ce: ob 4
(07:36 / Allied) 1ce: som1

he also adds acolyte behind (significant since infront better for 5+ but worse for 4) when he already had 400 val (100% hold nosend)

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 766314.w3g
- immediately supports purps question to send 4, (enemy is noscout aqua, lod, ea, malf/engi)

last thing I want to point out is even though some of these replays are somewhat minorly suspicious I think that with the replays above it paints a fairly clear picture. Moreover this player is often quiet when it comes to calling/discussing calls so a quick support for a very obvious call (if u know units) is suspicious for me.

ty man. I just dont know how to prove it, but his gameplay is super suspicious in every single game. he has never been "surprised" by any enemy play

Posted: **Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:09 pm**

What you guys have provided so far sounds enough to prove your point, in theory. All that's needed now is a mod to review and conclude, before processing the request.

Good job and thank you for your reviews.

Posted: **Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:12 pm**

Didn't see epic's replays yet but the two you posted can only be a case of ghosting rather than mh. Both times he changed/added for lvl 1 before enemy team has sent warrs, and both times your team was weakish for 1 so I suppose it could be a case of just wanting to cover 1 or a mild warr paranoia. This should be investigated to lengths no doubt, but its better not to jump to conclusions

Posted: **Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:27 pm**

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767298.w3g Epic's replay link

I don't know how you find this a proof of maphack seriously man. They sent warrs, they didn't re 2 even it was obvious to any map hacker hermit send would rape the enemy. They resend 3 cause they saw on 1 enemy has 2 yggs, was a big goal but its hardly suspicious.Ice went 400 aqua on 3 even if the enemy didn't send anything 3. Now 3 send was a big goal but since enemy didn't send yet and they aren't upping the king and trying to save heal, but wasting it instead, you find it suspicious he asks for 4 cover? Isn't 4 or 5 send usual thinking vs warr? Come on, if you got legitimate reasons for thinking hes a mh go for it, I personally find mh-ers worst thing you can do in competitive games, but as it is now this is almost a witchhunt. I'll maybe take a look at other replays later.

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767314.w3g This one is pretty suspicious, I can't find any logic in underbuilding for 3 and then hard ob for 4.

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767335.w3g again absolutely nothing suspicious about his reasoning. He simply expected ts holder and ea ob and thought 5 would fail and then 7 would hurt his team. Funny thing here is that enemy team actually wasn't good 5 at all and 5 send was very nice. TS guy had only 3 ts on 5, ea was 3 eas and ogre and turret guy had 6 turrets only 560ish value, all perfectly breakable and killable 5. If this proves anything, it proves he isn't maphacking.

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767905.w3g again not suspicious to me at all. His team had 3x 3 0 so even if bow, time suits them. Enemy had prisoner lane so if he was maphacking and he knew, priso could have been strong mid and even ygg could have gotten a bow and go mid as well.

So far your case really doesn't stand at all, with total of 1 suspicious replay.

Posted: **Sat Jul 20, 2019 2:09 pm**

1. he said it a couple of seconds after the enemy teams first sends on 4, the timing was suspicious more than anything else to me

3. definitely not proof but certainly it aroused minor suspicion so I thought it worth including, I dont know what maphack lets you see/not see but I'm assuming you cant see lj or gold so it was strange to me he was vocally against the send where his team was confident of an easy break. Irrelevant in a vacuum but interesting as part of a holistic examination I feel

Posted: **Sat Jul 20, 2019 2:14 pm**

epicdeath wrote:1. he said it a couple of seconds after the enemy teams first sends on 4, the timing was suspicious more than anything else to me

Which is about the exact same time he realizes enemy isn't gonna up king and will waste a heal instead, isn't it? It all depends on the initial position you take how are you going to see the replays and in which light you are going to paint them

Posted: **Mon Jul 22, 2019 12:55 am**

https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=11769084

mid level 9 - he mentions this:
(19:44 / Allied) 1ce: they just die if skip 10
(20:05 / Allied) Mudman: why would they skip 10
(20:34 / Allied) 1ce: we suck 12 imo
(20:39 / Allied) 1ce: 13
WE FUCKIN HAVE BLASTER BTW (fat blaster lane)

during 11:
(26:50 / Allied) 1ce: they already sent imo
(26:56 / Allied) 1ce: so we can just king 17
forces upgrade HP as soon as he sees enemy send

reminder: we have 4 heals and fat blaster lane

Posted: **Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:09 am**

This is disgusting. That is the lowest point you can reach in your pathetic life as a lame fucking cheater. I thought it`s not possible to have mh since like patch 1.26. I must be getting old.
I don`t know if it`s allowed, but back in days when I was moderator on eurobattle.net we used this tool to hunt them down and ban them permanently without possibility of parole. Here is a link.
http://dota.eurobattle.net/la/forum/ind ... ic=73254.0

Posted: **Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:47 am**

I really don't get where you come from with this certainty the guy is a maphacker. In that last game he didn't really ob for their 3 send and your argument is he was afraid enemy will send 12 even, as you said you got 4 heals and a "fat" blaster lane? . So guy is a maphacker for thinking they will send 12, the send that made so little sense, yet you died to it still?

As I said, there is space for investigating this for sure, idk if its somehow possible to detect these tools, its just this certainty which people present here that really triggers me, when there is very little concrete evidence, yet this guy could get banned for a year or 2 for mh?

Posted: **Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:27 pm**

Ok, I looked through some replays too:

https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=11761126
[ENT] Legion TD Mega 1200+ #10

Spoiler!

https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=11761431
[ENT] Legion TD Mega 1200+ #49

Spoiler!

https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=11761444
[ENT] Legion TD Mega 1200+ #52

Spoiler!

https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=11761460
[ENT] Legion TD Mega 1200+ #55

Spoiler!

https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=11761882
[ENT] Legion TD Mega 1200+ #3

Spoiler!

I tried to be fair and assume in doubt that he is just lucky in his calls/decision making.
But if you take the whole picture of his gameplay into consideration, many players would take it already as evidence what I marked as "slightly suspicious" only because you can frequently notice things that don't quite add up:

He is often doing tk builds that turn out to be oddly usefully. (See the alchi replay the OP posted pls)
Although he has fairly patchy gameplay knowledge and his gamereading is not very good (see the bounty chat above pls), he is really successfully calling at unusual lvls which aren't exactly meta.
He has really poor knowlegde about builds and holds and is often not paying attention to general lane planning, yet knows very often when unproportional OB is helpfull for the team. (His tips when to ob, or adding trash T1s...)
He is often chatting about leaks too soon to really evaluate the situation. Writing stuff like "gg", "looks good" before seeing full scout. Together with his patchy knowledge on bounty ect this is for me also a piece of evidence against him, although it wouldn't stand up as proof in a 100% "in dubio pro reo" trial.

Moderators may draw their own conclusions from the stuff collected above.

Off topic:
@Meshtar
I understand where you are coming from. Some folks who dislike this 1ce guy stepping in and coming to the conclusion he is maphacking from some lucky calls ingame is also not what I would consider a fair judgement, especially given the severity of the impending punishment.
"In dubio pro reo" should be considered when dealing with such cases ofc, but from the logic of judging evidence I would consider this:
IF he is maphacking it doesn't mean that he has to use the additional infos in each and every situation. Thus seeing him doing mistakes is not making the maphacking claims invalid.
On the other hand the occurence of certain actions that require some sort of intelligence that he could not have had at the moment, are enough to assume he must have been using maphack at least once. When this is occuring in several games, it is a very straight forward prove of a player using maphack or more unlikely ghosting to make calls.

I am totally with you that his calls and actions done at a later point in the game can hardly be used against him, since there are so many pieces of info or plans around at this point. This is why I focused on his behaviour around warrior calls and calling early when it is more clear what info is usable and which one is not.

This is also how ENT has been judging such maphack accusations in the past and I do believe it is valid enough to judge that a player is using third party info to play.

EDIT: Something is wrong with the pictures, can't figure out what atm; look here pls: https://imgur.com/a/PmQXu4D
Fixed some formatting mistakes

Posted: **Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:32 pm**

First replay you posted, his lines are taken out of context and can seem completely reasonable and not suspicious. First his warr call was actually a response to oj who asked warr or furbs, he replied go warr and its ok call since his team has some push. Second of all ofc he says x3 leak when he sees 3 different groups of creeps together with their warriors coming down the mid, I don't get why you even mention this. After that Mudman talks about their push based on the bounty creeps give and he hypothesizes they are 2x or 3x 1 0 push. In that sense Ice asks does 250 value give full bounty, which you interpret as him maphacking seeing a lane with 250 value and I interpret as asking if 250 value can give full bounty cause 250 value is a max value you can have obviously and not be 1 0 push that Mudman hypothesized, but 2 0 instead.
You people are on a witch-hunt to ban this guy in my opinion and are painting everything according to your desired outcome. Its sad that there are 5 people jumping on the bandwagon started by Mudman as original poster (with maybe legitimate concerns) and you are so eager to prove him guilty, not even trying to see things differently and I am still solo trying to speak on his behalf and presuming innocence, while allowing that he can actually be a maphacker, you just didn't even remotely prove it yet. Either way, knock yourselves out, I won't watch another replay nor try to analyze it.
I just hope Ent has reasonable and patient moderators who won't ban this guy for a full year or two just cause everyone is yelling "guilty".

Posted: **Mon Jul 22, 2019 11:37 pm**

Meshtar wrote: I just hope Ent has reasonable and patient moderators who won't ban this guy for a full year or two just cause everyone is yelling "guilty".

wtf are you saying? no one is yelling guilty, we are providing evidence that can lead to figuring out whether its mh or not

as for your shitty comment, ofc ent will do their best to deliver a fair judgment, so unless u got any useful info and not being the cool unique devil's advocate just fuck off bro thanks

ENT Gaming

mh

mh

Re: mh

Re: mh

Re: mh

Re: mh

Re: mh

Re: mh

Re: mh

Re: mh

Re: mh

Re: mh

Re: mh

Re: mh

Re: mh

Re: mh