Maphackers: GynecoIogist and Bruce_Dee

[haaaaaaaalp]

My username: haaaaaaaalp
Users: GynecoIogist and Bruce_Dee
game: http://s7.clanent.net/replay/view_repla ... 693718.w3g
Alt replay: http://www.wc3parser.com/view_replay.ph ... 372267.w3g

Time: Gynecologist fogclicks sideshop twice 3 minutes into the game (gametime, not replaytime) without vision
Bruce_dee had many fogclicks throuhghout the game. Sideshop around 4:30, gray around 5, both top heroes between 7-6 minutes, sideshop around 9, secret shop around 19 minutes.

[ForMaDawgS]

are you using ingame fogclick detector

[haaaaaaaalp]

Yes. I'm using the .mix one which prints a message on my screen everytime someone fogclicks (although it also gives a lot of false positives on delay fog clicks).

[cyberpunk]

Yes. I'm using the .mix one which prints a message on my screen everytime someone fogclicks (although it also gives a lot of false positives on delay fog clicks).

You can have a ban using this kind of program in-game :3

[ForMaDawgS]

what cyber says is very true (but im against it)

[doodbrah]

My username: haaaaaaaalp
Users: GynecoIogist and Bruce_Dee
game: http://s7.clanent.net/replay/view_repla ... 693718.w3g
Alt replay: http://www.wc3parser.com/view_replay.ph ... 372267.w3g

Time: Gynecologist fogclicks sideshop twice 3 minutes into the game (gametime, not replaytime) without vision
Bruce_dee had many fogclicks throuhghout the game. Sideshop around 4:30, gray around 5, both top heroes between 7-6 minutes, sideshop around 9, secret shop around 19 minutes.

I've played with gynecologist and he does seem to maphack. I havent really check many replays but from playing with and against him it seems that he does.

[haaaaaaaalp]

^--- he does. From what I can tell, he has a habit of fogclicking the sideshops.

Yes. I'm using the .mix one which prints a message on my screen everytime someone fogclicks (although it also gives a lot of false positives on delay fog clicks).

You can have a ban using this kind of program in-game :3

WOW. Who the hell thought that was a good rule to implement?

Edit: I thought only third party programs which give a player an advantage are not allowed (i.e. reskins and map packs are allowed).

Anyway, bottom line is both of the players are maphacking so can you please just ban them?

[cyberpunk]

Edit: I thought only third party programs which give a player an advantage are not allowed (i.e. reskins and map packs are allowed).

Yes, playing dota this third party program can give you andvange in game, think about it.

[adventureclub]

Since delayed clicks are possible, you can get a false positive for some selections like shops or what not. These false positives let you know where he is on the map even if you don't have vision.

Also, If you know a player maphacks, you will adjust your game-play according to the knowledge you've obtained through this program. So technically this also gives you an advantage. Two wrongs don't make a right in this case.

However, it is allowed on DotaCash so we will let you off with a warning. Please refrain from using it in-game. But when you have suspicion feel free to run it in a replay.

[haaaaaaaalp]

Since delayed clicks are possible, you can get a false positive for some selections like shops or what not. These false positives let you know where he is on the map even if you don't have vision.

Also, If you know a player maphacks, you will adjust your game-play according to the knowledge you've obtained through this program. So technically this also gives you an advantage. Two wrongs don't make a right in this case.

However, it is allowed on DotaCash so we will let you off with a warning. Please refrain from using it in-game. But when you have suspicion feel free to run it in a replay.

Not good enough.

1) fog clicks do not reveal the location of the player making the click. The fact that the programs gives false positives means that it is impossible to even determine from my end if the other team has vision of a certain object when the program goes off.
2) the program does not definitively reveal if a player maphacks.
3) knowing a player potentially fogclicked not give me an advantage. I have to change my playstyle to a less optimal way of play just to avoid the maphackers. My position is DISADVANTAGEOUS as compared to what it would be if no one was running third-party programs, not advantageous like you claim.

I am not looking for leniency on this issue. I am look to see how tolerant ENT is of maphackers. An ingame fogclick program is often the only way to catch maphackers (i.e. it took me 4-5 game of playing with gynecologist to get suspicious that he maphacks and only because my detector went off). If ENT is actually dedicated to ridding itself of maphackers like many of the other bots, it will allow and encourage everyone to use a fogclick detector.

Up to you: do you want to give your player base the ability to rid ENT of maphackers or do you want ENT to be known as the bot where maphackers play.

[adventureclub]

This is not an argument. By your refusal to listen and follow our rules, player haaaaaaaalp is banned for 2 weeks.

Also waiting for confirmation on fogclicks.

[haaaaaaaalp]

This is not an argument. By your refusal to listen and follow our rules you are banned for 2 weeks. And no it is not the only way to catch maphackers.

It is the only way to catch certain maphackers because their play is not suspicious ingame. Many maphackers go under the radar because no one would ever think to check replays for those players.

Also, are you honestly going to be so stubborn as to let maphackers play on your bot just so you can have a blanket rule against all third party programs? I can see why ENT has a reputation for allowing maphackers. I found this quote pretty funny:

(24:40 / Allied) DopesToInfinity: most of the time hackers get ignored in ENT

is however completely BS. We do our best in every case. However if people like you don't want to spend even 20% of the time we spend in total on a replay, it's no wonder most people get away with hacking.
= Meaning we/I do not want to spend my time on a replay if you are not even willing to write up some times.

The statement is not BS and you are clearly not doing your best to stop hackers and there is a clear action you can take to help eliminate maphackers which you are choosing not to take.

Bottom line is that dota is not worth playing with maphackers and there is only one program out there to eliminate a significant portion of maphackers and I am in shock that there is a bnet community which thinks it is a good idea to disallow fogclick detectors.

I won't ask you to unban me but please for the love of god change that stupid rule within the next two weeks so I can come back to a community that actually cares about banning maphackers.

[adventureclub]

Its not my rule, but it is my job to enforce it. Seeing that you will not listen, I have to take action.

[haaaaaaaalp]

Its not my rule, but it is my job to enforce it. Seeing that you will not listen, I have to take action.

It is not your rule but you can are clearly high enough in the ranks to effect a change. I have no problem with the action you took. However, the fact that you are not willing to get the rule changed and instead pass the blame off onto someone else is completely unacceptable if you actually cared about maphackers on your bot =/

[uakf.b]

This isn't the right place to debate the rule. If you want to change it, post in the complaints section. I am unbanning you for now so that you can post this and we can debate this again because it seems like this rule simply isn't working the way it was intended to. Also because while you aren't listening to the policy, you do seem to want to help.

The primary reason that this was banned in the first place is that it is possible that a delayed click could give you an indication that an enemy is attacking you. Some moderators think that another reason is that inexperienced fog click detector users misattribute delayed clicks with maphacking, but this is false; misuse is not grounds for the tool's restriction. Thus if this rule is changed that primary reason is the only thing that should be considered.

But it is muddy because it has always been our policy that any third party program that can give you an advantage is disallowed. And it can indeed give you an advantage in certain circumstances. So it is still debatable whether these circumstances are enough to warrant restricting the fog click detector.