Posts from What do you think it could be?

1. Read it again.

2. For your statement to work:

it is sometimes useful to read a topic like this.

For my statement to work, it is most useful to play with someone you have already played with and are convinced of their honesty. Everything is best learned through personal experience.

3. Personal motives.
Regarding the impossibility of proving something, or about "repentance" - these are not essential things, since no one will face any administrative, let alone criminal, punishment... we are only talking about reputation - which practically does not require proof - and 99% facts will do.

That's what I'm talking about: without 100% proof of guilt, you are ready to simply slander the name of a possibly completely honest player. Is that right?
I haven't looked at the save file; I'm not interested in it. I've seen controversial save files, and after the second or third one, they all got boring. It is impossible to prove with 100% certainty. There is always room for chance. That's the first thing. Secondly, a player may be playing completely recklessly, and where you see malicious intent, cunning plans, save file analysis, map analysis, etc., it may be simply thoughtlessness, he just went there because he clicked there with the mouse. Before announcing a name, think twice. Think about how this person will feel. And think about the fact that one day you might find yourself in their place, even if you are not guilty of cheating.

I haven't looked at the save file; I'm not interested. I've seen controversial save files, and after the second or third one, they all became boring. It's impossible to prove anything with 100% certainty. There's always room for chance. That's the first thing. Secondly, a player might be playing completely recklessly, and where you see malicious intent, cunning plans, save file analysis, map analysis, etc., etc.

You really should have looked at the save file (in the first post) or at least read the posts (to see what others think).
The thing is, in these two duels with him, there are many suspicious moments that fall under the categories of "gut feeling," "intuition," or "luck." But this phrase made me laugh:

it could just be a simple oversight; he went there because he clicked there with the mouse.

This isn't the level of play or the type of player who would just "click randomly with the mouse."
When playing offline for a result, can you play perfectly for a couple of days and then suddenly "click" randomly?
It's just hard to explain when you haven't seen it and don't understand the essence of the issue... there's no random guessing of the direction of movement; instead, there's an obvious and well-chosen plan to take away the main hero's army, "whittling him down" before the supposed (but not obvious) battle, buffing and speeding up the unit that will have a favorable terrain, and creating a questionable (in terms of cost-effectiveness) chain of castles to deliver a small but, as it turns out, sufficient number of troops, all directed towards an absolutely unattractive and unpromising direction, the end of the map with no visible prospect in case of an unsuccessful choice of direction... and there, it turned out to be a necessary defensive structure and a portal to the "treasury."

Why are you all attacking Alex? First of all, he hasn't done anything criminal yet! I think that by creating this thread, Alex wanted his opponent to read it and explain what happened. As I understand it, he's a player from HeroesWorld (correct me if I'm wrong) and plays quite well... I'm sure that if he's from HeroesWorld, he's already read this thread, and since he hasn't responded yet, there's probably nothing to say...
I sometimes feel like playing online, and personally, I don't like it when someone uses a map editor against me, especially since I'm not a very good player. This thread has completely killed my desire to participate in online tournaments!
And let those who believe the story about accidentally clicking the wrong thing believe it. It was a deliberate move, because Shakti took a Gnoll (although maybe it was a mouse click?), the question is, how did this intention arise? A possible defense: maybe the hero Jelar used the "Scouting" spell and saw something... I don't know.
There are no facts in the world that prove anything 100%, and we can only talk about some things with a high degree of probability. And since that's the case, I don't think we should name this person right now. I think it would be right if Alex sent him a link to this thread in a private message and/or via ICQ (because it's possible that he doesn't even know about this thread). If he doesn't respond in any way within a week, then it's clear!

P.S.: The naivety of those who say, "we need to play another game!" is killing me. Yeah, right...

This topic completely ruined my desire to participate in online tournaments!!!

Maybe it's just temporary. On the one hand, you are absolutely convinced that the person is guilty and are unwavering in your opinion. However, is it really worth stating with 100% certainty that someone is a "cheater" if there is no evidence?
I think that if irrefutable proof against this player is found, then playing online will become even more appealing :).

And let someone else believe the fairy tales about accidentally clicking the mouse in the wrong place. It was a deliberate move, because Shakti took the gnoll.

And do you wander around the swamp with a centaur?
In my opinion, this is not an argument.

P.S. even juries sometimes issue controversial verdicts...

P.S.2 but I also don't take the side of the accused. If he is guilty (there is evidence..., or at least he is ignoring this topic), then he deserves it!

I just really believe that a false accusation could happen... or maybe the opposite.

I think it would be correct if Alex sent him a link to this thread via PM and/or ICQ (since it's possible he doesn't even know about this thread); if he doesn't respond within a week, then it's all clear!

That does sound more correct — at least we should also hear the other side. As it is, we're accusing him behind his back of who knows what.

Gentlemen, you have chosen the wrong method for detecting maphack. Analyzing two consecutive saves introduces too much distortion and a high probability of error. Situations like "hand slipped," "sudden adrenaline rush," "third eye opened," etc., are very real.

I personally observed many games from behind the backs of top Heroes players in Peter, and I saw even wilder actions there. Like a person taking 3 Dragon Utopias in different parts of the map in 1 turn, deftly using Dimension Door, Portal, and Fly. Just jumping at random and stumbling into Dragon Utopias.

When I played StarCraft, I spent a lot of time on the problem of detecting maphack there. And that task was also greatly complicated by the simply fantastic intuition of certain players.

So, one of the correct methods for detecting maphackers is, for example, the following: take several games of a person and review them day by day. Look for so-called "branching points," i.e., moments when a person doesn't roll according to a pre-planned strategy, but makes a decision that determines the direction of further actions, a choice from several roughly equivalent options.

Then, based on this branching statistics, conclusions can be drawn. Plus, make an adjustment for the player's overall skill. That is, top players have a higher percentage of "guesses" (i.e., correct decisions that do not directly follow from available facts or even contradict them) by themselves; that's normal, and it's partly what makes them top players.

So, maphackers almost never have episodes like "ran there, and there was nothing." That is, making a clearly disadvantageous decision in a situation where there are other more advantageous alternatives, equivalent with a closed map. A maphacker at a fork in the road will "at random" run to where something is.

And if a player constantly "fakes" here and there in small matters (and not only in small ones) tied to guesswork, while demonstrating strong and confident play in calculable situations, he is almost certainly clean.

I think most experienced players can recall situations where they frantically searched for control across the entire map, built a lookout tower looking for Dimension Door, and a Dragon Utopia with a blue beacon was nestled in a secluded corner of their home spawn. Maphackers don't have such episodes - some scout hero will definitely run past the Dragon Utopia, then call daddy. Either daddy will come himself "to scout the territory" or "maybe there's something there!"

That is, a maphacker's game is... what word to choose... polished, perhaps... a calm and confident realization of advantage, without flailing back and forth, contradictory decisions, etc.

A second, more cunning method of detecting maphack is tracking taken and untaken restarts. An honest player makes decisions based on what he sees at his position + what he sees in the tavern. But a maphacker also sees what the opponent has and what is on the map in general. Therefore, if the series of taken/untaken restarts poorly correlates with the objects visible to the player, but correlates well with the map in general, that is a reason to think about whether he is a maphacker.

And a third, completely cynical method is direct provocation. That is, in a real game, something like "scaring". Like standing with your main hero in front of a GO at the start of movement, then crashing into it and going about your business. The most suspicious scenario is if the opponent did not reveal the GO or your main hero, but still crashed his main hero home, bought troops, etc. A less clear one is if the opponent saw the moving main hero but did not react at all, because behind that hero there are no troops capable of breaking the GO. That is, a regular adequate reaction to a situation considering factors that the player formally does not see.

So the general idea is this: you need to look for episodes that exonerate the player. Some actions that a maphacker would be unlikely to take. If there are many such actions, then "unclear" decisions can be forgiven - humanity is strong precisely because it is diverse, thinks and makes decisions differently; considering another person's consciousness as identical to one's own is not correct.

Well, if the game is emphatically adequate, plus in places even "too adequate," conclusions can already be drawn.

BUT!

As many have already correctly noted - the main thing in this matter is the presumption of innocence + not washing dirty laundry in public. Catch a maphacker - don't play with him anymore. Forget about the rating points. The integrity of the community is more important. And every such scandal, regardless of the outcome, is a nail in the coffin. Veterans of the Chaos League, for example, fundamentally do not play online, precisely because they don't want to deal with maphack.

Although if the tournament is serious, you can assert your rights. But in any case, first with the player himself, then if there are no satisfactory explanations from him, with the judge, and only then make it public.

In StarCraft, for example, I did this several times: I catch a maphack, then write to the guy saying either you report this game as a win for me, or I go to the judge and you risk getting banned for the next few tournaments. Usually people preferred to get off with small losses.

P.S. The only vote for the "luck" option is mine. Based on the principled considerations outlined above.

P.P.S. I glanced at the saves briefly, did not draw any conclusions.

Gentlemen, you chose the wrong method for detecting maphack

No one was specifically catching a maphacker – I just decided to check a suspicious player, who was also a boor in communication…. And when such moments were discovered in the opponent's game, and I also learned many negative things about this person - I decided to create this topic to punish the cheater and warn everyone else …

Situations like "my hand slipped", "the blood rushed to my head", "the third eye opened", etc., are very real.

Yes, I suppose I agree that with a constantly or periodically "open third eye", the "blood can rush to the head" so much that the "hands slip" and they reveal that very "third eye" :)

So here it is - one of the correct methods for detecting maphackers is, for example, the following: you take several of a person's games and review them day by day. And you look for so-called "branching points", that is, moments when a person isn't rolling according to a thought-out plan, but makes a decision that determines the direction of further actions, a choice from several roughly equal options.

This is exactly where you can see that the key priorities were set during the game with a slight delay of turns from the game plan, but not as usual: "we build based on what we see", but also on what we "supposedly find by chance".
And examples of such "branching points" are: an unchecked! Griffin Conservatory on the native respawn (in the path of a whole herd of heroes), and the main hero's maneuver of leaving the road into the swamp, followed by leveling up on a Gnoll, and this despite the fact that the necessary chain for delivering forces was already prepared precisely so that on the next turn they could not just hand them over to the Papa, but also make a forced march with him into the darkness without Papa losing precious movement points due to the penalty of a non-native army relative to the respawn (and all this without prior scouting with a scout hero!) And there, of course, a Griffin Conservatory is found by chance, which is taken easier than the one that wasn't even checked on the native respawn, despite the fact that the chain with the army to the native Griffin Conservatory was even simpler and earlier, and Papa didn't have to run far or leave the road, but that particular Griffin Conservatory was chosen, and in advance, because after taking it, it's half a turn back into the darkness and further away from the road, but Papa is already in the Treasury, where it's already clear in what sequence to shake the ducks – raise parameters and get to a 1-3-1 Dragon Utopia, which has control (via the Air book).

Further, based on this statistics of branching points, conclusions can already be drawn. Plus - make an adjustment for the player's overall skill. That is, for top players, the percentage of "guesses" (i.e., correct decisions that do not directly follow from available facts or even contradict them) is inherently higher, that's normal, partly why they are tops.

Yes, and IMO one must also consider that assessing skill "over the internet" is not an entirely unambiguous thing; a player's behavior as a person is much more indicative, and if he is a boor or, worse, a cheater, then it is much more serious in compelling an adjustment to conclusions about the honesty of his game.

So here it is - maphackers almost never have episodes of the type "ran over there, but there was nothing there". That is, making a clearly unfavorable decision in a situation where there are other more favorable alternatives that are equivalent when the map is hidden. A maphacker at a fork in the road will "randomly" run to where something is.

This is precisely the clearest example of such a case!

I think most experienced players can recall situations where they frantically searched for control all over the map, built a lookout tower looking for Dimension Door, while a Dragon Utopia with a blue cap was tucked away in a secluded corner of the native respawn. Maphackers don't have episodes like that - some scout hero will definitely run past the Dragon Utopia, then call dad. Or daddy himself will come "to scout the territory" or "just in case there's something there!"

Yes-yes-yes … here he didn't even hesitate to go straight through with Papa …. Not even scout heroes scouted the first or second Griffin Conservatory as a cover – this could be attributed either to a very weak level of play or to maphacking … but you can see that overall the person plays decently.

That is, the general idea is this - you need to look for episodes that exonerate the player. Some actions that a maphacker would be unlikely to perform. If there are many such actions, then a person can be forgiven for individual "unclear" decisions - humanity is strong precisely because it is diverse, thinks and makes decisions differently; considering another person's consciousness as identical to one's own is not correct.

Well, it's hard to look for episodes that exonerate the player here, because in essence the "branching points" can be traced from at least the beginning of the second week, and at most from the 3rd or 4th turn of the game …

BUT !
As many have rightly noted - the main thing in this matter is the presumption of innocence + not washing dirty laundry in public. Caught a maphacker - don't play with him anymore. To hell with rating points. The integrity of the community is more important. And every scandal like this, regardless of its outcome, is a nail in the coffin.

All else being equal, the presumption is the main defense mechanism of maphackers, and a scourge for the community, since obtaining 100% factual evidence is unrealistic; even the 3 methods of catching outlined above only give a logically justified conclusion, but not one that is 100% reliable!
On the one hand, you shouldn't wash dirty laundry in public, but on the other hand, forewarned is forearmed, and I don't think the integrity of the community will suffer from you voting for one option and me for another.
Of course, one must consider that the vote is not about the "best level 7 unit" ;) .. but rather the player's reputation is at stake, but he didn't even bother to reply in this topic!!! Although I personally sent him the link both via PM and ICQ, and after that he was online – but no reply followed, neither in PM nor here!

P.S. The only vote for the "luck" option is mine. For the principled reasons stated above.

After more than a year, he remains alone (just as principled)

P.P.S. I glanced at the saves, didn't draw any conclusions.

Glanced!? … what a pity … still, the only one who voted differently from everyone else, hence big doubts arise about the correctness of that vote, as well as about the approach to everything that you initially have no interest in, but some external forces force you to participate.

P.S. no decision was ever made; they talked it over, drew conclusions whoever wanted to, and forgot about it .... now I hope AK will make a decision and announce it.

I didn't personally ask Alexa whether the saves were made during her own gameplay or someone else's. But this is important.

It would still be interesting to know the name of the suspect.

I remembered those saves.

I still stand by my opinion – you can’t judge based on just 2 saves. You need to see at least the entire game, and preferably several games.

When I first defended Edik’s maphacking, I did a detailed analysis of the entire game from beginning to end, and even then, I wasn’t banned immediately (despite past transgressions).

And the second time I defended him, I not only analyzed the game but also conducted a linguistic analysis of the person’s texts to prove that it was the same person.

So, if you want to seriously accuse someone, don’t be lazy and provide a more comprehensive justification for your point of view (your words suggest that you have one). Trying to draw conclusions from just 2 saves is not serious at all.

Trying to get something out of just two saves is not very serious.

It depends on the saves; for Jed, two were enough, and in this case, I personally have no particular doubts. It's either a miracle or an unknown player who cheated. I don't believe in miracles.

With 2 saves, you can only fail in absolutely obvious situations. Like when some guy spends the night near Dragon Utopia, and in the morning, instead of taking it, he rides through rocks into the darkness and on the last tile hits the opponent's papa who is standing on acceleration.

I mean episodes that cannot be justified by any sudden brain fart. This is clearly not the case here.

With 2 saves, you can only mess up the most obvious situations. Like when a guy spends the night near the Dragon Utopia, and in the morning, instead of taking it, he rides through the rocks into the darkness and on the last cell hits the opponent's father who is standing ready to charge.

In other words, episodes that cannot be justified by any amount of brain-farting. This clearly isn't that case here.

And you're saying it's not obvious here—that he didn't take and didn't even check the console right under his nose (though currently unavailable), but instead rushed into the darkness exactly where what was needed was located? In this way, practically any cheater can be justified if one wishes, including in the situation you mentioned; take off the rose-colored glasses, don't be naive (although it's clear to the vast majority of those who voted ;) )

Isn't it obvious? He didn't take and didn't even check the resource nearby (while it was inaccessible), but instead rushed into the darkness, precisely to where he needed to be? In this way, you can justify almost any cheater if you want, including in the situation you mentioned. Take off your rose-tinted glasses, don't be naive (although the overwhelming majority of those who voted understand everything ;) ).

I personally know many players who don't check resources (or open map) because they don't want to waste precious movement points, and does that mean they are all cheaters? :) Strong players ALWAYS try to take other players' objects first and then spend their resources on taking their own. As they say, I can always take my own later!

I personally know a lot of players who don't check for "cheeses" (and don't open up the map) because they don't want to waste precious moves, and are they all cheaters? :)

It seems he didn't even look at the save file, which is why his comment is so vague.
The "cheese" is located along the path, costing 33 movement points (half a step), and several creatures (3, I think) run past, as well as Shaktar himself with his troglodytes.
The "cheese" is object #1 in terms of importance for any castle, and you can even deviate from the main path for Shaktar or Gosh to get it.
Wlk777 +1