Paladin the thing is that these moves can also occur without the use of Maphack. Playing against stealth I also run over stealthed workers often. And on these big supply stashes it is easy to see if something collects from, and when you move mouse over you even see current money, which will be lower than 30000$ => something gathers supply => stealth supply. => move unit there and find it.
This post has been edited by FlameIORI: Oct 21 2011, 12:27 PM
- If a unit has locked on to another unit under the fog of war without another, legitimate explanation, it will be considered 100% Maphack. - Placing demo charges (Burton, Jarmen Kell) or using Saboteurs on buildings while they are stealthed is 100% Maphack. - Force firing on invisible buildings and force firing on and/or chasing of invisible units (such as Black Lotus, Jarmen Kell…etc) can be 100% Maphack if there was absolutely no way the player could have known the building or unit was there. - If an observer of a game passes any hidden information to any player that is still playing in that game, and that player is using that information (to find an invisible unit for example), both will be guilty of maphack and will be convicted as such.
This post has been edited by -Paladin-: Oct 21 2011, 09:21 AM
- Force firing on invisible buildings and force firing on and/or chasing of invisible units (such as Black Lotus, Jarmen Kell…etc) can be 100% Maphack if there was absolutely no way the player could have known the building or unit was there.
as I said u have alot to learn in ZH.
This post has been edited by WwW.GooGle.Com`: Oct 21 2011, 09:24 AM
- Force firing on invisible buildings and force firing on and/or chasing of invisible units (such as Black Lotus, Jarmen Kell…etc) can be 100% Maphack if there was absolutely no way the player could have known the building or unit was there.
you know this is biggest crap ever, some1 who does a proper waypoint scouting knows exactly where buildings are placed. + you can gues 100% were gla puts supply.
Of course I checked also for waypointscouting -> never done.
Because I invisibled many posts I will shortly explain what was going on: I made a verdict for maphack because player "ExtraJuice" attacked stealthed units and buildings, for what Google + Appelmoes started flaming me because in their opinion that wasn´t enough proof for mh.
After watching the replay many times again I found a lock under fog in the end of the game, therefore I replaced the discussable screenshots with new ones. I must also admit that "ExtraJuice" could have seen 1 building before stealthing it, therefore I wouldn´t convict him for that. If he hadn´t the possibility to see that building before that would have been enough evidence for conviction.
Anyway very sad behaviour by you two! I have nothing against critic, but what you did is just inappropriate childish flaming.
This post has been edited by -Paladin-: Oct 21 2011, 13:41 PM
You didnt watch even the replay. We have a clear guideline for convicting people, so stop it pls. -Paladin- this is not a reason to invisible my post and for ur info, I don't lie.
Calm down people. If I understood correctly, the first conviction in this topic was made from this case;
The outpost gave a CLEAR VIEW on the supply long before it was made invisible. Paladin, you got lucky with finding an actual lock here, and MHRRs should NEVER count on luck. Those conviction rules are more of a guideline than something you'll follow exactly. The most important rule of reviewing is to never, never, never, never let innocent people convicted. Even if that means that some hackers get off the convictions due to suspicious but not convictable enough situations, it won't matter. Never. Convict. Without. 100% proof. MHRRs job is not to convict every hacker he plays against; that's not how the justice of the system works.
We also don't invisible every comment that disagrees with verdicts. Either we prove why they are wrong, or take the hint and revise the verdict. We don't accuse other members as being the freshly convicted hacker without proof, no matter how indirectly you imply it. Asking him if he's ExtraJuice was WAY out of line.
If anyone disagrees with a MHRRs verdict, they can voice their opinion by KINDLY (yes Google, this means you) asking the MHRR to check again, or simply contact another MHRR to doublecheck the case. Current MHRRs are Paladin and IORI, but you can also contact me and ask to double- or triplecheck a case.
I think that's everything that had to be dealt with... If anyone still has a related issue or two on their heart, they can KINDLY express their worries here and / or through PM to either MHRR or myself.
No fear FlameIORI is here guys no need for all this let me explain the situation : the player Extrajuice attacked the dozer while it was under fog lets prove it with the screen shots :
as you can see here was the first attack from the frist 2 migs and they didnt reach to the dozer
and here the 2 migs were near to the dozer but still they didnt saw it
and here the moment of lock on the dozer
and as you can see the migs locked on the dozer under fog
the migs never spotted the dozer and the player didnt saw the dozer
Well I hope everyone involved learned something from this. If you have criticism, just make sure to be constructive about it, not using words like crap and ROFL etc. If that is the case them I'm sure both of the Fair Play Specialists would be happy to listen to you. If you feel your input is not taken seriously, contact me or meth and we'll work it out.
Well I hope everyone involved learned something from this. If you have criticism, just make sure to be constructive about it, not using words like crap and ROFL etc. If that is the case them I'm sure both of the Fair Play Specialists would be happy to listen to you. If you feel your input is not taken seriously, contact me or meth and we'll work it out.
Bless you Awful you said exactly what I was thinking. No one is perfect folks, not even me ( ) and I appreciate the extra sets of eyes here I really do because I want what we are doing here to be 100% transparent but please lets do it properly.
Because I invisibled many posts I will shortly explain what was going on: I made a verdict for maphack because player "ExtraJuice" attacked stealthed units and buildings, for what Google + Appelmoes started flaming me because in their opinion that wasn´t enough proof for mh.
After watching the replay many times again I found a lock under fog in the end of the game, therefore I replaced the discussable screenshots with new ones. I must also admit that "ExtraJuice" could have seen 1 building before stealthing it, therefore I wouldn´t convict him for that. If he hadn´t the possibility to see that building before that would have been enough evidence for conviction.
Anyway very sad behaviour by you two! I have nothing against critic, but what you did is just inappropriate childish flaming.
Sad behavore by me, oh please come on. You should be 100% sure before you make a conviction + i do this kind of stuff all the time. It wouldn't be enough evidence to convicte him at all, its a basic place to put a supply, if you know ur playing vs a GLA player, i would also check this spot by flaming the spot.
) and I appreciate the extra sets of eyes here I really do because I want what we are doing here to be 100% transparent but please lets do it properly.
Verdict
ExtraJuice - 3C33413E
[100% MapHack]
Added to Hall of Shame.
This post has been edited by -Paladin-: Oct 21 2011, 11:48 AM
Posts: 590
Game: