ENT Gaming

Posted: **Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:15 am**

I actually didnt know that AS allowed on 1100 bot.

So u tell that 1100 bot is solo line bot but allow AS to catch ally leaks?

Wat the point of implement special one side rules on 1100 (btw, despite voting) "build only on own line", "dont build units wich could catch leaks" etc and AFTER THAT allow ANTISTACK to catch allys leaks?!?!

Wat the point of not build on dark green if antistacked units go much more deep on dark green, almost to ally side?

That team is better who catch more leaks from yolo side player by using glitch right?

Also funny, there were so much talking about unfairness of 100% bounty on cross leaks but seems, if u catch 100% bounty leaks not in mid but at side, thats all very well right?
++++++++++++++++++++

So i suggest to forbid using this glitch (which is 100% back side of bug fix) on 1100 bot.

And please dont tell me that this will lead to mass brqs wave - all who play 1100 are all definately know game and rules and use AS consciously, only because it allowed.

Posted: **Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:08 pm**

I_kill_satan wrote:I actually didnt know that AS allowed on 1100 bot.

So u tell that 1100 bot is solo line bot but allow AS to catch ally leaks?

Wat the point of implement special one side rules on 1100 (btw, despite voting) "build only on own line", "dont build units wich could catch leaks" etc and AFTER THAT allow ANTISTACK to catch allys leaks?!?!

Wat the point of not build on dark green if antistacked units go much more deep on dark green, almost to ally side?

That team is better who catch more leaks from yolo side player by using glitch right?

Also funny, there were so much talking about unfairness of 100% bounty on cross leaks but seems, if u catch 100% bounty leaks not in mid but at side, thats all very well right?
++++++++++++++++++++

So i suggest to forbid using this glitch (which is 100% back side of bug fix) on 1100 bot.

And please dont tell me that this will lead to mass brqs wave - all who play 1100 are all definately know game and rules and use AS consciously, only because it allowed.

Personally I agree with you. We tried to get a public vote going, but not many people participated. So we, as staff members, sat together and worked on a set of rules where all agreed upon. I also see the somewhat paradox to forbid building on dark green area, but allowing antistuck.

The rules were phrased like that to forbid cross-build, mid-build, aura-share. "All players must build on their own lane and cannot build towers that can attack opposite lane creeps from their building-position."

"from their building-position" was added so you can antistuck etc. The majority of the staff argued that making it too close to LIHL is kinda pointless, because join LIHL if you wanna play like them. Or they wanted to allow some activity in the middle area and not restrict people too much. For example you can still use antistuck on your creeps if wanna split the sends or so.

This is the link to the notification of the rule-changes:
https://entgaming.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=124&t=47974

In the first post, my thread is linked in the quote. The thread I opened to get 1100-players' attention but it failed with only 30 votes and just a few posts. Personally I still prefer my suggestions in that topic, but our common agreement was on the current rules. We can and will change the rules, if we got enough feedback asking for a change and which is supported by grounded facts/opinions and not "This sucks! Change that cause it sucks!". You did it nicely, so don't think I was implying that you did it wrong.

Posted: **Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:26 pm**

It indeed makes no sense to have a rule which says your towers must not attack the other lane from their position, yet to allow Antistuck which essentially is the same, if not better/worse (better for the player using it, worse as in lamer).
I still can't understand how they could come up with allowing Antistuck. Mods/Admins stated that banning it would be hard to moderate, but I don't think that would be a problem, as not many people currently use it on the 1100+ bot and even far less would use it if it was banned (and it would be much easier and clearer to follow than the don't pull rule).

Posted: **Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:36 pm**

Thanks for good responce!

I ll try to furcther argue: solo build _also_ mean that _not only u but also _ur team_ should pay for it: u go yolo ==> u leak ==> ur team gets less money (less bounty) + enemy can see _all_ ur allies units. If u use AS to catch leaks (this consequence of solo yolo) actually u disrupt this logical chain by using glitch and get unfair advantage, and it also not required any skill.

And obvious if it allowed, this force me as a player change my build (units and placement) in context i must use AS for not to be lower than enemy, wich is not correct.

Posted: **Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:40 pm**

I am surprised why mods are disagreeing to the current rule now when they werent objecting when I approached them initially to discuss.

Anyway, scanned the past 200 ent31 games:

Spoiler!

Seems clean (no as usage).

The reason the "no antistuck rule unless actually stuck" was not implemented, was because we could not trust pubs to not abuse antistuck and expected them to continue use AS like how they do on ent18. Seems, proven otherwise.

Posted: **Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:49 pm**

0 antistucks in 200 games? I doubt that's correct, are you sure there was no mistake?

Posted: **Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:55 pm**

https://entgaming.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=49400

The game: http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 116614.w3g

3:42 <g0ku> 0x11: Point order: ancestralspirit (X: -5758.68, Y: 933.77, flags: 0x0040)
3:48 <g0ku> 0x11: Point order: ancestralspirit (X: -5834.19, Y: 1279.86, flags: 0x0040)
And plenty more.

And I did object at first. I just gave in when the majority was for it.

Posted: **Fri Jan 23, 2015 6:10 pm**

Diablo_ wrote:0 antistucks in 200 games? I doubt that's correct, are you sure there was no mistake?

Hmmm....may be the AS triggers I used did not work or Im just noob. Will fix my findings.

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:43 am**

@nabo. bump

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2015 9:26 am**

@art)y

Need gc

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2015 1:58 am**

@nabo. pastebin.com/0kU6n6z0

Should probably look on the ones with x/y (0x11).

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2015 7:59 pm**

aRt)Y wrote:@nabo. pastebin.com/0kU6n6z0

Should probably look on the ones with x/y (0x11).

Ya only the x/y coordinate ones seem to be antistuck. Thank you for the results. Result: enough games with enough antistuck usages imo.

@greatbeyond @diablo_ @hutzu @i_kill_satan

I always thought antistuck as a glitch. Using it to catch leaks, to halt/disrupt sends movement, etc...are all forms of AS exploit. However, I came to accept these forms long ago only because ENT allowed such AS usages as normal strategy or part of the gameplay tool.

Antistuck usage was allowed during early lihl days. If people cared enough, AS exploits should have been banned long long ago and sooner to minimize confusion for pubs, not after such a long time. Note that unlike lihl, pubs' population is larger. Also, note that there is actually quite a lot of freedom and flexibility for players to abuse this tool or glitch, so... much fault goes to the map maker for not improving the map, but the map is old as it is, so I wont argue about it further.

In my opinion, if we go by with the argument (that you guys have presented which is valid) saying that any other form of antistuck usage is a "glitch" exploit and not intended except when to just "antistuck" something when actually stuck, then all LTD bots including ent18, ent31, ent35, ent57, and ent96, should be prohibited from abusing antistuck and we should change our general ltd rule.

As for moderation, we could scan ltd games and ban those when player report them like how we moderate merc picking offenses. I just wanted to criticize about AS practices and allowance until now and note that it will be a big change with many brqs in the short term since we have allowed it for such a long time and it would take longer for pubs to become aware of rule implementation.

Whether you have accepted "antistuck" as a tool or a glitch...think about it and decide. I agree with both definitions, so I dont mind which way we go about this.

(I edited the title and started a poll. Not sure how many will participate, but lets see.)

Posted: **Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:12 am**

i personlly agree with banning as for all causes except antistucking creeps which are actually stucked!

GO VOTE ALL

Posted: **Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:32 am**

I feel the biggest 'losers' for this change would be the public players who do not frequently visit the forums. Before this is implemented you'd need to consider the impact of ever-changing rules for the pub ltd bots.

It is no longer 'players should be aware of the rules' but more like 'can you keep up with the changing rules circus'.

Posted: **Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:44 am**

Ya that is the biggest hurdle. In the short run, brqs or bans may be chaotic...But, i think that it makes more sense to ban on all bots and better in the long run for the community.

We needed to revise our general and specific rules recently and if we are going to go with this suggestion, probably best to do it now while we are announcing rule update.

ENT Gaming

Ban Antistuck.

Ban Antistuck.

Re: AS to catch leaks on 1100

Re: AS to catch leaks on 1100

Re: AS to catch leaks on 1100

Re: AS to catch leaks on 1100

Re: AS to catch leaks on 1100

Re: AS to catch leaks on 1100

Re: AS to catch leaks on 1100

Re: AS to catch leaks on 1100

Re: AS to catch leaks on 1100

Re: AS to catch leaks on 1100

Re: Ban antistuck?

Poll about banning antistuck

Re: Ban Antistuck.

Re: Ban Antistuck.