Stop writing player IDs into server_log.txt when a match is accepted

[xdugyx]

There is no need to VAC ban the overwolf app.

All you have to do is stop writing the player IDs to the server_log.txt file in the folder SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\dota 2 beta\game\dota

It gathers the player IDs through that file. Whenever you accept a match the Dota client writes the Match ID and all player IDs into that file.

[BlueHammer]

Upvote this. Players should remain anonymous until picking phase is totally over.

[jeffhill]

This will be fixed in the next hotfix - we won't write anything to server_log.txt anymore. Thanks for the bug report!

[BlueHammer]

This will be fixed in the next hotfix - we won't write anything to server_log.txt anymore. Thanks for the bug report!

El Jefe please fix this Earth Spirit bug :( https://github.com/jeffhill/Dota2/issues/336

[somethingxful49]

This has been included in today's hotfix! https://www.reddit.com/r/DotA2/comments/vcgvff/todays_hotfix/

[eVen-gits]

This is not a good change.

Ranked matchmaking is the closest to a competitive environment most players will ever get to play. Having information hidden (as most players choose nowdays) also gives asymmetric benefits. Here are a couple of points I'd like to point out:

1) Players that opt to play cores also generally get to pick last. With match history data being hidden, this opens up for very important lastpicks that can go unpunished. This entirely breaks the balance of the game - suppose a professional team is very successful with a niche hero. Most opposing teams will opt to ban OR prepare to beat it in advance. For pub matches, we should at least have an insight into such picks to prepare accordingly.

2) Certain of aforementioned heroes have very different playstyle and warp the way the game is played entirely. Some of these include Brood Mother, Tinker, Arc Warden, Lone Druid and so on (I am sure those more proficient at the game will understand what I mean by this). Having access to these niche picks without worrying about a ban can inflate players' ratings and when those heroes are banned, they will play significantly worse because the entire play pattern is different. This, again, introduces uncertainty and instability to matches.

3) While smurfing is a nother separate issue, let's assume that smurfing exists. It is very important to identify smurf players in pregame, as it heavily impacts the decision making in the draft and playstyle. It would also make the process of eliminating smurfs with community's help possible.

I would like someone on the development team to consider these points. There are things that are easy (doing what most of the community wants) and there are things that are right. Perhaps it might initially feel like a good idea to improve anonimity, but if we take competitive or inhouse leagues for any merit, it's crucial to know a player's match history. It is the same for ranked matchmaking.

If a player choses to hide their history, only their unranked match data should be hidden (for the purpose of practice and strategy development).

[BlueHammer]

This is not a good change.

Ranked matchmaking is the closest to a competitive environment most players will ever get to play. Having information hidden (as most players choose nowdays) also gives asymmetric benefits. Here are a couple of points I'd like to point out:

1. Players that opt to play cores also generally get to pick last. With match history data being hidden, this opens up for very important lastpicks that can go unpunished. This entirely breaks the balance of the game - suppose a professional team is very successful with a niche hero. Most opposing teams will opt to ban OR prepare to beat it in advance. For pub matches, we should **at least** have an insight into such picks to prepare accordingly.

2. Certain of aforementioned heroes have very different playstyle and warp the way the game is played entirely. Some of these include Brood Mother, Tinker, Arc Warden, Lone Druid and so on (I am sure those more proficient at the game will understand what I mean by this). Having access to these niche picks without worrying about a ban can inflate players' ratings and when those heroes are banned, they will play significantly worse because the entire play pattern is different. This, again, introduces uncertainty and instability to matches.

3. While smurfing is a nother separate issue, let's assume that smurfing exists. It is very important to identify smurf players in pregame, as it heavily impacts the decision making in the draft and playstyle. It would also make the process of eliminating smurfs with community's help possible.

I would like someone on the development team to consider these points. There are things that are easy (doing what most of the community wants) and there are things that are right. Perhaps it might initially feel like a good idea to improve anonimity, but if we take competitive or inhouse leagues for any merit, it's crucial to know a person's match history. It is the same for ranked matchmaking.

If a player choses to hide their history, only their unranked match data should be hidden (for the purpose of practice and strategy development).

All your argument points to niche situations (ie. being pro, meeting smurf, etc.). In most cases, the most balanced situation is to have 5 anonymous players vs 5 anonymous players where drafting is purely based on hero matchup rather than which players can play what hero. Secondly, even if what you arguing is correct, it is still largely unfair to the 80% of players who don't use overwolf at all.

So no, keep it removed dev.

[eVen-gits]

All your argument points to niche situations (ie. being pro, meeting smurf, etc.).

On what do you base this claim? Meeting a smurf is not a niche situation - it's a reality we deal with on a daily basis. I don't see what you mean by "being a pro" here - I didn't mention it and I don't see any way to link this point. I don't think any of this is a niche situation and claiming so is very unfair and insincere. This sort of stuff is what people experience daily and that's the main reason these tools exist.

In most cases, the most balanced situation is to have 5 anonymous players vs 5 anonymous players

I disagree. As I elaborated above, there are asymmetric benefits to this (core lastpicks) and there just isn't a way to address it. Additionally, the smurf situation, for as long as it's not addressed, is a daily occurrence. Additionally, if what you say were true, we wouldn't have smurfs and cheerers stomp the games with 70+% winrates on certain heroes. To me, that's not a balanced game.

...where drafting is purely based on hero matchup rather than which players can play what hero.

But this is not true. Drafting is heavily influenced by player hero pool. Let's assume pro games - why do you think there are bans inbetween picks? Because as the draft goes on, the picks get more important. This is what I mean by asymmetric benefits. How do you draft "based on matchup" if you have to pick first? The essence of drafting is good prediction. If everything is hidden, you can't make an informed decision.

Secondly, even if what you arguing is correct, it is still largely unfair to the 80% of players who don't use overwolf at all.

Agreed. I think instead of disabling an essential drafting tool that gives you ability to make informed decisions after draft, the devs should make this an in-game feature. You should 100% be able to have a quick glance overview of every players recent games.

I am absolutely certain, if there was at least a moderately decent option to do this in game, most players would stop using overwolf.

The problem with overwolf is the draft "helper" and prediction algorithms. The data itsself is not the problem - everyone should have access to it. But yes, I think having an algorithm do the thinking for you is a bad thing.

[anko]

[...] the devs should make this an in-game feature. You should 100% be able to have a quick glance overview of every players recent games.

What about privacy? Many players have their profile set to private.

• Showing their history anyway would disrespect that setting, potentially put people in danger due to stalkers etc., and raise legal concerns in the EU. I don't think that is acceptable.
• If private profiles' matches aren't shown but others are, then we would have many matches with information asymmetry, with more players on one side having private match history. It would be unfair, and incentivise players to turn their profiles private, not because they want to, but because it maximises win chances.

Since both options are bad, I think the third option implemented here (of all history being hidden during pick) is fine. Everyone is on an even playing field, profile privacy settings are respected, and having a public match history does not affect your performance.

[eVen-gits]

What about privacy? Many players have their profile set to private.

Oh sure, profiles can be kept private. In fact, it should be just fine to have names and steam accounts anonymous, as long as you get insight into the public part of the data - ie. match history.

• Showing their history anyway would disrespect that setting, potentially put people in danger due to stalkers etc., and raise legal concerns in the EU. I don't think that is acceptable.

How do you think any sort of competition or tournament is done? For most, you have to agree that your identity is displayed. Some competitions allow for anonymous/pseudonym signup. Regardless, your match data is public to all (including your standings, performances etc., basically anything that relates to the competition/tournament itsself).

• If private profiles' matches aren't shown but others are, then we would have many matches with information asymmetry, with more of one team's players than the other's choosing to make their history private. It would be unfair, and incentivise players to turn their profiles private, not because they want to, but because it maximises win chances.

Exactly. This is the case now - most players have their history hidden, while instead, everyone should have their PUBLIC RANKED MATCHMAKING data shown. As I said - that is data of public nature, it's not private. It would be private if you played in a private game (or unranked "practice" matchmaking).

Since both options are bad, I think the solution implemented here (of all history being hidden during pick) is fine.

But it is not. I've already outlined why.

...Everyone is on an even playing field

Not true, outlined above.

profile privacy settings are respected

True. But this is not always a good thing. You are not exposed with your real name anyhow, it's a persona. It would be different if we were talking actual persons' names, but still, I give digital identity some merit. Generally, I think steam and dota profile should not be as tightly integrated. This would mean a big rework and I believe it's out of scope anyway. At the end of the day, you can put your steam profile on private and that's already in place. I don't see how having access to a locked-down profile could be an issue (other than previous niknames that can be used to track down people through cross-reference). Regardless, this is not an issue of dota, but steam itsself and the connection of steam and dota profile. This doesn't relate to match history at all.

...and having a public or private match history does not affect win chances.

Absolutely untrue. Regardless of whether it increases or decreases it, there is a difference. If it weren't, it'd be irrelevant if it was shown (but it's not and everyone agrees with that and that's why most people opt to hide their data - to gain an advantage). Match history is important.

[Manuel-ReyGallard]

Last picks are part of the game balance. Showing/hiding match history doesn't prevent a huskar/brood/arc/meepo last pick when there are no counters. It just shows you who spams a certain hero.

The most balanced way to play pubs is the have the players information hidden. If you want to have a different approach to the picking phase you can play Captain's Mode where there are strategy phases and bans in-between picks.

[eVen-gits]

Last picks are part of the game balance. Showing/hiding match history doesn't prevent a huskar/brood/arc/meepo last pick when there are no counters. It just shows you who spams a certain hero.

You are simply wrong. Last picks are not the part of the game balance, because game is mostly balanced with regards to professional play which uses Captain's Mode. Some accommodations are made for recreational players for ease of play, outside of structured drafts, being All-Draft mode.

While showing the history doesn't prevent the pick, it allows for a player to prepare for it. It is impossible to prepare for every possible cheese lastpick draftwise, even if we had reliable mid-pick bans. For that reason, it's even so much more important to have this data available.

The most balanced way to play pubs is the have the players information hidden.

Based on what? The data evidently shows the opposite. Meepo has a staggering 60% winrate in divine bracket. Does that mean hero needs to be further nerfed, or is it on account of blindsided lastpicks? I think the answer is obvious.

If you want to have a different approach to the picking phase you can play Captain's Mode where there are strategy phases and bans in-between picks.

Of course, you technically could, but the structure of this format is not fitting for random teammates, nor is it a popular mode to play. This is not the solution to the problems I've outlined above.

In light of having a constructive discussion, it would be beneficial if you supported your claims at least a little bit (not necessarily with hard data). If you make a claim, please, follow it with a "because".

[schoerg]

Get the player IDs another way.

[apollorust]

• Showing their history anyway would disrespect that setting, potentially put people in danger due to stalkers etc., and raise legal concerns in the EU. I don't think that is acceptable.

It's already public and not personal data, thus not a legal problem.

I don't get these changes, why make it harder if it's still possible? Overwolf dev said fix is ready in 2-3 days. They should either not show the player information until after picking phase has completed or just keep offering the data easily. What these changes do at best is to give cheaters even more advantage.

This change is also a major example of why game devs shouldn't listen to their community, one-trick ponies now got their will at least for a few days on an extremely controversial thing. What will happen the next time they get loud enough?

[schoerg]

It's a bugfix.

[drusepth]

This is not a good change.

Ranked matchmaking is the closest to a competitive environment most players will ever get to play. Having information hidden (as most players choose nowdays) also gives asymmetric benefits. Here are a couple of points I'd like to point out:

1. Players that opt to play cores also generally get to pick last. With match history data being hidden, this opens up for very important lastpicks that can go unpunished. This entirely breaks the balance of the game - suppose a professional team is very successful with a niche hero. Most opposing teams will opt to ban OR prepare to beat it in advance. For pub matches, we should at least have an insight into such picks to prepare accordingly.
2. Certain of aforementioned heroes have very different playstyle and warp the way the game is played entirely. Some of these include Brood Mother, Tinker, Arc Warden, Lone Druid and so on (I am sure those more proficient at the game will understand what I mean by this). Having access to these niche picks without worrying about a ban can inflate players' ratings and when those heroes are banned, they will play significantly worse because the entire play pattern is different. This, again, introduces uncertainty and instability to matches.
3. While smurfing is a nother separate issue, let's assume that smurfing exists. It is very important to identify smurf players in pregame, as it heavily impacts the decision making in the draft and playstyle. It would also make the process of eliminating smurfs with community's help possible.

I would like someone on the development team to consider these points. There are things that are easy (doing what most of the community wants) and there are things that are right. Perhaps it might initially feel like a good idea to improve anonimity, but if we take competitive or inhouse leagues for any merit, it's crucial to know a player's match history. It is the same for ranked matchmaking.

If a player choses to hide their history, only their unranked match data should be hidden (for the purpose of practice and strategy development).

These are all very good reasons to implement Overwolf functionality into the game directly, but relying on users to download a third-party app to "level the playing field" inherently does the opposite for those who are unwilling or unable to run untrusted third-party applications that may or may not put their account at risk for a VAC ban.

If Overwolf's features are important, they should be added to the game. As is, they give some players an unfair advantage and often just make the game less fun in many brackets. Banrates for my most-played hero dropped from (approximately) a ban-every-three-games to a ban-every-27-games when I made my profile private (and my winrate barely moved from 52% to 53%); I'd love to make my profile public again, but the benefits of doing so are not worth being unable to play my favorite hero(es) in most of my games due to Overwolf existing.

[eVen-gits]

These are all very good reasons to implement Overwolf functionality into the game directly, but relying on users to download a third-party app to "level the playing field" inherently does the opposite for those who are unwilling or unable to run untrusted third-party applications that may or may not put their account at risk for a VAC ban.

Agreed. As someone outlined above, the problem with current "fix" is it's still possible to get player IDs, but it's just harder. If anything, this is only worse if anything. Either make it accessible or don't.

I think it should be accessible and it should be accessible easy and to everyone, without third party solutions.

If Overwolf's features are important, they should be added to the game. As is, they give some players an unfair advantage and often just make the game less fun in many brackets. Banrates for my most-played hero dropped from (approximately) a ban-every-three-games to a ban-every-27-games when I made my profile private (and my winrate barely moved from 52% to 53%); I'd love to make my profile public again, but the benefits of doing so are not worth being unable to play my favorite hero(es) in most of my games due to Overwolf existing.

I think people don't understand the difference between data and information and assisted models. Having match history and heroes is one thing, but having access to automated suggestions is something else and that part should be discouraged. However, I don't think that can be prevented for as long as third party solutions work.

So the real question is - is it realistic to expect ingame player overview (I think this was initially promised with reborn launch) and if so, once it's done, it might be reasonable to discontinue apps like overwolf.

I don't see a reason why not even open the panorama UI configs and make a workshop page for different configurations to present data available in the client. Much like a "guide". It's just that is uses players' match data and aggregates it into a visual representation that you can see and then make informed decisions on during draft.

As far as your experience goes - you can see why having access to such information is advantage. Having this difference between teams/players is not good. Everyone should have easy access to this data. Furthermore, it's perhaps too beneficial to you, since you can now blindside the opponents on a lastpick they can't anticipate. As outlined above - not a major change for support players, but it gives a big edge to lastpick players/positons.

[CGK368]

I think a great solution would be: At the start, let everyone vote for the ban of two heroes (20 in total), after which the system will ban A. A random half of these heroes B. priority of the heroes with the most votes (example: first Bane 3 votes, after Tinker 2 votes and Pudge 2 votes, the rest of the heroes received 1 vote each, each player has 2 votes, in total 20 votes per ban, there are 13 heroes left with one vote, of which DotA will randomly select the remaining 7) Next comes the pick of two heroes from each team After that, the remaining 6 players again 'vote' to ban 'N' heroes, or ban one hero each and pick two more heroes At the end, 1-2 bans are made by the last two players from each team and they themselves take the heroes

(The number of bans at the start in such a system can be reduced from 10 to 4 as in CM)

[maplepy]

• raise legal concerns in the EU

that's not how it works buddy