EPTCaught "hacking" when not hacking? - Page 5
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
dronebabo
10866 Posts
| ||
|
nArAnjO
Peru2571 Posts
 , cuz i don't hack and they know it! shush!!  | ||
|
Asian Fever
France269 Posts
to be strong or what?? | ||
|
nArAnjO
Peru2571 Posts
, not only maphack but stack and all those | ||
|
Heen
Korea (South)2178 Posts
| ||
|
SainT
Chile1067 Posts
 | ||
|
Freezer_au
Australia1461 Posts
On May 11 2005 02:57 Napoleon wrote: " I am sure there have been occaisons where they have banned people that have not hacked" Give me an example please if you're so sure o_O Sorry but i know how admins are baning people for hack. Without a good proof they will not touch anything. Spreading such rumours is a bit bad manner And to the Lois story... go and DL last TLT reppack of him from WGT and you'll find more proofs. It's not a single action. Look here: http://www.freewebs.com/gosumiasto/SW)LoisZ-e9.ShinigamiT_4.rep He moves to minerals that he haven't ever found. http://www.freewebs.com/gosumiasto/screen81.jpg And another game: http://www.freewebs.com/gosumiasto/SW)LoisZ-e9.ShinigamiT_5.rep He targets Ebay which is surely too far from his vision (he can't even see the sci facility) http://www.freewebs.com/gosumiasto/screen80.jpg And many many more.... so plz EOT, Lois is a hacker edit: you must copy/paste link to your IE, i don't know why it doesn't work when you click I did not say that Louis didn't hack, and I will not go out and find proof. What I am saying is admins arent perfect and I am 100% positive players have been banned for hack when they havent hacked. Some of the WGT admins that end up making the decisions don't even play the game and don't have a good enough understanding of strategies and builds between different matchups. I am sure they have a good percentage of catching hackers but no way is it 100% success rate. | ||
|
Terross
United States878 Posts
| ||
|
RiSE
United States3182 Posts
| ||
|
1tym
Korea (South)2425 Posts
On May 11 2005 10:36 MVP[eV] wrote: Because if you give a player vision he will keep his mouth shut and use it to his advantage. On May 11 2005 12:09 Ghin wrote: If some newb gave me vision in a game, I sure as hell wouldn't say anything about it. I would keep my mouth shut and continue playing. On May 11 2005 16:23 Napoleon wrote: The stupidest method i've ever seen. Tons of accusations "i gave him vivion and he didn't say anything" ... wtf? do i have to unfocus myself during game and say something just because someone is checking me? rofl I never say anything in such situations. With this way you can't proove anything, and nobody can publicly accuse you of using maphack, so i don't care. "That's why your name won't be remembered" <Archilles the great warrior> | ||
|
potchip
Australia260 Posts
I don' rule out bwchart may be flawed. Personal experience once being accused hack in a 2v2 because 'conclusive evidence' that I selected a nexus 3 seconds in game. However the accuser claims I selected his partner's nexus, while on MY bwchart it shows I merely selected my partner's. I provided screenshot but in retrospective, I could just as well be faking that screenshot? While at the same time I cannot disprove the accuser has gotten the information wrong. Now about lastgosu, While i have not seen the replay involved, other factors such as say, given what screen shots I've seen, nookie builds a pylon after the suspicious action, something one cannot do without selecting a probe first, therefore we deduce that suspicious action should not be an action of nookie's and wrongly recorded by bwchart. Etc etc and we arrive at a list of possible things that may actually happened: 1. replay saving simply retarded and mistake an action that never happened(incorrectly recorded time of event, mistaken event/object blah blah). 2. everything is working fine, replay did record 'evidence of hacking' though really it appears the T was selecting tanks attack moving and I in that scenario don't usually select opponent buildings out of sight miles away... 3. or bwchart has problem analyzing some borderline information(as in replay don't know what to do with it, bwchart interpret it anyways) that replay saved. 4. any 3rd party in-game observing what may distort recording. 5. any 3rd party program running that might distort game information saved in replay. Based on this, we then try eliminate the alternative options.... I'm not going to jump onto the 100% hack bandwagon or the personal attacks. I too get irritatable when accused of hack in-game(usually resort to insulting the accuer's intelligence and evidence of a 'suck-hack' which imho is perfectly logical:-anyone who accuse me hack in-game is a retard, as I dont and can't do blantant things like target sv with scourges beyond sight range, anything else are just suspicious but not conclusive). | ||
|
koehli
Germany350 Posts
On May 10 2005 19:09 Petachu wrote: when i test a game with my 2 own computers (no hack of course) i sometimes get like 100 suspicious moves for each... so it is pretty weird Jesus-fucking-Christ. What part of the word "suspicious" did you not understand? Would you please use a dictionary before making stupid posts? Thank you. I will explain it to you because I'm such a nice guy. Suspicious action means: "Theses are the 100 out ouf 10000 actions in the game, that are worth looking into if you expect someone to hack and want to check, if the things he clicks are really visible and clickable for him at that point in the game". No more, no less. Understood the difference between "Suspicious" and "Prooven guilty" now? Ah never mind .... | ||
|
RoboSexuaL
United States240 Posts
On May 11 2005 17:07 Asian Fever wrote: people hack to win....just one question.. why hack ????? to be strong or what?? | ||
|
[vital]Myth
United States588 Posts
On May 11 2005 08:06 Day[9] wrote: IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR PEOPLE: Has this ever happened to you guys, where you are zerg/protoss early expanding, and you are getting ready to send your first few drones over to mine, so you click on the minerals in the fog of war. However, instead of that mineral lighting up, a DIFFERENT patch lights up. Or, sometimes when i tell a unit to "move" to a certain location in the fog of war in my enemy's base, and i happen to click NEAR a building, for some reason that building lights up. HOWEVER, when my unit gets to the area and there is no fog, they move exactly where i told them to, and not to the buliding that lit up... It made me curious as to whether or not a "select" had occured when i couldn't see it. I'll do some tests w/ my brother tasteless when i get back home from college Happens all the time ^^ | ||
|
Napoleon
Poland81 Posts
Complete bullshit. Please stop talking about admin work when you don't know shit about it. I tell you once more... admins are not baning ANYONE for hack without a 100%proof. Strategy and BW skill has nothing to do with it. You're 100% positive? Please give examples. If not - stop it, thanks. | ||
|
Raidern
Brazil3811 Posts
and beat the guy he asked for re, i said yes and then we went to play the 2nd game in the middle of the game he allies vision with me, and then i dont say anything and use it to kill him when he was being killed he said 'didnt you notice anything?' and i said: "yes, you gave me vision and i used it to kick your noob ass" then he left the game lol | ||
|
PrincessLeila
France170 Posts
BWChart "Suspicious actions" are just actions where u selected ur opponent building/unit NO MATTER IF U CAN SEE IT OR NOT !!!! So : U have to see the replay and check urself if he has the vision of what he selected => yes he have => no proof => no he clearly cant see that (its 2 screens behind fog war) => HE CLEARLY HACKED (select my opponent pool when i'm scouting with scv is a "suspicious action") | ||
|
Freezer_au
Australia1461 Posts
On May 12 2005 12:11 Napoleon wrote: "I did not say that Louis didn't hack, and I will not go out and find proof. What I am saying is admins arent perfect and I am 100% positive players have been banned for hack when they havent hacked. Some of the WGT admins that end up making the decisions don't even play the game and don't have a good enough understanding of strategies and builds between different matchups. I am sure they have a good percentage of catching hackers but no way is it 100% success rate." Complete bullshit. Please stop talking about admin work when you don't know shit about it. I tell you once more... admins are not baning ANYONE for hack without a 100%proof. Strategy and BW skill has nothing to do with it. You're 100% positive? Please give examples. If not - stop it, thanks. Do elite football referees make mistakes ? Yes they do! They are professional and get paid big bucks and yet they still make mistakes. WGT Admins do not get paid, the majority of them don't even play the game competitivly. Remember the old days of WGT ? Before we had all these new programs ? Admins had to decide on basic game knowledge or accept votes from the public to influence their decisions. The way you are talking, you are making it sound as though WGT admins have a perfect 100% record in catching all the hackers they have cought. I am 100% sure that some people that have been banned were infact not using a hack. No I wont go looking for individual examples. I don't have the time. | ||
|
Energies
Australia3225 Posts
On May 12 2005 12:11 Napoleon wrote: "I did not say that Louis didn't hack, and I will not go out and find proof. What I am saying is admins arent perfect and I am 100% positive players have been banned for hack when they havent hacked. Some of the WGT admins that end up making the decisions don't even play the game and don't have a good enough understanding of strategies and builds between different matchups. I am sure they have a good percentage of catching hackers but no way is it 100% success rate." Complete bullshit. Please stop talking about admin work when you don't know shit about it. I tell you once more... admins are not baning ANYONE for hack without a 100%proof. Strategy and BW skill has nothing to do with it. You're 100% positive? Please give examples. If not - stop it, thanks. The way I figure it, is there isn't anyone that I have banned for maphack that has made a legitimate complaint about it. Except you get like "I wasn't hacking on wgt" or the Tittybang method of deny deny deny, say the proof is forged, then deny it some more. Well, and there is madcow  . | ||
| ||
