|
On September 03 2010 08:04 monad wrote:Show nested quote +
You keep spouting crap with zero evidence.
There is one "confirmed" (read: rumored) hacker who has it. There is no way of knowing we have found all players who have 1600/1600.
Actually if you read back through the thread there's about 5 reports of people with 1600 / 1600, one of which is a widely publicized hacker, and 3 of which people in this thread claim to have played against and who hacked. Their cases just weren't as widely publicized as Vnrocks So, yea. try again.
And none of that amounts to more than rumors.
So, yea. Try again.
|
if someone in this thread says "I just played against this person, he did this, this, and this which was clearly maphacking". That doesn't really like sound like a rumor. Unless you now think there's a conspiracy in this thread.
You are really one of the dumbest people I've ever seen on this forum. Wanting to be right doesn't make it so.
the ironic thing is that deep down you know that all you have to do is wait for them to fix the bug and then you'll either have your 1600/1600 or 1590/1590, whichever it ends up being. Yet for some reason you feel the need to keep fighting a lost cause. I guess you just enjoy being wrong.
User was warned for this post
|
On September 03 2010 08:27 monad wrote:
if someone in this thread says "I just played against this person, he did this, this, and this which was clearly maphacking". That doesn't really like sound like a rumor. Unless you now think there's a conspiracy in this thread.
That sounds exactly like a rumor unless proof is provided.
Not to mention the unfounded leap from "hacks in games" to "hacks achievements" when there isn't even a confirmed achievement hack in existence.
the ironic thing is that deep down you know that all you have to do is wait for them to fix the bug and then you'll either have your 1600/1600 or 1590/1590, whichever it ends up being. Yet for some reason you feel the need to keep fighting a lost cause. I guess you just enjoy being wrong.
You have clearly never played a Blizzard game that needed consistent patching. Blizzard are woefully slow at fixing "minor" issues.
If its doable without the fix, I'd prefer to do it earlier.
I guess you must enjoy bitching about shit that has no bearing on you.
|
On September 03 2010 08:27 monad wrote:
You are really one of the dumbest people I've ever seen on this forum. Wanting to be right doesn't make it so.
I really don't want to be that guy, but bro, listen to yourself for once. You're arguing that a single forum post from someone who believes that their opponent was maphacking somehow combines with the fact that that player has an anomaly in their stats to suggest concrete evidence of hacking. I can't even begin to express how much of a fallacy that is.
EDIT: Grammar.
|
On September 03 2010 08:57 Captain wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 08:27 monad wrote:
You are really one of the dumbest people I've ever seen on this forum. Wanting to be right doesn't make it so. I really don't want to be that guy, but bro, listen to yourself for once. You're arguing that a single forum post from someone who believes that their opponent was maphacking somehow combines with the fact that that player has an anomaly in their stats to suggest concrete evidence of hacking. I can't even begin to express how much of a fallacy that is. EDIT: Grammar.
*Combined with the fact that blizzard admits you can't get 1600/1600 due to a confirmed bug, combined with the fact that a pattern is emerging. Considering how hard it is to find people with 1600/1600 in their profile, and that a very small minority of people actually hack, it's a mighty coincidence that more than one of them are obvious hackers.
And I think we all know what constitutes maphacking by now, and we can bypass all of this "thinks he was maphacking" kind of business. It doesn't take a rocket scientist.
Incidentally, I'm not even saying it's a hack. In fact, I think I'm one of the only people who isn't making *any* assumptions about what it is or what it isn't. Other than, of course, a bug which we have no control over.
|
On September 03 2010 09:29 monad wrote:
*Combined with the fact that blizzard admits you can't get 1600/1600 due to a confirmed bug,
Except they never said that.
combined with the fact that a pattern is emerging.
Except you have only rumors to imply this pattern, and incomplete data as well.
Considering how hard it is to find people with 1600/1600 in their profile, it's a mighty coincidence that more than one of them are obvious hackers.
As if people are actively looking for them?
In fact, I think I'm one of the only people who isn't making *any* assumptions about what it is or what it isn't. Other than, of course, a bug which we have no control over.
No, you're making assumptions left and right.
|
On September 03 2010 09:35 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +In fact, I think I'm one of the only people who isn't making *any* assumptions about what it is or what it isn't. Other than, of course, a bug which we have no control over. No, you're making assumptions left and right.
Can you identify the assumptions in the following statement?
"Blizzard says it's a bug and they will provide a fix. It's pointless to try to solve this until fix is provided"
|
On September 03 2010 09:38 monad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 09:35 kzn wrote:In fact, I think I'm one of the only people who isn't making *any* assumptions about what it is or what it isn't. Other than, of course, a bug which we have no control over. No, you're making assumptions left and right. Can you identify the assumptions in the following statement? "Blizzard says it's a bug and they will provide a fix. It's pointless to try to solve this until fix is provided"
The entire latter sentence is founded on a raft of assumptions.
Not to mention its flat out contradicted by evidence.
[edit] So basically you pretended that every post you've made in this thread can be decoded into an exposition of that 2-sentence claim (which is false) and still didn't manage to get it free of assumptions and bad logic. Well done.
|
On September 03 2010 09:40 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 09:38 monad wrote:On September 03 2010 09:35 kzn wrote:In fact, I think I'm one of the only people who isn't making *any* assumptions about what it is or what it isn't. Other than, of course, a bug which we have no control over. No, you're making assumptions left and right. Can you identify the assumptions in the following statement? "Blizzard says it's a bug and they will provide a fix. It's pointless to try to solve this until fix is provided" The entire latter sentence is founded on a raft of assumptions. Not to mention its flat out contradicted by evidence.
Your response makes no sense. How is stating a fact an assumption? They *have* said it's a bug, and they *have* said they will provide a fix. Where's the assumption?
Since you said it's *raft* of assumptions, I now expect you to specifically identify at least 3.
|
On September 03 2010 09:41 monad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 09:40 kzn wrote:On September 03 2010 09:38 monad wrote:On September 03 2010 09:35 kzn wrote:In fact, I think I'm one of the only people who isn't making *any* assumptions about what it is or what it isn't. Other than, of course, a bug which we have no control over. No, you're making assumptions left and right. Can you identify the assumptions in the following statement? "Blizzard says it's a bug and they will provide a fix. It's pointless to try to solve this until fix is provided" The entire latter sentence is founded on a raft of assumptions. Not to mention its flat out contradicted by evidence. Your response makes no sense. How is stating a fact an assumption? They *have* said it's a bug, and they *have* said they will provide a fix. Where's the assumption?
"It is pointless" is not a fact. It's actually an opinion, and its founded on assumptions (which are false).
|
On September 03 2010 09:41 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 09:41 monad wrote:On September 03 2010 09:40 kzn wrote:On September 03 2010 09:38 monad wrote:On September 03 2010 09:35 kzn wrote:In fact, I think I'm one of the only people who isn't making *any* assumptions about what it is or what it isn't. Other than, of course, a bug which we have no control over. No, you're making assumptions left and right. Can you identify the assumptions in the following statement? "Blizzard says it's a bug and they will provide a fix. It's pointless to try to solve this until fix is provided" The entire latter sentence is founded on a raft of assumptions. Not to mention its flat out contradicted by evidence. Your response makes no sense. How is stating a fact an assumption? They *have* said it's a bug, and they *have* said they will provide a fix. Where's the assumption? "It is pointless" is not a fact. It's actually an opinion, and its founded on assumptions (which are false).
Just a second ago you said it was the left sentence. Now it's the right sentence. Guess you edited your post to say it's the "latter" sentence now. But ok.
That it's pointless is indeed an opinion, but you still fail to point out any assumptions that it's based on, or why they're false.
|
On September 03 2010 09:44 monad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 09:41 kzn wrote:On September 03 2010 09:41 monad wrote:On September 03 2010 09:40 kzn wrote:On September 03 2010 09:38 monad wrote:On September 03 2010 09:35 kzn wrote:In fact, I think I'm one of the only people who isn't making *any* assumptions about what it is or what it isn't. Other than, of course, a bug which we have no control over. No, you're making assumptions left and right. Can you identify the assumptions in the following statement? "Blizzard says it's a bug and they will provide a fix. It's pointless to try to solve this until fix is provided" The entire latter sentence is founded on a raft of assumptions. Not to mention its flat out contradicted by evidence. Your response makes no sense. How is stating a fact an assumption? They *have* said it's a bug, and they *have* said they will provide a fix. Where's the assumption? "It is pointless" is not a fact. It's actually an opinion, and its founded on assumptions (which are false). Just a second ago you said it was the left sentence. Now it's the right sentence. But ok. That it's pointless is indeed an opinion, but you still fail to point out any assumptions that it's based on, or why they're false.
I meant to write latter, hence the edit.
Assumptions involved:
What appears pointless to you appears pointless to everyone else.
You are correct in perceiving that it is pointless
A fix will actually be provided (read: Blizzard can be trusted)
The first is obvious. The second is obvious. The third is obvious to anyone who's played WoW for any length of time.
|
On September 03 2010 09:46 kzn wrote:
Assumptions involved:
What appears pointless to you appears pointless to everyone else.
You are correct in perceiving that it is pointless
By stating that this is false, you are falling victim to assumption 1 above. lol.
A fix will actually be provided (read: Blizzard can be trusted)
lol. You're right, it's likely that this bug will sit indefinitely for the entire existence of Starcraft 2.
I'll see you again after Patch 1.1, which should be in about a week or two (although since blizzard can't be trusted, maybe never).
|
On September 03 2010 09:50 monad wrote:
I'll see you again after Patch 1.1, which should be in about a week or two (although since blizzard can't be trusted, maybe never).
And you'll still find something ridiculous to bitch about.
User was warned for this post
|
I do believe blizzard has said they will fix this - and I believe they will.
|
On September 03 2010 09:54 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 09:50 monad wrote:
I'll see you again after Patch 1.1, which should be in about a week or two (although since blizzard can't be trusted, maybe never). And you'll still find something ridiculous to bitch about.
regardless of whether or not the actual thread has a point, this flame war definitively has no point
|
Option 4: The achievement itself is not bugged, only the display of the achievement on the profile (both ingame and on web). This actually seems quite likely. What if we actually do not know what the achievement is, it does not give a trigger message, and it does not show on our profiles. We have no way of figuring out what the achievement actually is except for keeping a very close eye on our own stats. The blizzard employee's post could be a credible answer to this possibility as well, indicating the display bug could be fixed rather than a possible broken achievement.
I myself am pretty convinced we are dealing with the fourth option here, since it seems to have the least issues of the options I can think of. So the next step would be, how do we figure out what the achievement actually is. Fortunately, a few other people in this thread have done a lot of thinking and digging on this already, so credits to them.
Moreover, if this is the case, one of us who don't have 1590 points, might already have gotten the "secret" achievement, but are not aware of it because we're at 700 or whatever. We should all sum up our visible number of points and see if it matches our total or if we somehow have 10 points more than can be accounted for. Fortunately, we only have to sum up the Campaign achievements, so it won't take that long.
Mine are spot on, though...
|
Funny how no one in the thread ever thought of googling something along the lines of "Achivement Hack sc2".
I found one in about 5 seconds, however I can't say if it works or not and not gonna try it.
That should prove somewhat that 1590/1600 is a bug, and that 1600/1600 are hackers.
|
|
|
this thread should be closed, as the issue has already been explained and this thread has degraded into a flamefest between two people
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
