EPTFunniness aside though, the evidence seems pretty overwhelming here.
[?] Spades hacking? - Page 119
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
07:06 KST - method linked here has been disproved here 10:54 KST - Find a full timeline of pro comments (including Spades) in the topic here. 08:47 KST - Summary: Accusations of maphacking have the potential to destroy a player's career if left unaddressed. Because of the potential consequences, we should be careful about accepting unproven accusations. The principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' should be applied here. That does not mean that there has been a conclusion about this case, however, which is why this thread remains tentatively open. Please discuss with caution and use evidence to back up your claims. (also a summary post by an unnamed pro on reddit here) | ||
|
Fishriot
United States621 Posts
Funniness aside though, the evidence seems pretty overwhelming here. | ||
|
chipmonklord17
United States11944 Posts
On June 05 2012 15:20 Defacer wrote: It's not his job to prove Catz wrong. And he simply stated that all Catz proved was that in his ladder games, he looked into the fog of war, but in the games with Lucifron, that he didn't. And he's right. Even in Catz's analysis, he admits that none of his observations can be considered 'hard' evidence, and can be chalked up to lucky/bad play. Spades may very well be a hacker, but again, the standard of proof for this community should be a little higher than that. I think the truth of the matter is that had this been a person who had NEVER been accused of hacking before then this amount of proof would be insufficent. But take someone who has been a hacker, and throw all of this evidence out there, it definitely makes more of a case | ||
|
fatalfirecrotch
13 Posts
On June 05 2012 15:20 Defacer wrote: It's not his job to prove Catz wrong. And he simply stated that all Catz proved was that in his ladder games, he looked into the fog of war, but in the games with Lucifron, that he didn't. And he's right. Even in Catz's analysis, he admits that none of his observations can be considered 'hard' evidence, and can be chalked up to lucky/bad play. Spades may very well be a hacker, but again, the standard of proof for this community should be a little higher than that. The problem is Spades is a hacker. The argument here is whether he is doing it again. That is why circumstancial evidence is even more damning. | ||
|
Derpmallow
United States33 Posts
On June 05 2012 15:20 Defacer wrote: It's not his job to prove Catz wrong. And he simply stated that all Catz proved was that in his ladder games, he looked into the fog of war, but in the games with Lucifron, that he didn't. And he's right. Even in Catz's analysis, he admits that none of his observations can be considered 'hard' evidence, and can be chalked up to lucky/bad play. Spades may very well be a hacker, but again, the standard of proof for this community should be a little higher than that. This shouldn't be a witch hunt, I agree. That's not what the esports community should be about. However, people should continue to be extremely suspicious when his way of moving units, something that is pure muscle memory, changes abruptly and perfectly. That's not something that just happens, for the most part, and I don't want that kind of evidence being swept under the rug just because people are getting overzealous about the magic scans and his special tactics. | ||
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On June 05 2012 15:20 zefreak wrote: Why? If Spades is guilty, the OP has done the community a favor and he shouldn't have to risk negative exposure. He should stand by his words, not insult a progamer, possibly ruining his career in its entirety, without even using his real account. "Should not risk negative exposure" is complete and utter bullshit; the only thing the OP is doing is giving Spades negative exposure (and the shitstorm is spreading too), so I absolutely don't see why he shouldn't at the very least be honest. The OP was posted without conclusive evidence, and Spades is the only one to suffer for it. So kindly, re-think that standpoint. Of course, if it isn't a smurf account then disregard this, but creating a 120-page thread and not even commenting once after posting? Meh. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14081 Posts
-Who is the OP and what is his relationship with Spades? Are there old grudges in play here? -Who benefits from his reputation being ruined? Yes, sure, people like Mirhi or Catz have "reputation". On the other hand, they're in this for money. It's a business. Doing a "hacker analysis" live on stream isn't done to find out whether he's hacking or not. To really find out about it you'd get a few neutral parties who deal with this stuff since years together, let them dig through all the evidence presented and then let them make a statement. Stuff like this "live analysis" is done to attract viewers and to benefit from the witchhunt, not to get to the truth behind this. tl;dr: We have lots of people on TL who are around here for years and are able to critically cross-check each other when put together. No one from the "public crowd" should read about this until such a crew has analyzed the presented evidence. | ||
|
Gheed
United States972 Posts
On June 05 2012 15:20 zefreak wrote: Why? If Spades is guilty, the OP has done the community a favor and he shouldn't have to risk negative exposure. Putting aside the fact that I don't think this was the proper outlet for his accusations, don't you find it curious at all? Guy registers his account May 29. Showmatch takes place June 3. He posts this thread June 5. Why did he make the account 5 days before the showmatch? Did he know Spades was going to hack in the showmatch? Does he know Spades hacks in general? Why come forward now? A mod claims the IP of the poster is unknown to them ( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=342350#2 ). If anything, I just want my curiosity sated. | ||
|
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
On June 05 2012 15:24 chipmonklord17 wrote: I actually don't think the proof is very bad at all. I don't understand what people want. A complete shift in your fog of war habits, suspicious screen sitting, and odd movements right after that sitting is ultimately pretty compelling. Yes, it's circumstantial, but circumstantial does not automatically mean the evidence was bad. I think the truth of the matter is that had this been a person who had NEVER been accused of hacking before then this amount of proof would be insufficent. But take someone who has been a hacker, and throw all of this evidence out there, it definitely makes more of a case | ||
|
Kouda
United States2205 Posts
| ||
|
Dox
Australia1199 Posts
The guys over at SC2SEA just uncovered a maphacker today by using SC2 Gears to highlight a series of (falsely) reported in-game actions whilst screen locking was enabled. http://www.sc2sea.com/showpost.php?p=99788&postcount=557 http://www.sc2sea.com/showpost.php?p=99793&postcount=559 (Note that SC2 Gears won't acknowledge you selecting your opponents structures under the fog of war, but it will instead substitute these actions with false ones.) | ||
|
ndreamer
Australia43 Posts
| ||
|
canikizu
4860 Posts
| ||
|
Goshirn
Micronesia30 Posts
| ||
Insane
United States4991 Posts
On June 05 2012 15:24 chipmonklord17 wrote: I think the truth of the matter is that had this been a person who had NEVER been accused of hacking before then this amount of proof would be insufficent. But take someone who has been a hacker, and throw all of this evidence out there, it definitely makes more of a case While this is somewhat true, even a never-before-caught hacker would be in pretty iffy waters with what's been discovered (I think it's pretty convincing). The main area that a never caught hacker would gain is that probably a lot of the people who got involved in this wouldn't have put in the time/effort because "X surely wouldn't hack, that guy's probably just being dumb" and would've skimmed over the replay, and thus the topic would've just died away or been closed before sufficient analysis was performed. I generally try to avoid judging before seeing the evidence (for example, I haven't posted anything with regards to the allegations of Koreans stream cheating), but knowing that it was Spades involved meant I was pretty suspicious because I knew it, combined with how he defended himself, totally meshed with his previous actions in BW. I'll note that I did subsequently download his replays and watch them, as well as searching out replays of him from offline events (the only situation where I could be sure he wasn't hacking) and watched those too, so it's not like I'm just posting without having watched the replays like I'm sure many people are (T_T). | ||
|
Shilliwippen
Sweden57 Posts
I just find it abit fishy that a anonymous person just links a .rar file with 7 replays, that haven't even been officially released, but he asked for the replays and they sent them to him. Ohh and even if they were, replays are built up by input streams from both parties. From my understanding the SC2 client "blocks" the inputs you get sent from you opponent. But these maphack vision programs intercept the input stream you get sent from you opponent and somehow tampers with them making the SC2 client not hiding his inputs(?). Now a SC2 replay file is basicly just a small file with the inputs of both yourself and your opponent, and then the gameclient itself decodes it and replicates the scenarios. What this means, is that a .SC2replay file can EASILY be tampered with, from changing opponents names to perhaps even mixturing with camera angles etc etc... Now all this I'd suspect, but as Spades went out and actually defended the OP/Illusion straight up, I assume what we on these replays are the legit. I do find the replays abit fishy and lean towards guilty, the thing is, had I just seen the replays and not read the thread or topic I wouldn't suspect a thing. Ohh and the arguement "Others are cheating too", isn't a valid reason nor a way to escape your own "doom". Cmon what are we, 5 yrs old here? Be a man | ||
|
Ruscour
5233 Posts
On June 05 2012 15:29 ndreamer wrote: If it where a sport and the athlete was taking drugs it would end his career it should be no different for esports, hacking whether it's on ladder or in a professional game should have harsh consequences. I nearly agree. Just from an example I know (and a comparison I can make), Lote Tuqiri was a rugby league player in Australia and got banned from competition for 2 years for drug abuse. 2 years later he comes back having paid his dues and no-one questions his integrity; TT1 hacked in BW, owned up to it, and is now deservedly respected in the community. People should be given a second chance, but certainly not likely, and not if they blatantly deny it until they truly have no ground to stand on. | ||
|
cooked
China1238 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=342248¤tpage=44#866 for the timeline. | ||
|
Achilles17
United States111 Posts
On June 05 2012 15:16 hadhubhi wrote: Here's a good (and unbiased) test that someone can do on replays (I don't have SC2 installed here). Find a couple replays that match the Lucifron games in maps (that are TvT). Find the first time he looks into the fog of war in each of those (probably when he sends out his first scouting SCV). Compare this to the Lucifron series. His camera should be locked during the time when he looks offscreen. If the camera consistently doesn't move (appears to be "screen locked" by the maphack) during the times he usually scouts, then this is fairly damning evidence, especially if he is very consistent in these timings (as one would expect a well-practiced professional to be) during non-"hackish" gameplay. This could be loosely compared to what is called a "synthetic control" method in econometrics (cite Alberto Albadie). In this, you try to find an accurate comparison by combining elements from a number of similar-ish case studies. This is useful when you have really low statistical power, and you're relying on what are essentially just case studies. It still lets you bring a little bit of statistics into the discussion. So what you would want to do: 1) Collect similar replays to study. 2) Record the times (and lengths of time) for the first time or two he looks into the fog of war. 3) Compare this to the Lucifron replays. Does his camera look suspicious at these times? For a player with builds timed down very precisely, this has potential to pretty easily detect a false positive. That said, it seems the evidence is already pretty strong. But this seems like a fairly elucidating comparison to make for those still seeking something more objective. This was shown on the stream, but it wasnt exactly given as much weight and exposure as it deserves. This needs to be talked about more so people know how significant it is. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On June 05 2012 15:25 Derpmallow wrote: This shouldn't be a witch hunt, I agree. That's not what the esports community should be about. However, people should continue to be extremely suspicious when his way of moving units, something that is pure muscle memory, changes abruptly and perfectly. That's not something that just happens, for the most part, and I don't want that kind of evidence being swept under the rug just because people are getting overzealous about the magic scans and his special tactics. If Spades really is a hacker, there should be more replays and teammates out there that could verify it. That's all I'm saying. Four guys and their analysis -- even if they are pro's -- shouldn't be enough to ban a guy from SC2 for life. | ||
|
stangstang
Canada281 Posts
On June 05 2012 15:35 Defacer wrote: If Spades really is a hacker, there should be more replays and teammates out there that could verify it. That's all I'm saying. Four guys and their analysis -- even if they are pro's -- shouldn't be enough to ban a guy from SC2 for life. there are posts from ex-teamates saying that he did in the past. obviously current teamates wouldnt say he does or not. | ||
| ||
