EPTHas anyone done this? I'm not about to read through 200+ pages to check
[?] Spades hacking? - Page 203
| 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) | ||
|
Trumpet
United States1936 Posts
Has anyone done this? I'm not about to read through 200+ pages to check | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
On June 06 2012 06:59 chebhe wrote: Even the preponderance of evidence sways in his favor... No, you aren't. The 50% of rational people watching noticed the same. The preponderance of evidence most definitely does not sway in his favor. Did you look at the evidence? All of it? I did. Way before I watched the VoD of Catz and friends. Then I looked at more evidence from Illusion. Then I looked at more counter evidence from Spades himself. If you looked at all these things, I don't understand how the perponderance of evidence favors his position. Everything presented validates the charges that he is indeed cheating. And I would venture to guess the heavy majority of people who have actually examined this evidence would find him guilty. Ignoring Catz's sometimes negligent statements in his commentary and just focusing on the things that truly are questionable. There is no way opinion is even close to being evenly split. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On June 06 2012 07:06 rhs408 wrote: I asked one question, and it's a question that many people here would like an answer to from Spades. And it's coming from a former fan and stream watcher of Spades - I just want an honest answer from him. Stop posting in this thread if you have nothing to add. oh, i thought it was clear that i was adding you are not entitled to anything. he has already made his statements. why do people feel they are entitled to make additional demands on him? | ||
|
s4life
Peru1519 Posts
On June 06 2012 06:48 StarStrider wrote: I completely disagree with your last statement. If he was somehow able to prove he's never hacked, the whole thing would die instantly because he has proved that he's never hacked. This is pretty simple. BUT he has hacked in the past, and that has been proven. So barring your impossible scenario of him being able to prove that he didn't hack this time, I don't blame anyone at all for jumping to conclusions about him this time based on the fact that he hacked in past, and has responded with the same victim mentality this time that he did last time, instead of proactively trying to clear his name. All that, and there is a huge amount of evidence in multiple replays that makes the objective investigator lean toward saying he is cheating in some form. How do you suppose he'd do that without being his opinion against yours? There is no reliable way to prove/disprove hacking so your post is rubbish. | ||
|
gzo
United States55 Posts
On June 06 2012 07:06 rhs408 wrote: I asked one question, and it's a question that many people here would like an answer to from Spades. And it's coming from a former fan and stream watcher of Spades - I just want an honest answer from him. Stop posting in this thread if you have nothing to add. He won't respond to you because he's horrible at dealing with any situation that requires him to logically think apparently. If he were to respond to you it would be a convoluted statement about how people lied to make him look bad and refuse to argue against any evidence surrounding the issue. | ||
|
TiTanIum_
Brazil1335 Posts
On June 06 2012 06:59 chebhe wrote: Even the preponderance of evidence sways in his favor... No, you aren't. The 50% of rational people watching noticed the same. You give far too much credit to "people". | ||
|
daemir
Finland8662 Posts
On June 06 2012 07:08 Trumpet wrote: Really should have done this the BW way. in BW, the maphack disabled you from clicking opponent's units/buildings so that your click wouldnt get registered and show up as an obvious maphack on replay analyzer. So the conclusive proof then became getting large amounts of replays of someone and having them never click an enemy unit in a large amount of games. The same could be used here, if he never looked at fog of war in his games, not even once for a scan or scout or something, then it'd be pretty obvious. Has anyone done this? I'm not about to read through 200+ pages to check Somewhat. He posted replay packs where people could see him using his normal mechanics and then compare that to the series in question and see differences. Was it 50 games pre and 50 games post the bo7 that he released? I recall hearing in some older SotG the hosts discussing the drilling in of mechanics and from what day9 and idra talked it sure doesn't seem like you'll change your core mechanical skills for one set and then go back to what you were using before. | ||
|
Nemireck
Canada1875 Posts
On June 06 2012 07:06 jacksonlee wrote: Again, you're taking Catz words as truth. There is, if anyone cared to look, not much difference in his mechanics between his ladder and tournament replays, but you think there is because Catz says so. In that one example where he is "not" hacking on ladder and he scans the colossus army, he does it very similar to how he does while he "hacks", ie. scan the edge of screen, not the center... Yet that was the prime example of how Catz concludes that his ladder style is "different." You guys are far too easily swayed No, I'm not taking Catz word as proof, I flew through a good 20 of his legit replays at high speed to spot ONLY how many times he views the FOW to issue commands, and I'm not exaggerating when I state the claim that he views the FOW more times in a SINGLE legit game than he does during the entire 7 game set against Lucifron. I don't know why you've mentioned the scan of the collosus army at all, since my post had very little to do with any specific instance of a scan, and more to do with his ingrained playing habits. But thank you for your input. A note about the map-hack games: I noticed that the replay will allow looks into the FOW so far as even the tiniest amount of actual sight is available on-screen, at which point the screen will stop scrolling until sight has extended. | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
On June 06 2012 07:08 Trumpet wrote: Really should have done this the BW way. in BW, the maphack disabled you from clicking opponent's units/buildings so that your click wouldnt get registered and show up as an obvious maphack on replay analyzer. So the conclusive proof then became getting large amounts of replays of someone and having them never click an enemy unit in a large amount of games. The same could be used here, if he never looked at fog of war in his games, not even once for a scan or scout or something, then it'd be pretty obvious. Has anyone done this? I'm not about to read through 200+ pages to check Yes. He looked at fog of war in his 'normal' ladder pack games. Every game. Whereas he never once looked at fog of war in his 'questionable' tourney games. Not even to scan. He would scan first then look at what he scanned. People have tried to write this off as a misreading of the way the replay viewer moves the screen around, but if you compare his showmatch games to his ladder games again, it is a very different way. | ||
|
itsjuspeter
United States668 Posts
On June 06 2012 07:08 chebhe wrote: DUDE. That is NORMAL. You play a series DIFFERENTLY than you play ladder. There is a strategic logic to playing a series, which is not present in random ladder games. You study the opponent. You plan out the series. .... Why are you allowed to have an opinion? Don't know if trolling me or.... I cannot believe what I just read. I really cannot fathom... my god. Oh my... haha, okay, so, you are telling me, mechanically speaking, he ladders and finds it normal to look into FOW and do clicks/scans/army movements, but then in the BO7 and goes HEY! you know what I'm going to not use the map but use the MINIMAP FOR ALL clicks as well as NOT check the FOW because it's STRATEGIC LOGIC? I can tell you anyone who plays decently will have looked into FOW completely to check buildings they missed, to move army, to do scans... why? Because it is more efficient than always moving to the minimap and increasing inaccuracy. Your blatent bias is irritating and you're "superiority complex" is unbelievable. I hope someone else quotes me and puts some more input into this guy's reply... I find it nonsensical. By the way, don't personally attack, if I was half the "douche" you are I'd ponder myself why you get an opinion. | ||
|
Nightshade_
United States549 Posts
On June 06 2012 07:13 StarStrider wrote: Yes. He looked at fog of war in his 'normal' ladder pack games. Every game. Whereas he never once looked at fog of war in his 'questionable' tourney games. Not even to scan. He would scan first then look at what he scanned. People have tried to write this off as a misreading of the way the replay viewer moves the screen around, but if you compare his showmatch games to his ladder games again, it is a very different way. but he used le mniimap xxDD | ||
|
Nemireck
Canada1875 Posts
On June 06 2012 07:08 chebhe wrote: DUDE. That is NORMAL. You play a series DIFFERENTLY than you play ladder. There is a strategic logic to playing a series, which is not present in random ladder games. You study the opponent. You plan out the series. .... Why are you allowed to have an opinion? See, do you see how your opinion made no sense and was terrible right there? We have 100s of people like you in this thread, with terrible opinions based on nonsense, asserting them as rational fact. And then using them as defamation. Except nobody's talking about his different strategic decisions. We're talking about his mechanics, which you can't simply change on the fly. They are ingrained playing habits that take a very long time to undue and re-wire. | ||
|
IcedBacon
Canada906 Posts
On June 06 2012 07:08 chebhe wrote: DUDE. That is NORMAL. You play a series DIFFERENTLY than you play ladder. There is a strategic logic to playing a series, which is not present in random ladder games. You study the opponent. You plan out the series. .... Why are you allowed to have an opinion? See, do you see how your opinion made no sense and was terrible right there? We have 100s of people like you in this thread, with terrible opinions based on nonsense, asserting them as rational fact. And then using them as defamation. Still so clueless. You play a series different in terms of strategy, not mechanics. His mechanics are what is excessively suspicious, you can't change them without some serious time and effort. | ||
|
chebhe
United States113 Posts
On June 06 2012 07:09 StarStrider wrote: The preponderance of evidence most definitely does not sway in his favor. Did you look at the evidence? All of it? I did. Way before I watched the VoD of Catz and friends. Then I looked at more evidence from Illusion. Then I looked at more counter evidence from Spades himself. If you looked at all these things, I don't understand how the perponderance of evidence favors his position. Everything presented validates the charges that he is indeed cheating. And I would venture to guess the heavy majority of people who have actually examined this evidence would find him guilty. Ignoring Catz's sometimes negligent statements in his commentary and just focusing on the things that truly are questionable. There is no way opinion is even close to being evenly split. Yes I've looked at the evidence, and I conclude he is innocent. Reading your post, I see nothing concrete in it for me to respond to. Cite some actual evidence which you consider proof, or stop talking. | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
On June 06 2012 07:11 s4life wrote: How do you suppose he'd do that without being his opinion against yours? There is no reliable way to prove/disprove hacking so your post is rubbish. Yes, that idea IS rubbish, but it's not my idea, its the guy I was responding to. Click the quoted material view next time idiot. He was saying if it was somehow able to be proved then his career would still be ruined. And I said if it was possible... then no, no his career would not be because he would be vindicated in innocence. User was warned for this post | ||
|
hnQ
113 Posts
there are PROS here supporting that he was hacking there are OTHER PROS supporting he most likely wasn't even in high level players there is doubt and inconclusive opinions so why are you all saying HE WAS HACKING like it was a fact? it's not, he's innocent until proven guilty ALSO even on CATZ STREAM he looked into FOW (which they said he turned the hacks off while at it lol?) so why do you keep saying he NEVER did it? such a weird accusation | ||
|
itsjuspeter
United States668 Posts
| ||
|
nath
United States1788 Posts
On June 06 2012 07:08 Trumpet wrote: Really should have done this the BW way. in BW, the maphack disabled you from clicking opponent's units/buildings so that your click wouldnt get registered and show up as an obvious maphack on replay analyzer. So the conclusive proof then became getting large amounts of replays of someone and having them never click an enemy unit in a large amount of games. The same could be used here, if he never looked at fog of war in his games, not even once for a scan or scout or something, then it'd be pretty obvious. Has anyone done this? I'm not about to read through 200+ pages to check well he didnt look in fog of war once in the bo7. that was one of the points that was not in his favor. | ||
|
chebhe
United States113 Posts
On June 06 2012 07:16 hnQ wrote: Guys, there are PROS here supporting that he was hacking there are OTHER PROS supporting he most likely wasn't even in high level players there is doubt and inconclusive opinions so why are you all saying HE WAS HACKING like it was a fact? it's not, he's innocent until proven guilty Yes. Innocent until proven guilty. Not a hard concept. It's a good thing countries are not run like TL. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
| ||
| ||
