|
07:06 KST - method linked here has been disproved here10:54 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) |
On June 06 2012 14:31 jacksonlee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 14:30 StarStrider wrote:On June 06 2012 14:24 jacksonlee wrote:On June 06 2012 14:07 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 13:44 shabinka wrote:
What's going to happen when it shown that Spades is not a hacker? What will CatZ, Illu, etc do when their 2 hour analysis is proven to be useless? It's not possible to prove Spades wasn't hacking unless he's sitting on some FPVODS of the games in question. As someone who fully understands the limitations of the SC2 engine and readily available hacks I've got all the evidence I need to be certain he hacks. Nobody plays 100 games in a row where they look into the fog 100% of the time 100/100 and then put up 7 games in a row where you don't do it once. I'm actually amazed people are dumb enough to buy into the idea that there is no evidence. This is pretty clear evidence. It's far more convincing than the evidence used to 'prove' his guilt in BW. If you bothered to actually review the replays, you'd know that he looks into FOW quite a few times Please cite timestamps of particular replays where I can find him doing this. By the way I went back and watched him plant the CC on that Entombed game we were talking about. Your assertion was that he looks at FOW before placing the CC. Yes, that's true, but the camera didn't snap there until the command was issued, which aligns perfectly with the theory that the vision only centers on you looking at FOW if you right click there where you are looking, perform an action there (build), or suddenly gain vision there (scans). you don't right click to put down a CC... and there is another instance where he looks to the right side of the map
ohh sure yeah just because he looked 1 or 2 times in the fog everything is ok right?, are you kidding me?, in the ladder games he does it like 20 times like any normal person would do. is just not normal the way he behaved.
Do you know how he got cought in BW? because of abnormal behavior. he was so good at faking he wasnt a maphacker, they only caught him because abnormal behavior. didnt click enemy units for 14 games.
|
On June 06 2012 14:17 shabinka wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 14:05 StarStrider wrote:On June 06 2012 13:56 shabinka wrote:On June 06 2012 13:49 Gamegene wrote:On June 06 2012 13:44 shabinka wrote:
What's going to happen when it shown that Spades is not a hacker? What will CatZ, Illu, etc do when their 2 hour analysis is proven to be useless? LOL. Have you SEEN the replays or even the VOD of the analysis? It's pretty obvious to any player who is actually competent enough at the game. Pretty much all Terran players who aren't retarded know that the choices made, in cursor and army movement and in the decision making, were just NOT natural. Stop trying to be the one, the neo, etc. Actually watch those games if you are informed enough and make your own decisions on whether he was innocent or guilty, rather than simply criticizing everyone for taking active steps to discourage cheating. You can't stop 100 cheaters. You can scare 99 of them shitless by showing what you do to the 100th. I watched the anaylsis... didn't really convince me. If he was map hacking... why did he lose. I feel like that's the prevailing question. He LOST in a series where REAL MONEY was on the line. If he was hacking he would've won. Also in the analysis they went in with the assumption that he was hacking. Let me say this again, because I said it earlier in the thread, if you're going to prove something you can't start with what you're assuming is true. I recall them saying multiple times... 'see he's maphacking, it's very obvious by... ___'. Not this was somewhat suspicious, but maphacking is not the only reason. They never made any point to show any part of the game where he was 'playing legit' only where he 'might have been hacking'. And you're telling me with the awesome quality of replays that nothing gets fucked up when you're watching it? No texture glitches while playing or anything? The only conclusive evidence would be from a VOD of some sort. And you can't stop cheaters? Trust me, if they were trying hard enough they could stop them. Blizzard just doesn't give a shit. Some of their language was poor choice of words, but overall I think they handled it pretty well and gave their own opinions in a pretty objective manner. Most of the time after they said "You know how we know he is hacking? Watch" They would say aftewards "Yeah, that just doesn't seem right, something is really fishy/suspicious about that". You're right, they already had their minds made up before they showed their viewers and TT1....but that was because they had already reviewed all the games they brought up for a while before that. They didn't make their mind up that he was a hacker based on hearsay and conjecture, they went through and looked at the items that were fishy. You make it sound as if they accused him outright and then decided to try to prove it by analyzing the questionable play after they made that decision. EDIT: It is very poor logic to say that because he hacks he should win, and that losses somehow help prove he is clean. He is more likely to win by using unfair advantages in game knowledge, but it's hard to guarantee a win in a game as fast paced as SC2 even with hacks. Even if you see everything at all times, it's still hard to multitask, and still hard to play perfectly without mistakes. If you can see someone's openin, army composition and size and such there is no reason you should not win. SC2 is a game of mechanics but even the best mechanics can not account for a lack of information. No matter how good you are at macro/micro you will still lose if you do not have knowledge of your opponent. Hence the importance of early game scouting, overlord placement, scans v. mules, etc. If you can see the whole map you should never be caught off guard in important parts of important games. Which with the drops in the Lucifron games showed. If you look for something hard enough, you'll find it but it may not be the 'right' thing. I'm sure people can pick out just as many points in those replays to prove that he was playing legit. Going into the analysis they thought he was a hacker so they looked for a incident that was suspicious and said he must be hacking. They never said 'oh look at that, that's what a person would be doing if he wasn't hacking'. That's all I'm trying to say. Show nested quote +
On June 06 2012 13:44 shabinka wrote:
What's going to happen when it shown that Spades is not a hacker? What will CatZ, Illu, etc do when their 2 hour analysis is proven to be useless?
It's not possible to prove Spades wasn't hacking unless he's sitting on some FPVODS of the games in question. As someone who fully understands the limitations of the SC2 engine and readily available hacks I've got all the evidence I need to be certain he hacks. Nobody plays 100 games in a row where they look into the fog 100% of the time 100/100 and then put up 7 games in a row where you don't do it once. I'm actually amazed people are dumb enough to buy into the idea that there is no evidence. This is pretty clear evidence. It's far more convincing than the evidence used to 'prove' his guilt in BW.
I never said there was 0 evidence, and he never plays a game where he looks into the FoW 100% of the time. Also any evidence gained from replayed needs to be seen as circumstancial. Things get screwed up in replay files all the time.
No, this is completely wrong. Just because you can see what someone is doing does not mean you cannot still lose. This has been proven multiple times by IdrA and other pros stomping Deezer while he was stream cheating them. You still need fucking mechanics. And like TT1 said, sometimes it's better to lose games and "miss" things while hacking, which is less suspect than winning every single game perfectly.
Forget Catz and co's analysis, if you have any decent understanding of SC2, even above diamond level, these things should be evident to you. If not, your opinion is not really relevant at all to this discussion if you are relying on the pros to do the analysis for you, while being convinced that they are seeing what they want to see.
There is SO much more evidence here than when he was accused in BW. How can you go from mid masters T to 80% win rate #1 GM, and get accused of something, and instantly give in and play the victim, instead of brazenly proving you weren't hacking?
I think the evidence speaks for itself, really, and that the TL mods are just trying to maintain a level of respect for Spades by leaving the thread still open for discussion, it seems pretty damn clear to me. I'm frustrated because, if you check this thread early on, I was defending Spades, I didn't think he would do it again. Then I watched the replays myself, without even needing the pros' analysis, just comparing the replays to his ladder replays, it's like two completely different players.
Well, these are my last thoughts on the matter.
|
On June 06 2012 14:29 slimcognito2012 wrote:
Hey I don't know if you guys are aware of it, but there's this thing called game sense. People who have played competitively for a while can have a sense of what the other person is going to do. Particularly if they've studied their playstyle and techniques. And luck sometimes happens too. You guys are whiteknighting again. First Destiny, now Spades.
You know who has stupidly good gamesense, Flash. You know who else, Boxer (sometimes). and White-Ra and (insert pro player here)
Those players exhibit the same godly sense game after game, whether in a showmatch, tourney, or random ladder games. Spades does not. It is inconsistent that his random lucky moves in multiple games in a row in a series don't happen regularly on ladder.
This, in combination with all the inconsistencies (in ladder pack vs these matches) of his scouting habits, scan habits, and mechanics of minimap vs screen scroll and FOW viewing make it very hard to write it off as "his starcraft senses were tingling"
|
On June 06 2012 14:34 insanet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 14:31 jacksonlee wrote:On June 06 2012 14:30 StarStrider wrote:On June 06 2012 14:24 jacksonlee wrote:On June 06 2012 14:07 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 13:44 shabinka wrote:
What's going to happen when it shown that Spades is not a hacker? What will CatZ, Illu, etc do when their 2 hour analysis is proven to be useless? It's not possible to prove Spades wasn't hacking unless he's sitting on some FPVODS of the games in question. As someone who fully understands the limitations of the SC2 engine and readily available hacks I've got all the evidence I need to be certain he hacks. Nobody plays 100 games in a row where they look into the fog 100% of the time 100/100 and then put up 7 games in a row where you don't do it once. I'm actually amazed people are dumb enough to buy into the idea that there is no evidence. This is pretty clear evidence. It's far more convincing than the evidence used to 'prove' his guilt in BW. If you bothered to actually review the replays, you'd know that he looks into FOW quite a few times Please cite timestamps of particular replays where I can find him doing this. By the way I went back and watched him plant the CC on that Entombed game we were talking about. Your assertion was that he looks at FOW before placing the CC. Yes, that's true, but the camera didn't snap there until the command was issued, which aligns perfectly with the theory that the vision only centers on you looking at FOW if you right click there where you are looking, perform an action there (build), or suddenly gain vision there (scans). you don't right click to put down a CC... and there is another instance where he looks to the right side of the map ohh sure yeah just because he looked 1 or 2 times in the fog everything is ok right?, are you kidding me?, in the ladder games he does it like 20 times like any normal person would do. is just not normal the way he behaved. Do you know how he got cought in BW? because of abnormal behavior. he was so good at faking he wasnt a maphacker, they only caught him because abnormal behavior. didnt click enemy units for 14 games.
I'm saying you guys are wrong when you say he never looks in FOW. I never said he never cheated, nor that he did, I just think it's ridiculous that people are pretending to be experts while making statements that are false
|
On June 06 2012 14:31 jacksonlee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 14:30 StarStrider wrote:On June 06 2012 14:24 jacksonlee wrote:On June 06 2012 14:07 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 13:44 shabinka wrote:
What's going to happen when it shown that Spades is not a hacker? What will CatZ, Illu, etc do when their 2 hour analysis is proven to be useless? It's not possible to prove Spades wasn't hacking unless he's sitting on some FPVODS of the games in question. As someone who fully understands the limitations of the SC2 engine and readily available hacks I've got all the evidence I need to be certain he hacks. Nobody plays 100 games in a row where they look into the fog 100% of the time 100/100 and then put up 7 games in a row where you don't do it once. I'm actually amazed people are dumb enough to buy into the idea that there is no evidence. This is pretty clear evidence. It's far more convincing than the evidence used to 'prove' his guilt in BW. If you bothered to actually review the replays, you'd know that he looks into FOW quite a few times Please cite timestamps of particular replays where I can find him doing this. By the way I went back and watched him plant the CC on that Entombed game we were talking about. Your assertion was that he looks at FOW before placing the CC. Yes, that's true, but the camera didn't snap there until the command was issued, which aligns perfectly with the theory that the vision only centers on you looking at FOW if you right click there where you are looking, perform an action there (build), or suddenly gain vision there (scans). you don't right click to put down a CC... and there is another instance where he looks to the right side of the map
see where I stated "perform an action there (build)"
Please state the timestamp of this other instance and I'll take an objective look.
|
On June 06 2012 14:24 jacksonlee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 14:07 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 13:44 shabinka wrote:
What's going to happen when it shown that Spades is not a hacker? What will CatZ, Illu, etc do when their 2 hour analysis is proven to be useless? It's not possible to prove Spades wasn't hacking unless he's sitting on some FPVODS of the games in question. As someone who fully understands the limitations of the SC2 engine and readily available hacks I've got all the evidence I need to be certain he hacks. Nobody plays 100 games in a row where they look into the fog 100% of the time 100/100 and then put up 7 games in a row where you don't do it once. I'm actually amazed people are dumb enough to buy into the idea that there is no evidence. This is pretty clear evidence. It's far more convincing than the evidence used to 'prove' his guilt in BW. If you bothered to actually review the replays, you'd know that he looks into FOW quite a few times
I reviewed 100% of the replays posted in the 2 zip files provided by Spades as well as all of the replays in the OP. I don't know the exact number, I remember there were 52 replays in the first zip so I'm guessing around 115 or so in total. Every replay provided by Spades showed him look at the fog of war without having issued a command to that area. This includes a very short 6 or so minute game that ended before the first engagement. My process for reviewing each replay was to put it at 8x on Spades view until i saw fog then I'd rewind to normal. If he looked at the fog of war without moving a unit to that area I put a check box in my spreadsheet next to the replay name. When i was done with the zip file every check box was full.
The only times you see FOW in the showmatch is when a command is issued. I did bother to actually review the replays. I think maybe you should take your own advice and look for yourself. herp derp.
|
On June 06 2012 14:34 Sideburn wrote:
A lot of people are just asserting that Spades is 100% guilty at this point. Fine.
Isn't that a really weak way to justify how this was handled though? To say, "Well, this public witch hunt was justified because we found a witch!" What if we hadn't? Is it seriously so hard to believe that despite the truth of the matter the community responded to this in an incredibly juvenile, emotional, and disgusting way?
The question is: Would there actually have been a "witch hunt" if he wasn't guilty? Maybe the reason it seems like a witch hunt is because the evidence is so damning.
|
On June 06 2012 14:34 Sideburn wrote:
A lot of people are just asserting that Spades is 100% guilty at this point. Fine.
Isn't that a really weak way to justify how this was handled though? To say, "Well, this public witch hunt was justified because we found a witch!" What if we hadn't? Is it seriously so hard to believe that despite the truth of the matter the community responded to this in an incredibly juvenile, emotional, and disgusting way?
Reasonable posts get ignored. People just want to argue.
|
On June 06 2012 14:40 Kentredenite wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 14:34 Sideburn wrote:
A lot of people are just asserting that Spades is 100% guilty at this point. Fine.
Isn't that a really weak way to justify how this was handled though? To say, "Well, this public witch hunt was justified because we found a witch!" What if we hadn't? Is it seriously so hard to believe that despite the truth of the matter the community responded to this in an incredibly juvenile, emotional, and disgusting way? The question is: Would there actually have been a "witch hunt" if he wasn't guilty? Maybe the reason it seems like a witch hunt is because the evidence is so damning.
This is what I say too. The witch hunt is the result of there actually being something to it. If it was all conjecture and not much substance to what the OP and countless pros have stated in analysis, it would be written off as trolling and closed. And Spades would definitely have not reacted the way he did.
But because there were a ton of valid points, the discussion continued, and people reasoned different other points which has led us to where we are. There have been many witch hunts in this community that I believe were simply destructive and the end result was not worth all the hubbub but I don't believe this to be one of them.
|
On June 06 2012 14:39 starcraft911 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 14:24 jacksonlee wrote:On June 06 2012 14:07 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 13:44 shabinka wrote:
What's going to happen when it shown that Spades is not a hacker? What will CatZ, Illu, etc do when their 2 hour analysis is proven to be useless? It's not possible to prove Spades wasn't hacking unless he's sitting on some FPVODS of the games in question. As someone who fully understands the limitations of the SC2 engine and readily available hacks I've got all the evidence I need to be certain he hacks. Nobody plays 100 games in a row where they look into the fog 100% of the time 100/100 and then put up 7 games in a row where you don't do it once. I'm actually amazed people are dumb enough to buy into the idea that there is no evidence. This is pretty clear evidence. It's far more convincing than the evidence used to 'prove' his guilt in BW. If you bothered to actually review the replays, you'd know that he looks into FOW quite a few times I reviewed 100% of the replays posted in the 2 zip files provided by Spades as well as all of the replays in the OP. I don't know the exact number, I remember there were 52 replays in the first zip so I'm guessing around 115 or so in total. Every replay provided by Spades showed him look at the fog of war without having issued a command to that area. This includes a very short 6 or so minute game that ended before the first engagement. My process for reviewing each replay was to put it at 8x on Spades view until i saw fog then I'd rewind to normal. If he looked at the fog of war without moving a unit to that area I put a check box in my spreadsheet next to the replay name. When i was done with the zip file every check box was full. The only times you see FOW in the showmatch is when a command is issued. I did bother to actually review the replays. I think maybe you should take your own advice and look for yourself. herp derp.
You said he doesn't look into FOW once in 7 games. Which is simply false. If I even have one example where he does, you are just one of those people fudging the numbers in favor of your argument.
Between 11:21 to 11:23 in the entombed valley replay against lucifron.
or 1:16:35 here: http://www.twitch.tv/rootcatz/b/320407912
I've posted this before.
|
On June 06 2012 14:31 jacksonlee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 14:30 StarStrider wrote:On June 06 2012 14:24 jacksonlee wrote:On June 06 2012 14:07 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 13:44 shabinka wrote:
What's going to happen when it shown that Spades is not a hacker? What will CatZ, Illu, etc do when their 2 hour analysis is proven to be useless? It's not possible to prove Spades wasn't hacking unless he's sitting on some FPVODS of the games in question. As someone who fully understands the limitations of the SC2 engine and readily available hacks I've got all the evidence I need to be certain he hacks. Nobody plays 100 games in a row where they look into the fog 100% of the time 100/100 and then put up 7 games in a row where you don't do it once. I'm actually amazed people are dumb enough to buy into the idea that there is no evidence. This is pretty clear evidence. It's far more convincing than the evidence used to 'prove' his guilt in BW. If you bothered to actually review the replays, you'd know that he looks into FOW quite a few times Please cite timestamps of particular replays where I can find him doing this. By the way I went back and watched him plant the CC on that Entombed game we were talking about. Your assertion was that he looks at FOW before placing the CC. Yes, that's true, but the camera didn't snap there until the command was issued, which aligns perfectly with the theory that the vision only centers on you looking at FOW if you right click there where you are looking, perform an action there (build), or suddenly gain vision there (scans). you don't right click to put down a CC... and there is another instance where he looks to the right side of the map
He clearly right clicks multiple times to send an SCV to the third before he issues the build CC command, hence why he is looking into the FOW
|
On June 06 2012 14:34 Sideburn wrote:
A lot of people are just asserting that Spades is 100% guilty at this point. Fine.
Isn't that a really weak way to justify how this was handled though? To say, "Well, this public witch hunt was justified because we found a witch!" What if we hadn't? Is it seriously so hard to believe that despite the truth of the matter the community responded to this in an incredibly juvenile, emotional, and disgusting way?
This has happened in the past with people accusing other of maphack. They just don't blow up to 200+ pages because it's squashed fairly quickly.
Less than a week ago there was a pretty big thread on reddit about people suspecting Nerchio of hacking and yet low and behold Nerchio is just fine because there wasn't any evidence to substantiate one persons claims. No proof of innocence or guilt was needed to squash it. Once people realized that the guys claims had no substance it went away as would the case with Spades had there been no evidence. Unfortunately there is a lot of evidence and when looked out objectively it's impossible for many (myself included) to write off as coincidence or "bad play".
Spades hasn't been on my radar since BW and I was surprised that he was able to get #1 GM. I treated this evidence just like I'd treat anyone suspected of hacking. I looked at the evidence and base my conclusion solely off of that. There's nothing emotional or juvenile about looking at the facts and making conclusion based on the evidence.
On June 06 2012 14:41 mrtomjones wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 14:34 Sideburn wrote:
A lot of people are just asserting that Spades is 100% guilty at this point. Fine.
Isn't that a really weak way to justify how this was handled though? To say, "Well, this public witch hunt was justified because we found a witch!" What if we hadn't? Is it seriously so hard to believe that despite the truth of the matter the community responded to this in an incredibly juvenile, emotional, and disgusting way? Reasonable posts get ignored. People just want to argue.
It wasn't ignored. No need to play the victim.
|
On June 06 2012 14:45 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 14:40 Kentredenite wrote:On June 06 2012 14:34 Sideburn wrote:
A lot of people are just asserting that Spades is 100% guilty at this point. Fine.
Isn't that a really weak way to justify how this was handled though? To say, "Well, this public witch hunt was justified because we found a witch!" What if we hadn't? Is it seriously so hard to believe that despite the truth of the matter the community responded to this in an incredibly juvenile, emotional, and disgusting way? The question is: Would there actually have been a "witch hunt" if he wasn't guilty? Maybe the reason it seems like a witch hunt is because the evidence is so damning. This is what I say too. The witch hunt is the result of there actually being something to it. If it was all conjecture and not much substance to what the OP and countless pros have stated in analysis, it would be written off as trolling and closed. And Spades would definitely have not reacted the way he did. But because there were a ton of valid points, the discussion continued, and people reasoned different other points which has led us to where we are. There have been many witch hunts in this community that I believe were simply destructive and the end result was not worth all the hubbub but I don't believe this to be one of them.
Actually pros like Nericho said that most of what the OP said is BS. People witch hunt every single controversy. If a player does something they call the sponsors instead of the team etc. The community has too much power and not enough responsibility to use it. If he is guilty then this was still wrong. You dont have real trials where anyone can show up and argue and judge.
|
On June 06 2012 14:48 jacksonlee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 14:39 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 14:24 jacksonlee wrote:On June 06 2012 14:07 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 13:44 shabinka wrote:
What's going to happen when it shown that Spades is not a hacker? What will CatZ, Illu, etc do when their 2 hour analysis is proven to be useless? It's not possible to prove Spades wasn't hacking unless he's sitting on some FPVODS of the games in question. As someone who fully understands the limitations of the SC2 engine and readily available hacks I've got all the evidence I need to be certain he hacks. Nobody plays 100 games in a row where they look into the fog 100% of the time 100/100 and then put up 7 games in a row where you don't do it once. I'm actually amazed people are dumb enough to buy into the idea that there is no evidence. This is pretty clear evidence. It's far more convincing than the evidence used to 'prove' his guilt in BW. If you bothered to actually review the replays, you'd know that he looks into FOW quite a few times I reviewed 100% of the replays posted in the 2 zip files provided by Spades as well as all of the replays in the OP. I don't know the exact number, I remember there were 52 replays in the first zip so I'm guessing around 115 or so in total. Every replay provided by Spades showed him look at the fog of war without having issued a command to that area. This includes a very short 6 or so minute game that ended before the first engagement. My process for reviewing each replay was to put it at 8x on Spades view until i saw fog then I'd rewind to normal. If he looked at the fog of war without moving a unit to that area I put a check box in my spreadsheet next to the replay name. When i was done with the zip file every check box was full. The only times you see FOW in the showmatch is when a command is issued. I did bother to actually review the replays. I think maybe you should take your own advice and look for yourself. herp derp. You said he doesn't look into FOW once in 7 games. Which is simply false. If I even have one example where he does, you are just one of those people fudging the numbers in favor of your argument. Between 11:21 to 11:23 in the entombed valley replay against lucifron. or 1:16:35 here: http://www.twitch.tv/rootcatz/b/320407912I've posted this before.
When you issue a command to an area it shows the FOW. You don't know what you're talking about.
|
On June 06 2012 14:48 jacksonlee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 14:39 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 14:24 jacksonlee wrote:On June 06 2012 14:07 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 13:44 shabinka wrote:
What's going to happen when it shown that Spades is not a hacker? What will CatZ, Illu, etc do when their 2 hour analysis is proven to be useless? It's not possible to prove Spades wasn't hacking unless he's sitting on some FPVODS of the games in question. As someone who fully understands the limitations of the SC2 engine and readily available hacks I've got all the evidence I need to be certain he hacks. Nobody plays 100 games in a row where they look into the fog 100% of the time 100/100 and then put up 7 games in a row where you don't do it once. I'm actually amazed people are dumb enough to buy into the idea that there is no evidence. This is pretty clear evidence. It's far more convincing than the evidence used to 'prove' his guilt in BW. If you bothered to actually review the replays, you'd know that he looks into FOW quite a few times I reviewed 100% of the replays posted in the 2 zip files provided by Spades as well as all of the replays in the OP. I don't know the exact number, I remember there were 52 replays in the first zip so I'm guessing around 115 or so in total. Every replay provided by Spades showed him look at the fog of war without having issued a command to that area. This includes a very short 6 or so minute game that ended before the first engagement. My process for reviewing each replay was to put it at 8x on Spades view until i saw fog then I'd rewind to normal. If he looked at the fog of war without moving a unit to that area I put a check box in my spreadsheet next to the replay name. When i was done with the zip file every check box was full. The only times you see FOW in the showmatch is when a command is issued. I did bother to actually review the replays. I think maybe you should take your own advice and look for yourself. herp derp. You said he doesn't look into FOW once in 7 games. Which is simply false. If I even have one example where he does, you are just one of those people fudging the numbers in favor of your argument. Between 11:21 to 11:23 in the entombed valley replay against lucifron. or 1:16:35 here: http://www.twitch.tv/rootcatz/b/320407912I've posted this before.
Someone posted the features of the maphack and it explicitly said that it would turn off the camera lock if a command was issued inside the FoW so that no commands are issued outside of camera view. It's a smart thing to include considering putting down a CC would automatically tip people off to hacking since the only way to put down a cc is by looking in the FoW.
|
On June 06 2012 14:52 mrtomjones wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 14:45 StarStrider wrote:On June 06 2012 14:40 Kentredenite wrote:On June 06 2012 14:34 Sideburn wrote:
A lot of people are just asserting that Spades is 100% guilty at this point. Fine.
Isn't that a really weak way to justify how this was handled though? To say, "Well, this public witch hunt was justified because we found a witch!" What if we hadn't? Is it seriously so hard to believe that despite the truth of the matter the community responded to this in an incredibly juvenile, emotional, and disgusting way? The question is: Would there actually have been a "witch hunt" if he wasn't guilty? Maybe the reason it seems like a witch hunt is because the evidence is so damning. This is what I say too. The witch hunt is the result of there actually being something to it. If it was all conjecture and not much substance to what the OP and countless pros have stated in analysis, it would be written off as trolling and closed. And Spades would definitely have not reacted the way he did. But because there were a ton of valid points, the discussion continued, and people reasoned different other points which has led us to where we are. There have been many witch hunts in this community that I believe were simply destructive and the end result was not worth all the hubbub but I don't believe this to be one of them. Actually pros like Nericho said that most of what the OP said is BS. People witch hunt every single controversy. If a player does something they call the sponsors instead of the team etc. The community has too much power and not enough responsibility to use it. If he is guilty then this was still wrong. You dont have real trials where anyone can show up and argue and judge.
Of course. You don't have real trials where no judicial system exists.
Therefore the community handles this the only way it can. Release the information. Everyone takes a look. Everyone makes up their own mind.
And as I've said to others who try to use the analogy of the "run to the sponsors" debacle to try to demonize the way this was handled... They are two different issues and were handled in very different ways. I can't think of a more appropriate way for the issue of "is someone a hacker or not" to be handled than giving people with extensive game knowledge (a good portion of TL regulars) and letting them decide for themselves. Good blessings on the Mods here today for letting the discussion happen.
|
On June 06 2012 14:48 jacksonlee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 14:39 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 14:24 jacksonlee wrote:On June 06 2012 14:07 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 13:44 shabinka wrote:
What's going to happen when it shown that Spades is not a hacker? What will CatZ, Illu, etc do when their 2 hour analysis is proven to be useless? It's not possible to prove Spades wasn't hacking unless he's sitting on some FPVODS of the games in question. As someone who fully understands the limitations of the SC2 engine and readily available hacks I've got all the evidence I need to be certain he hacks. Nobody plays 100 games in a row where they look into the fog 100% of the time 100/100 and then put up 7 games in a row where you don't do it once. I'm actually amazed people are dumb enough to buy into the idea that there is no evidence. This is pretty clear evidence. It's far more convincing than the evidence used to 'prove' his guilt in BW. If you bothered to actually review the replays, you'd know that he looks into FOW quite a few times I reviewed 100% of the replays posted in the 2 zip files provided by Spades as well as all of the replays in the OP. I don't know the exact number, I remember there were 52 replays in the first zip so I'm guessing around 115 or so in total. Every replay provided by Spades showed him look at the fog of war without having issued a command to that area. This includes a very short 6 or so minute game that ended before the first engagement. My process for reviewing each replay was to put it at 8x on Spades view until i saw fog then I'd rewind to normal. If he looked at the fog of war without moving a unit to that area I put a check box in my spreadsheet next to the replay name. When i was done with the zip file every check box was full. The only times you see FOW in the showmatch is when a command is issued. I did bother to actually review the replays. I think maybe you should take your own advice and look for yourself. herp derp. You said he doesn't look into FOW once in 7 games. Which is simply false. If I even have one example where he does, you are just one of those people fudging the numbers in favor of your argument. Between 11:21 to 11:23 in the entombed valley replay against lucifron. or 1:16:35 here: http://www.twitch.tv/rootcatz/b/320407912I've posted this before.
holy shit dude are you serious? He right clicks! When you right click, it disables the screen lock!
|
On June 06 2012 14:36 StarStrider wrote:
Those players exhibit the same godly sense game after game, whether in a showmatch, tourney, or random ladder games. Spades does not. It is inconsistent that his random lucky moves in multiple games in a row in a series don't happen regularly on ladder.
This, in combination with all the inconsistencies (in ladder pack vs these matches) of his scouting habits, scan habits, and mechanics of minimap vs screen scroll and FOW viewing make it very hard to write it off as "his starcraft senses were tingling"
First of all, we have established that Spades has been a professional RTS gamer for years, right. Such a gamer should have at least a reasonable knowledge of timings and such and be able to rely on it within games. Secondly, we should assume that a professional gamer is rational and his opponent would have to acknowledge that rationality. If this is true we could assume that he would do something different after a cloak banshee opening fails. Bunker range could be explained away as a result of repetition. In game 4, moving the units around could be a result of scouting his base after seeing a medivac. The hellions prepared for the drop in game 5 could just be a lucky guess or he expected to be dropped. About the tower, Are you telling me that you've never missed a unit on the mini-map and then found it a while later and decided to do something with it? I'm not going to continue to respond to the accusations made by OP because it's already obvious that both him and you have decided that Spades is a maphacker and are searching for clues. I don't know if you knew this, but Spades was once the leader of Team ReIGN, you know that team that had those two canadians who continued to do well even though they never trained in Korea, KiWiKaKi and Slush. You don't get chosen as team captain over those two by collecting bottlecaps.
|
i surely hope he destroys asome asses at mlg anaheim.
that would be awesome, i hope he trains his heart out atm to make all those haters stfu.
|
On June 06 2012 14:59 jmbthirteen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 14:48 jacksonlee wrote:On June 06 2012 14:39 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 14:24 jacksonlee wrote:On June 06 2012 14:07 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 13:44 shabinka wrote:
What's going to happen when it shown that Spades is not a hacker? What will CatZ, Illu, etc do when their 2 hour analysis is proven to be useless? It's not possible to prove Spades wasn't hacking unless he's sitting on some FPVODS of the games in question. As someone who fully understands the limitations of the SC2 engine and readily available hacks I've got all the evidence I need to be certain he hacks. Nobody plays 100 games in a row where they look into the fog 100% of the time 100/100 and then put up 7 games in a row where you don't do it once. I'm actually amazed people are dumb enough to buy into the idea that there is no evidence. This is pretty clear evidence. It's far more convincing than the evidence used to 'prove' his guilt in BW. If you bothered to actually review the replays, you'd know that he looks into FOW quite a few times I reviewed 100% of the replays posted in the 2 zip files provided by Spades as well as all of the replays in the OP. I don't know the exact number, I remember there were 52 replays in the first zip so I'm guessing around 115 or so in total. Every replay provided by Spades showed him look at the fog of war without having issued a command to that area. This includes a very short 6 or so minute game that ended before the first engagement. My process for reviewing each replay was to put it at 8x on Spades view until i saw fog then I'd rewind to normal. If he looked at the fog of war without moving a unit to that area I put a check box in my spreadsheet next to the replay name. When i was done with the zip file every check box was full. The only times you see FOW in the showmatch is when a command is issued. I did bother to actually review the replays. I think maybe you should take your own advice and look for yourself. herp derp. You said he doesn't look into FOW once in 7 games. Which is simply false. If I even have one example where he does, you are just one of those people fudging the numbers in favor of your argument. Between 11:21 to 11:23 in the entombed valley replay against lucifron. or 1:16:35 here: http://www.twitch.tv/rootcatz/b/320407912I've posted this before. holy shit dude are you serious? He right clicks! When you right click, it disables the screen lock!
^^ this. I thought I must have missed something viewing the replay earlier when he insisted. He right clicked to send a marine over, in an earlier instance of the same game, he right clicked to set a rally as well. Find one example in the 7 showmatches where he left clicks into fog without an action like he does much more often in his normal ladder games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
