|
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 16:28 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 16:11 StarStrider wrote:On June 06 2012 15:57 canikizu wrote:On June 06 2012 15:42 dvorakftw wrote:On June 06 2012 13:55 StarStrider wrote:
You make some very very good points. But the key thing I don't understand is why he suddenly resieged in the position he did in Exhibit C above the red star . He wasn't in range of the ramp by resieging there. He wasn't in range of anything. He was still in "natural sieging position", just a little bit forward. The small .5 inch movement didn't help him gain position at all: The 'eventual siege location' in Exhibit D is where he wanted to get. Exhibit F. A minute earlier when theognis' second CC is destroyed. + Show Spoiler +Notice the marines are just at the edge of the back tank's cover. theognis could attack those marines without being hit by the tanks. If someone had their entire army and every SCV ready at the ramp it is possible the marines could be killed allowing the tanks to then be destroyed my units moving inside siege range. This is not to say theognis could have done it in this exact case (though maybe) but potentially in a game situation such as this. So the marines retreat to the tanks ASAP. Now the comparison, Exhibit G. + Show Spoiler +Note at 9:50 Spades does not have a good look at the ridge and that Tank 2's position is just a little bit back and above the spot where he leaves Tank 3 sieged at 10:10 while leaping the other two forward. Here's what could happen if he leaves Tank 2 siege and moves other tanks around. Exhibit H Picture of me vs myself in a custom game with some help from MSPaint: + Show Spoiler +The tanks move in range of the ledge where we must remember he lost a tank just a few minutes earlier. Look again at 10:10 in Exhibit G. With Tank 3 now in a position a bit forward and lower than where Tank 2 was, a good view of the ledge accomplished by the 'suspicious' pan down, and the viking in place, he can unsiege the two other tanks and move them to the ramp. This WAS NOT POSSIBLE with the original tank positions. If Tank 1 and Tank 3 could be unsieged and easily moved between the rocks and Tank 2, then the half inch creep is very suspicious. Since Tank 2 isn't in ideal position already, the act of unsieging and repositioning a few hexes over actually isn't that odd. With Tank 3 replacing and improving Tank 2's original position he can then do the proper leap toward the ramp which was the original goal. Yep. I don't know if he hacked or not, but I'm not surprised if he didn't hack at this moment. People keep saying that he hacked, because what's the chance that the tank can siege up right when the marines walk in.However, people don't actually think that what is the chance that Lucifon DOESN'T have marines up that cliff, or what is the chance that Lucifon DOESN'T have marines waiting up that ramp. If you think about it that way, you'll see that there're very slim chance that Lucifon doesn't have units up that clip AND doesn't have units ready to run down the ramp. Sieging there seems to be a good, normal decision to me. It's basic and simple knowledge of positioning. So is siege tank positioning. We always see GSL players put the siege tanks in that one place over and over again. Throughout practicing, players gradually optimize about their positioning, especially tank positioning. Yes, he sieged right when the units move in, but we can't exclude the fact that his siege positioning at that time was the most optimized one at that moment (can shoot up cliff, can shoot ramp, far enough to not get hit by bio) So as I said, I don't know if he hacked or not, but I'm not surprised if he didn't hack at this moment. I am a mere mid masters Terran but I know that the range at which he suddenly sieged was out of range of the ramp (he could hit the bottom of the ramp just barely with the closest tank. And if he couldn't hit the ramp from there, the only reason to have sieged there is to hit units on the cliff edge. Which he could do from the position he was in previously. He was also far enough back not to get hit by bio previously but yet he felt the need to reposition. I submit that the reason he was repositioning was that he was trying to get to the optimal base siege position below the ramp, when he noticed a prime opportunity to shell the cliff again when he swiped his screen down into the FOW nearly at the heart of the base not just the cliff edge, and saw the army approaching up the cliff outcropping. He even looked almost entirely into the fog before he hit siege, as soon as he starts sieging the army magically comes into view.
Right, and if he had just looked at the cliff edge to judge safe away-from-cliff positioning it would be one thing, but he actually moves the camera into the heart off the base - that is irrelevant to his positioning. That area happens to be the fog directly above the army of Theo.
|
Maybe its time for a Vote (sorry if it already exist and i missed it.)
Poll: Is Spades Cheating in the Showmatch vs Lucifron?Yes! (158) 65% I dont know but probably. (50) 21% I dont know. (16) 7% No! (14) 6% I dont know but i dont think so. (4) 2% 242 total votes Your vote: Is Spades Cheating in the Showmatch vs Lucifron? (Vote): Yes!
(Vote): No!
(Vote): I dont know but probably.
(Vote): I dont know.
(Vote): I dont know but i dont think so.
|
Hackers will just find another way to go 'under the radar' now that they know the community is really intolerant to these sort of things...
ie pros will start to play with "IIIIII" nametags and cheat... no way to punish them then eh?
|
im not that interested in this whole cheating drama situation, but i just would like to point out one thing if i may. I havent watched any of the replays but from what i gather many people find his games against theo and luci fishy. these games where 1. part of a online qualifier 2. part of a showmatch.
now a lot of people are saying some of the most conclusive part of spades cheating is the difference between his 100 ladder games he provided and said games against theo and luci. Now you enter in Gix post about how him getting to rank 1 grandmaster is fishy. When you add both of these things together they don't actually make sense. If his ladder games seem legit as apposed to the others to you guys condemning him, then Gix post holds no merit that he supposedly cheated his way to rank 1 gm. because he didnt cheat on his last 100 ladder games he provided.
this is the way i see this particular bit of information, i could be wrong. like i said i havent followed it too closely.
|
On June 06 2012 16:36 phoenixfeather95 wrote:
Hackers will just find another way to go 'under the radar' now that they know the community is really intolerant to these sort of things...
ie pros will start to play with "IIIIII" nametags and cheat... no way to punish them then eh?
That doesn't work in showmatches like the one this thread is about...
|
On June 06 2012 16:36 phoenixfeather95 wrote:
Hackers will just find another way to go 'under the radar' now that they know the community is really intolerant to these sort of things...
ie pros will start to play with "IIIIII" nametags and cheat... no way to punish them then eh?
What would they accomplish with that exactly?
|
On June 06 2012 16:36 phoenixfeather95 wrote:
Hackers will just find another way to go 'under the radar' now that they know the community is really intolerant to these sort of things...
ie pros will start to play with "IIIIII" nametags and cheat... no way to punish them then eh?
Maybe, but the IIIIlI names aren't allowed in tournament use. Hacking on the ladder and hacking in online tournaments with money on the line are two different things.
|
On June 06 2012 16:37 beatitudes wrote:
im not that interested in this whole cheating drama situation, but i just would like to point out one thing if i may. I havent watched any of the replays but from what i gather many people find his games against theo and luci fishy. these games where 1. part of a online qualifier 2. part of a showmatch.
now a lot of people are saying some of the most conclusive part of spades cheating is the difference between his 100 ladder games he provided and said games against theo and luci. Now you enter in Gix post about how him getting to rank 1 grandmaster is fishy. When you add both of these things together they don't actually make sense. If his ladder games seem legit as apposed to the others to you guys condemning him, then Gix post holds no merit that he supposedly cheated his way to rank 1 gm. because he didnt cheat on his last 100 ladder games he provided.
this is the way i see this particular bit of information, i could be wrong. like i said i havent followed it too closely.
From what I understand he isn't rank 1 GM anymore. What would be illuminating would be his ladder games that got him to the #1 spot.
|
On June 06 2012 16:29 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 16:20 Silent12ill wrote:
Just out of curiousity why not Spade drop a full replay pack? Wouldn't that either A give more proof he hacks or B help us terrans out. =] He shared about 100 replays of ladder games that seem clean. Which actually hurt his case since there are multiple distinct differences in mechanics between those and the specific 10+ in question and people were able to compare the two side by side.
Okay look. Assuming that the replay packs and sample are not biased.
Let me give you a rundown using statistics, not opinion, statistics.
A larger sample, will lead to less variation reducing alpha level, and beta, which in turn increases the power of a test. Assuming that the test determines whether or not Spades has hacked. In a smaller sample, there is in turn greater variance. Leading to a greater chance that you could reject the null: Spades has not hacked, and assume the alternative hypothesis.
Honestly, posts like these, IMHO, should have been closed, locked, deleted in any manner by the mods immediately after being posted. It was obviously a hot topic. It obviously had potential to ruin a career, any run of the mill idiot can tell you that. Sure leaving it open fosters debate. But its not true debate, because it is unhealthy and sick. A bunch of keyboard warriors hiding in the basement of their mothers house with thousands of miles separating them from the person they are supposedly confronting.
This has been truly detrimental to his career, and considering that I can speak objectively considering I quit SC2 several months ago (5 to be exact) and have no experience with who this Spades is, am disappointed but not surprised at the actions and reactions of this community of sick people.
A view of a professional is no better than another because in the end, if you presume someone is guilty. Everything else will FULFILL that assumption. Everything you see, that you supposedly are analyzing. The "concrete evidence" is all assumptions based upon ASSUMPTIONS.
Sigh.
Ridiculous. It's times like these I realize why I shun the Starcraft community. Because almost always people just don't realize the repercussions of their actions. It's sick. Utterly sick.
|
On June 06 2012 16:39 Gatored wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 16:36 phoenixfeather95 wrote:
Hackers will just find another way to go 'under the radar' now that they know the community is really intolerant to these sort of things...
ie pros will start to play with "IIIIII" nametags and cheat... no way to punish them then eh? Maybe, but the IIIIlI names aren't allowed in tournament use. Hacking on the ladder and hacking in online tournaments with money on the line are two different things.
Hmmm,
good point
:D
|
On June 06 2012 16:37 beatitudes wrote:
im not that interested in this whole cheating drama situation, but i just would like to point out one thing if i may. I havent watched any of the replays but from what i gather many people find his games against theo and luci fishy. these games where 1. part of a online qualifier 2. part of a showmatch.
now a lot of people are saying some of the most conclusive part of spades cheating is the difference between his 100 ladder games he provided and said games against theo and luci. Now you enter in Gix post about how him getting to rank 1 grandmaster is fishy. When you add both of these things together they don't actually make sense. If his ladder games seem legit as apposed to the others to you guys condemning him, then Gix post holds no merit that he supposedly cheated his way to rank 1 gm. because he didnt cheat on his last 100 ladder games he provided.
this is the way i see this particular bit of information, i could be wrong. like i said i havent followed it too closely.
I think the 'clean' replay pack games were played very recently, a good while since he made the climb to rank 1 GM.
|
On June 06 2012 16:04 navy wrote:I think the evidence at around 1:12:00 in this video http://www.twitch.tv/rootcatz/b/320407912 (Catz's video) is extremely conclusive, more conclusive than any other evidence. The scv scouts out the base, and yet spades never moves the camera to the base to see exactly what the buildings are (all he can know is the placement, number and presence of a tech lab OR reactor from seeing the minimap. This is the most conclusive piece of evidence, I advise all to check it out.
And as I did last night I can show you Koreans going 5 or 10 minutes with even less scouting. Of course they are allowed to be greedy and confident and feel safe but Spades isn't allowed to have a prepared build for a known opponent on a certain map where his only concern is opponent's location and not seeing anything unexpected.
When I am zerg in 4v4s I often do a speedling timing build and the only thing I care about is knowing where an enemy zerg is. Minimap scouting is all I need.
What you think is the more conclusive than any other evidence still has reasonable doubt. A few extra seconds and it's possible the ramp gets closed off and he loses the SCV and all the future mining it could do. If you already have a build you want to do and already suspect what build the opponent is doing based on the map and his history, do you stick around longer to see the third building for extra extra confirmation or do you save the scout?
|
On June 06 2012 16:40 kineSiS- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 16:29 StarStrider wrote:On June 06 2012 16:20 Silent12ill wrote:
Just out of curiousity why not Spade drop a full replay pack? Wouldn't that either A give more proof he hacks or B help us terrans out. =] He shared about 100 replays of ladder games that seem clean. Which actually hurt his case since there are multiple distinct differences in mechanics between those and the specific 10+ in question and people were able to compare the two side by side. Okay look. Assuming that the replay packs and sample are not biased. Let me give you a rundown using statistics, not opinion, statistics. A larger sample, will lead to less variation reducing alpha level, and beta, which in turn increases the power of a test. Assuming that the test determines whether or not Spades has hacked. In a smaller sample, there is in turn greater variance. Leading to a greater chance that you could reject the null: Spades has not hacked, and assume the alternative hypothesis. Honestly, posts like these, IMHO, should have been closed, locked, deleted in any manner by the mods immediately after being posted. It was obviously a hot topic. It obviously had potential to ruin a career, any run of the mill idiot can tell you that. Sure leaving it open fosters debate. But its not true debate, because it is unhealthy and sick. A bunch of keyboard warriors hiding in the basement of their mothers house with thousands of miles separating them from the person they are supposedly confronting. This has been truly detrimental to his career, and considering that I can speak objectively considering I quit SC2 several months ago (5 to be exact) and have no experience with who this Spades is, am disappointed but not surprised at the actions and reactions of this community of sick people. A view of a professional is no better than another because in the end, if you presume someone is guilty. Everything else will FULFILL that assumption. Everything you see, that you supposedly are analyzing. The "concrete evidence" is all assumptions based upon ASSUMPTIONS. Sigh.
OK hotshot. I'm no stats expert but let's say we take 7 random ladder games and the 7 games of the showmatch, and for argument's sake, let's take the average no. of times he clicks into the fog in the ladder games vs. the showmatch games. From earlier analysis of other posters, the number is tens to hundreds of times per game versus ZERO (or close to it) per game in the showmatch. Would a t-test be enough to show that these two means are statistically different? Please enlighten us.
(And no, the alternate hypothesis is that he hacked, which is IMPOSSIBLE to prove, but that there is a significant difference in his camera behaviour in the ladder games and in the showmatch which is CONSISTENT with the use of a camera lock hack).
|
Spades said he doesn't hack, so he's innocent. No?
Plus he would have won if he really hacked.
|
On June 06 2012 16:40 kineSiS- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 16:29 StarStrider wrote:On June 06 2012 16:20 Silent12ill wrote:
Just out of curiousity why not Spade drop a full replay pack? Wouldn't that either A give more proof he hacks or B help us terrans out. =] He shared about 100 replays of ladder games that seem clean. Which actually hurt his case since there are multiple distinct differences in mechanics between those and the specific 10+ in question and people were able to compare the two side by side. Okay look. Assuming that the replay packs and sample are not biased. Let me give you a rundown using statistics, not opinion, statistics. A larger sample, will lead to less variation reducing alpha level, and beta, which in turn increases the power of a test. Assuming that the test determines whether or not Spades has hacked. In a smaller sample, there is in turn greater variance. Leading to a greater chance that you could reject the null: Spades has not hacked, and assume the alternative hypothesis. Honestly, posts like these, IMHO, should have been closed, locked, deleted in any manner by the mods immediately after being posted. It was obviously a hot topic. It obviously had potential to ruin a career, any run of the mill idiot can tell you that. Sure leaving it open fosters debate. But its not true debate, because it is unhealthy and sick. A bunch of keyboard warriors hiding in the basement of their mothers house with thousands of miles separating them from the person they are supposedly confronting. This has been truly detrimental to his career, and considering that I can speak objectively considering I quit SC2 several months ago (5 to be exact) and have no experience with who this Spades is, am disappointed but not surprised at the actions and reactions of this community of sick people. A view of a professional is no better than another because in the end, if you presume someone is guilty. Everything else will FULFILL that assumption. Everything you see, that you supposedly are analyzing. The "concrete evidence" is all assumptions based upon ASSUMPTIONS. Sigh. Ridiculous. It's times like these I realize why I shun the Starcraft community. Because almost always people just don't realize the repercussions of their actions. It's sick. Utterly sick.
If all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail...
If all you have is statistics 101 everything looks like a statistical analysis...
This is not about statistics, if he cheated in 5 out of even a million games he still cheated. The evidence hints toward that and personally i can't think of any alternative explanation for some of the actions. His behaviour following this accusations doesn't exactly help either.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36919 Posts
On June 06 2012 15:47 slam wrote:
lol, seeker
I accidentally clicked on the wrong option in the poll. I love u but one of the numbers is wrong.
mistrial.
<3
(Seeker for mod already)
lol. It's cool man.
Thx for voting + your support ^^
|
The one thing that actually convinces me he is hacking is the big difference between camera movement etc. in his practise games and in the tourney/showmatch games. I personally could not imagine how it is possible to change this within such a short time. Unless there is something fishy involved :D
|
On June 06 2012 16:31 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 16:28 arb wrote:
He even looked almost entirely into the fog before he hit siege, as soon as he starts sieging the army magically comes into view. Right, and if he had just looked at the cliff edge to judge safe away-from-cliff positioning it would be one thing, but he actually moves the camera into the heart off the base - that is irrelevant to his positioning. That area happens to be the fog directly above the army of Theo.
He moves the camera to where his marine move command is at the very top of the screen, then he adjusts just a little higher to move his tanks.
If he looks down because he has a hack that shows red units moving up, why unsiege at all? Why move his marines a half inch forward before panning down to look?
|
On June 06 2012 16:53 DarKFoRcE wrote:
The one thing that actually convinces me he is hacking is the big difference between camera movement etc. in his practise games and in the tourney/showmatch games. I personally could not imagine how it is possible to change this within such a short time. If you are not hacking that is :D
exactly this
|
On June 06 2012 16:40 kineSiS- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 16:29 StarStrider wrote:On June 06 2012 16:20 Silent12ill wrote:
Just out of curiousity why not Spade drop a full replay pack? Wouldn't that either A give more proof he hacks or B help us terrans out. =] He shared about 100 replays of ladder games that seem clean. Which actually hurt his case since there are multiple distinct differences in mechanics between those and the specific 10+ in question and people were able to compare the two side by side. Okay look. Assuming that the replay packs and sample are not biased. Let me give you a rundown using statistics, not opinion, statistics. A larger sample, will lead to less variation reducing alpha level, and beta, which in turn increases the power of a test. Assuming that the test determines whether or not Spades has hacked. In a smaller sample, there is in turn greater variance. Leading to a greater chance that you could reject the null: Spades has not hacked, and assume the alternative hypothesis. Honestly, posts like these, IMHO, should have been closed, locked, deleted in any manner by the mods immediately after being posted. It was obviously a hot topic. It obviously had potential to ruin a career, any run of the mill idiot can tell you that. Sure leaving it open fosters debate. But its not true debate, because it is unhealthy and sick. A bunch of keyboard warriors hiding in the basement of their mothers house with thousands of miles separating them from the person they are supposedly confronting. This has been truly detrimental to his career, and considering that I can speak objectively considering I quit SC2 several months ago (5 to be exact) and have no experience with who this Spades is, am disappointed but not surprised at the actions and reactions of this community of sick people. A view of a professional is no better than another because in the end, if you presume someone is guilty. Everything else will FULFILL that assumption. Everything you see, that you supposedly are analyzing. The "concrete evidence" is all assumptions based upon ASSUMPTIONS. Sigh. Ridiculous. It's times like these I realize why I shun the Starcraft community. Because almost always people just don't realize the repercussions of their actions. It's sick. Utterly sick.
There is no concrete evidence. There is just a bunch of circumstantial evidence. When you look at the sum total of all this circumstantial evidence, it paints a pretty clear picture: the games weren't kosher. Then you compare it to games that when analyzed do appear kosher. These games were played by the same person, so analyzing them side by side readily reveals some pretty obvious differences in mechanics.
While I'm sure there are a few incidents in these games that are digested wrongly based on assumptions, the majority of them cannot be explained away so simply like that. I know you didn't review all the games because if you had you wouldn't say this. Even people who are still giving him the benefit of the doubt recognize this fact.
You speak about statistics as if you are the only person in the room intelligent enough to get how variance relates to sample size.
Then you call people sick for expressing their viewpoints, make them appear small minded by thinking that they don't recognize the repurcussions their actions have on said person's career, and shitting on the community that you are now involving yourself in by posting. You do a really good job of making yourself appear better than them. Do you feel better now? Do you feel superior?
Get the fuck out if you can't handle it. Go back to your self-superior Starcraft community free life. You shun the Starcraft community because of stuff like this? Then why the hell would you come back and get involved in it? You're a contradiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/815/tankcreep5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/815/tankcreep5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/5752/tankcreep6.jpg)
