|
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 17:52 Wyk wrote:
Ok so you guys are saying he hacked, but didnt win 3-0 even though he could see EVERYTHING and "blind countered" his opponent?
Theres something fishy alright... about what you are talking about, not about his playstyle. Pfff dont worry guys, lets do something childish like say "np spades, prove skill at MLG".
Also, who in their right mind would listen to Catz? Did you actually UNDERSTAND what he was trying to say? I am truly amazed by this shitty world everyday.
Just because you can see everything doesn't mean you can execute perfectly. Even GSL players have some flaws in execution.
|
On June 06 2012 18:19 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +Not to mention the accusations from pro players who watched the replays of the showmatch and replays he provided from ladder show his very different way of playing, from looking in the fog of war on ladder replays to NEVER doing it in the showmatch, not once is he naturally looking into it. 16:00 or so he looks into fog to move command some marines on entomb valley. I can recall several other games where he looked into the fog of war. In fact, several of the supposed proofs are from him looking in the fog of war then responding to that information. Once again people. Actually watch the replays. Frankly I did watch some of the Catz analysis and it was quite sloppy. Also his "magic scan" proof has already been debunked.
I can't watch the replay right now, but could you please confirm if he looks into the FOW at the same instant he move commands the marines? Because it has been stated that the camera look automatically de-activates when you issue a command into the fog.
|
Does this maphack also alter the replay from Luci? Let him upload his replays and see if there's a difference.
|
On June 06 2012 18:21 AngryFarmer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 17:52 Wyk wrote:
Ok so you guys are saying he hacked, but didnt win 3-0 even though he could see EVERYTHING and "blind countered" his opponent?
Theres something fishy alright... about what you are talking about, not about his playstyle. Pfff dont worry guys, lets do something childish like say "np spades, prove skill at MLG".
Also, who in their right mind would listen to Catz? Did you actually UNDERSTAND what he was trying to say? I am truly amazed by this shitty world everyday. Just because you can see everything doesn't mean you can execute perfectly. Even GSL players have some flaws in execution.
But to be fair in a tvt if... Ganzi or someone was playing MKP? MVP? he would win every single game with map hacks even though he is outskilled.
|
There is no actual camera lock.
|
On June 06 2012 18:22 Daniel C wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 18:19 Mallard86 wrote:Not to mention the accusations from pro players who watched the replays of the showmatch and replays he provided from ladder show his very different way of playing, from looking in the fog of war on ladder replays to NEVER doing it in the showmatch, not once is he naturally looking into it. 16:00 or so he looks into fog to move command some marines on entomb valley. I can recall several other games where he looked into the fog of war. In fact, several of the supposed proofs are from him looking in the fog of war then responding to that information. Once again people. Actually watch the replays. Frankly I did watch some of the Catz analysis and it was quite sloppy. Also his "magic scan" proof has already been debunked. I can't watch the replay right now, but could you please confirm if he looks into the FOW at the same instant he move commands the marines? Because it has been stated that the camera look automatically de-activates when you issue a command into the fog.
Yeah. This is right before the 3 medivac doom drop. He move commands to the main ramp then changes the command to the base of the natural ramp. Both times he is in the fog of war.
This is one of the supposed pieces of evidence on Catz's analysis because it appears he changes the movement command after a tank is sieged in Luci's natural.
|
On June 06 2012 18:13 starcraft911 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 18:00 ceaRshaf wrote:
I didn't watch all the Catz analysis but only 1 hour.
They made such a fuss about the unsiegeing at minute 35 but didn't one bother to think "hey, if this guy can see the whole map, why didn't he defended his 3rd AND the drop in his base?"
They even managed to find evidence that there was a slight chance of Spade to see that drop incoming. From that point on I didn't bother to follow their analysis because I did not agree with their reasoning. This is not how you judge a person.
People get on board on the negative aspects of ESPORTS so easy it's sad. This guy could be a fair player and this community painted him in black just from speculations. Because you're looking at a guy who's very familiar with hacking. 10+ years of playing RTS and prior admission of having hacked. If you're going to hack you can't make it obvious like Impa or you're going to get found out and exposed. TT1 said it best, sometimes you have to just lose to DTs. The other thing worth mentioning is that even pros miss stuff. I've seen a lot of pro BW players miss incoming drops that they should had vision of because they were focused on another area. Just because you have maphack doesn't mean your attention is always at the point where it matters. It's a maphack... it gives you information, it doesn't play the game for you. Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 18:02 mTwTT1 wrote:On June 06 2012 17:58 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 17:50 RuMCaKe wrote:
What really irritates me about this the most, is that someone is willing to make a post, that potentially destroys someones career, but hides behind a smurf to conceal who they are. Why would someone do this? If you are confident in what your saying, there is no reason to hide. Only reason I can think of, is you were afraid the community would say your wrong, and then you'd be the one that looks bad.
I don't know what to think about the whole thing, I haven't watched the replays, and I am not planning on doing so, that being said, I don't want to put my opinion in on if I think he actually cheated or not. It just really bothers me the OP didn't want people to know who he really was. TL knows who it is, but they have chosen not to reveal the identity at the current time. They stated that they may choose to do so at a later time. I think it's better for the OP to be anonymous personally because it keeps people from looking for ulterior motives in the OP. If you're looking at this objectively without bias it shouldn't matter who the OP is. If the OP is full of shit then you'll be able to discern that from the evidence. Though, out of curiosity I'd like to know who it is. My guess is probably a masters level player who just saw some inconsistencies and isn't a pro, but that's just a hunch. i think hes someone known or else they wouldnt be deliberating over whether or not to reveal his identity Yea, I can see that as well. My reasoning behind thinking it was a mid masters was based on the analysis of the game provided by the OP, but yea... that's really not saying much. You're probably right.
The fact that he could have staged all his mistakes proves nothing. It's a point that is made to accuse a hacker even if his decision making doesn't look like the ones of hackers. So that action of not defending his 3rd is not part of a conspiracy when deciding if he is hacking but it's proof that he may be not hacking.
If you analyze his replays with the mindset "oh, every mistake he makes is intentional just not to be obvious that he is hacking" then we might as well call him a hacker and be done with it.
It's like you claim the killer of a woman is her husband and I tell you "but he looked like he really loved her" and you tell me "lol, but he could have faked that so hard and easy". That's just bs. We can't accuse people on stuff like this.
|
On June 06 2012 18:20 Daniel C wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 18:14 dvorakftw wrote:On June 06 2012 18:02 Alejandrisha wrote:
but then after looking at the fow for a second
I might take a look at the replay tomorrow but I like how the complaints so far has been he never looks at FoW and now we have a situation where he does and that is the suspicious thing. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the camera lock doesn't automatically activate if he looks at the fog right? On the other hand, when the camera look is activated, it automatically de-activates if the player issues a command into the fog... So perhaps he just forgot to activate the camera lock at the moment that he looked into the FOW. However, he remembers to activate it the other 99% of the time that he is playing with the maphack on, otherwise how could you explain the discrepancy in the number of times?
I'm not sure which hack is being used, but the one that I saw worked like this: when a unit is moved into the fog or a building is created in the fog it breaks the lock. You can also toggle the lock manually as well as toggle the maphack itself. In fact almost everything can be setup to be toggled on or off including the other features like the production tab. This is useful incase you have to take a screenshot to "prove" you're not hacking.
What game/time are you talking about?
|
On June 06 2012 18:28 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 18:13 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 18:00 ceaRshaf wrote:
I didn't watch all the Catz analysis but only 1 hour.
They made such a fuss about the unsiegeing at minute 35 but didn't one bother to think "hey, if this guy can see the whole map, why didn't he defended his 3rd AND the drop in his base?"
They even managed to find evidence that there was a slight chance of Spade to see that drop incoming. From that point on I didn't bother to follow their analysis because I did not agree with their reasoning. This is not how you judge a person.
People get on board on the negative aspects of ESPORTS so easy it's sad. This guy could be a fair player and this community painted him in black just from speculations. Because you're looking at a guy who's very familiar with hacking. 10+ years of playing RTS and prior admission of having hacked. If you're going to hack you can't make it obvious like Impa or you're going to get found out and exposed. TT1 said it best, sometimes you have to just lose to DTs. The other thing worth mentioning is that even pros miss stuff. I've seen a lot of pro BW players miss incoming drops that they should had vision of because they were focused on another area. Just because you have maphack doesn't mean your attention is always at the point where it matters. It's a maphack... it gives you information, it doesn't play the game for you. On June 06 2012 18:02 mTwTT1 wrote:On June 06 2012 17:58 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 17:50 RuMCaKe wrote:
What really irritates me about this the most, is that someone is willing to make a post, that potentially destroys someones career, but hides behind a smurf to conceal who they are. Why would someone do this? If you are confident in what your saying, there is no reason to hide. Only reason I can think of, is you were afraid the community would say your wrong, and then you'd be the one that looks bad.
I don't know what to think about the whole thing, I haven't watched the replays, and I am not planning on doing so, that being said, I don't want to put my opinion in on if I think he actually cheated or not. It just really bothers me the OP didn't want people to know who he really was. TL knows who it is, but they have chosen not to reveal the identity at the current time. They stated that they may choose to do so at a later time. I think it's better for the OP to be anonymous personally because it keeps people from looking for ulterior motives in the OP. If you're looking at this objectively without bias it shouldn't matter who the OP is. If the OP is full of shit then you'll be able to discern that from the evidence. Though, out of curiosity I'd like to know who it is. My guess is probably a masters level player who just saw some inconsistencies and isn't a pro, but that's just a hunch. i think hes someone known or else they wouldnt be deliberating over whether or not to reveal his identity Yea, I can see that as well. My reasoning behind thinking it was a mid masters was based on the analysis of the game provided by the OP, but yea... that's really not saying much. You're probably right. The fact that he could have staged all his mistakes proves nothing. It's a point that is made to accuse a hacker even if his decision making doesn't look like the ones of hackers. So that action of not defending his 3rd is not part of a conspiracy when deciding if he is hacking but it's proof that he may be not hacking. If you analyze his replays with the mindset "oh, every mistake he makes is intentional just not to be obvious that he is hacking" then we might as well call him a hacker and be done with it. It's like you claim the killer of a woman is her husband and I tell you "but he looked like he really loved her" and you tell me "lol, but he could have faked that so hard and easy". That's just bs. We can't accuse people on stuff like this.
I agree with your general sentiment but not defending his 3rd is NOT proof that he may not be hacking, either.
|
On June 06 2012 18:28 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 18:13 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 18:00 ceaRshaf wrote:
I didn't watch all the Catz analysis but only 1 hour.
They made such a fuss about the unsiegeing at minute 35 but didn't one bother to think "hey, if this guy can see the whole map, why didn't he defended his 3rd AND the drop in his base?"
They even managed to find evidence that there was a slight chance of Spade to see that drop incoming. From that point on I didn't bother to follow their analysis because I did not agree with their reasoning. This is not how you judge a person.
People get on board on the negative aspects of ESPORTS so easy it's sad. This guy could be a fair player and this community painted him in black just from speculations. Because you're looking at a guy who's very familiar with hacking. 10+ years of playing RTS and prior admission of having hacked. If you're going to hack you can't make it obvious like Impa or you're going to get found out and exposed. TT1 said it best, sometimes you have to just lose to DTs. The other thing worth mentioning is that even pros miss stuff. I've seen a lot of pro BW players miss incoming drops that they should had vision of because they were focused on another area. Just because you have maphack doesn't mean your attention is always at the point where it matters. It's a maphack... it gives you information, it doesn't play the game for you. On June 06 2012 18:02 mTwTT1 wrote:On June 06 2012 17:58 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 17:50 RuMCaKe wrote:
What really irritates me about this the most, is that someone is willing to make a post, that potentially destroys someones career, but hides behind a smurf to conceal who they are. Why would someone do this? If you are confident in what your saying, there is no reason to hide. Only reason I can think of, is you were afraid the community would say your wrong, and then you'd be the one that looks bad.
I don't know what to think about the whole thing, I haven't watched the replays, and I am not planning on doing so, that being said, I don't want to put my opinion in on if I think he actually cheated or not. It just really bothers me the OP didn't want people to know who he really was. TL knows who it is, but they have chosen not to reveal the identity at the current time. They stated that they may choose to do so at a later time. I think it's better for the OP to be anonymous personally because it keeps people from looking for ulterior motives in the OP. If you're looking at this objectively without bias it shouldn't matter who the OP is. If the OP is full of shit then you'll be able to discern that from the evidence. Though, out of curiosity I'd like to know who it is. My guess is probably a masters level player who just saw some inconsistencies and isn't a pro, but that's just a hunch. i think hes someone known or else they wouldnt be deliberating over whether or not to reveal his identity Yea, I can see that as well. My reasoning behind thinking it was a mid masters was based on the analysis of the game provided by the OP, but yea... that's really not saying much. You're probably right. The fact that he could have staged all his mistakes proves nothing. It's a point that is made to accuse a hacker even if his decision making doesn't look like the ones of hackers. So that action of not defending his 3rd is not part of a conspiracy when deciding if he is hacking but it's proof that he may be not hacking. If you analyze his replays with the mindset "oh, every mistake he makes is intentional just not to be obvious that he is hacking" then we might as well call him a hacker and be done with it. It's like you claim the killer of a woman is her husband and I tell you "but he looked like he really loved her" and you tell me "lol, but he could have faked that so hard and easy". That's just bs. We can't accuse people on stuff like this.
I'm aware of this. I didn't say it was proof of anything.
I was just answering someones question about why would someone using a hack fail to stop a drop. If you're hacking and you make it obvious you're hacking you're going to get found out. When you read a quote of a quote you should read the entire conversation instead of just reading a blip of it and making an uninformed response.
|
On June 06 2012 18:29 starcraft911 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 18:20 Daniel C wrote:On June 06 2012 18:14 dvorakftw wrote:On June 06 2012 18:02 Alejandrisha wrote:
but then after looking at the fow for a second
I might take a look at the replay tomorrow but I like how the complaints so far has been he never looks at FoW and now we have a situation where he does and that is the suspicious thing. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the camera lock doesn't automatically activate if he looks at the fog right? On the other hand, when the camera look is activated, it automatically de-activates if the player issues a command into the fog... So perhaps he just forgot to activate the camera lock at the moment that he looked into the FOW. However, he remembers to activate it the other 99% of the time that he is playing with the maphack on, otherwise how could you explain the discrepancy in the number of times? I'm not sure which hack is being used, but the one that I saw worked like this: when a unit is moved into the fog or a building is created in the fog it breaks the lock. You can also toggle the lock manually as well as toggle the maphack itself. In fact almost everything can be setup to be toggled on or off including the other features like the production tab. This is useful incase you have to take a screenshot to "prove" you're not hacking. What game/time are you talking about?
No game/time in particular, I was just addressing dvorakftw's "Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" comment about looking into the FOW.
|
On June 06 2012 18:22 Khainer wrote:
Does this maphack also alter the replay from Luci? Let him upload his replays and see if there's a difference.
It doesn't work like that, the maphack that has allegedly be used alters the replays by "locking" the screen whenever he looks into the fog of war, essentially it lets the hacker look somewhere he doesn't have vision without that showing on the replay. The exact purpose of this is so that if your opponent watches the replay he won't see you looking into the fog of war.
|
On June 06 2012 18:37 DeekZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 18:22 Khainer wrote:
Does this maphack also alter the replay from Luci? Let him upload his replays and see if there's a difference. It doesn't work like that, the maphack that has allegedly be used alters the replays by "locking" the screen whenever he looks into the fog of war, essentially it lets the hacker look somewhere he doesn't have vision without that showing on the replay. The exact purpose of this is so that if your opponent watches the replay he won't see you looking into the fog of war.
Nowadays people are really lazy and stupid, you need hacks to not look into fog of war when maphacking because you can't be clever enough to not do that by yourself when playing and instead look on the minimap.
|
On June 06 2012 18:29 starcraft911 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 18:20 Daniel C wrote:On June 06 2012 18:14 dvorakftw wrote:On June 06 2012 18:02 Alejandrisha wrote:
but then after looking at the fow for a second
I might take a look at the replay tomorrow but I like how the complaints so far has been he never looks at FoW and now we have a situation where he does and that is the suspicious thing. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the camera lock doesn't automatically activate if he looks at the fog right? On the other hand, when the camera look is activated, it automatically de-activates if the player issues a command into the fog... So perhaps he just forgot to activate the camera lock at the moment that he looked into the FOW. However, he remembers to activate it the other 99% of the time that he is playing with the maphack on, otherwise how could you explain the discrepancy in the number of times? I'm not sure which hack is being used, but the one that I saw worked like this: when a unit is moved into the fog or a building is created in the fog it breaks the lock. You can also toggle the lock manually as well as toggle the maphack itself. In fact almost everything can be setup to be toggled on or off including the other features like the production tab. This is useful incase you have to take a screenshot to "prove" you're not hacking. What game/time are you talking about?
http://drop.sc/130143
16:30-17:30 was the only time he looked into fow but i think that more odd was his reaction to the wp and then the army at his 4th with no vision
edit: also note that there are noticable locks before the changing in medivac commands as well as the move the the fourth
|
On June 06 2012 18:32 starcraft911 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 18:28 ceaRshaf wrote:On June 06 2012 18:13 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 18:00 ceaRshaf wrote:
I didn't watch all the Catz analysis but only 1 hour.
They made such a fuss about the unsiegeing at minute 35 but didn't one bother to think "hey, if this guy can see the whole map, why didn't he defended his 3rd AND the drop in his base?"
They even managed to find evidence that there was a slight chance of Spade to see that drop incoming. From that point on I didn't bother to follow their analysis because I did not agree with their reasoning. This is not how you judge a person.
People get on board on the negative aspects of ESPORTS so easy it's sad. This guy could be a fair player and this community painted him in black just from speculations. Because you're looking at a guy who's very familiar with hacking. 10+ years of playing RTS and prior admission of having hacked. If you're going to hack you can't make it obvious like Impa or you're going to get found out and exposed. TT1 said it best, sometimes you have to just lose to DTs. The other thing worth mentioning is that even pros miss stuff. I've seen a lot of pro BW players miss incoming drops that they should had vision of because they were focused on another area. Just because you have maphack doesn't mean your attention is always at the point where it matters. It's a maphack... it gives you information, it doesn't play the game for you. On June 06 2012 18:02 mTwTT1 wrote:On June 06 2012 17:58 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 17:50 RuMCaKe wrote:
What really irritates me about this the most, is that someone is willing to make a post, that potentially destroys someones career, but hides behind a smurf to conceal who they are. Why would someone do this? If you are confident in what your saying, there is no reason to hide. Only reason I can think of, is you were afraid the community would say your wrong, and then you'd be the one that looks bad.
I don't know what to think about the whole thing, I haven't watched the replays, and I am not planning on doing so, that being said, I don't want to put my opinion in on if I think he actually cheated or not. It just really bothers me the OP didn't want people to know who he really was. TL knows who it is, but they have chosen not to reveal the identity at the current time. They stated that they may choose to do so at a later time. I think it's better for the OP to be anonymous personally because it keeps people from looking for ulterior motives in the OP. If you're looking at this objectively without bias it shouldn't matter who the OP is. If the OP is full of shit then you'll be able to discern that from the evidence. Though, out of curiosity I'd like to know who it is. My guess is probably a masters level player who just saw some inconsistencies and isn't a pro, but that's just a hunch. i think hes someone known or else they wouldnt be deliberating over whether or not to reveal his identity Yea, I can see that as well. My reasoning behind thinking it was a mid masters was based on the analysis of the game provided by the OP, but yea... that's really not saying much. You're probably right. The fact that he could have staged all his mistakes proves nothing. It's a point that is made to accuse a hacker even if his decision making doesn't look like the ones of hackers. So that action of not defending his 3rd is not part of a conspiracy when deciding if he is hacking but it's proof that he may be not hacking. If you analyze his replays with the mindset "oh, every mistake he makes is intentional just not to be obvious that he is hacking" then we might as well call him a hacker and be done with it. It's like you claim the killer of a woman is her husband and I tell you "but he looked like he really loved her" and you tell me "lol, but he could have faked that so hard and easy". That's just bs. We can't accuse people on stuff like this. I'm aware of this. I didn't say it was proof of anything. I was just answering someones question about why would someone using a hack fail to stop a drop. If you're hacking and you make it obvious you're hacking you're going to get found out. When you read a quote of a quote you should read the entire conversation instead of just reading a blip of it and making an uninformed response.
You said an obvious point that proves nothing. You assume a lot and draw radical conclusions. Very wise.
=)) Uninformed response =))
I agree with your general sentiment but not defending his 3rd is NOT proof that he may not be hacking, either.
I agree, but we have to give evidence that HE IS hacking not that he is not. So when Catz gets all over his head about the resiege he doesn't take all the factors of that moment that may show that the situation is not that obvious as they made it look like.
|
On June 06 2012 18:48 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 18:32 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 18:28 ceaRshaf wrote:On June 06 2012 18:13 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 18:00 ceaRshaf wrote:
I didn't watch all the Catz analysis but only 1 hour.
They made such a fuss about the unsiegeing at minute 35 but didn't one bother to think "hey, if this guy can see the whole map, why didn't he defended his 3rd AND the drop in his base?"
They even managed to find evidence that there was a slight chance of Spade to see that drop incoming. From that point on I didn't bother to follow their analysis because I did not agree with their reasoning. This is not how you judge a person.
People get on board on the negative aspects of ESPORTS so easy it's sad. This guy could be a fair player and this community painted him in black just from speculations. Because you're looking at a guy who's very familiar with hacking. 10+ years of playing RTS and prior admission of having hacked. If you're going to hack you can't make it obvious like Impa or you're going to get found out and exposed. TT1 said it best, sometimes you have to just lose to DTs. The other thing worth mentioning is that even pros miss stuff. I've seen a lot of pro BW players miss incoming drops that they should had vision of because they were focused on another area. Just because you have maphack doesn't mean your attention is always at the point where it matters. It's a maphack... it gives you information, it doesn't play the game for you. On June 06 2012 18:02 mTwTT1 wrote:On June 06 2012 17:58 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 17:50 RuMCaKe wrote:
What really irritates me about this the most, is that someone is willing to make a post, that potentially destroys someones career, but hides behind a smurf to conceal who they are. Why would someone do this? If you are confident in what your saying, there is no reason to hide. Only reason I can think of, is you were afraid the community would say your wrong, and then you'd be the one that looks bad.
I don't know what to think about the whole thing, I haven't watched the replays, and I am not planning on doing so, that being said, I don't want to put my opinion in on if I think he actually cheated or not. It just really bothers me the OP didn't want people to know who he really was. TL knows who it is, but they have chosen not to reveal the identity at the current time. They stated that they may choose to do so at a later time. I think it's better for the OP to be anonymous personally because it keeps people from looking for ulterior motives in the OP. If you're looking at this objectively without bias it shouldn't matter who the OP is. If the OP is full of shit then you'll be able to discern that from the evidence. Though, out of curiosity I'd like to know who it is. My guess is probably a masters level player who just saw some inconsistencies and isn't a pro, but that's just a hunch. i think hes someone known or else they wouldnt be deliberating over whether or not to reveal his identity Yea, I can see that as well. My reasoning behind thinking it was a mid masters was based on the analysis of the game provided by the OP, but yea... that's really not saying much. You're probably right. The fact that he could have staged all his mistakes proves nothing. It's a point that is made to accuse a hacker even if his decision making doesn't look like the ones of hackers. So that action of not defending his 3rd is not part of a conspiracy when deciding if he is hacking but it's proof that he may be not hacking. If you analyze his replays with the mindset "oh, every mistake he makes is intentional just not to be obvious that he is hacking" then we might as well call him a hacker and be done with it. It's like you claim the killer of a woman is her husband and I tell you "but he looked like he really loved her" and you tell me "lol, but he could have faked that so hard and easy". That's just bs. We can't accuse people on stuff like this. I'm aware of this. I didn't say it was proof of anything. I was just answering someones question about why would someone using a hack fail to stop a drop. If you're hacking and you make it obvious you're hacking you're going to get found out. When you read a quote of a quote you should read the entire conversation instead of just reading a blip of it and making an uninformed response. You said an obvious point that proves nothing. You assume a lot and draw radical conclusions. Very wise. =)) Uninformed response =)) Show nested quote +I agree with your general sentiment but not defending his 3rd is NOT proof that he may not be hacking, either. I agree, but we have to give evidence that HE IS hacking not that he is not. So when Catz gets all over his head about the resiege he doesn't take all the factors of that moment that may show that the situation is not that obvious as they made it look like.
It wasn't obvious to the person asking the question. Hence the whole me answering the question part. I also stated that it proved nothing from the start when you're reminding me of for some reason. What radical conclusion have I drawn? I feel like I'm being trolled or something is being lost in translation with you. Stick to the facts.
There is evidence he's hacking. 100% FOW peeking in one set versus 0% in another. What part of that is difficult to comprehend?
|
On June 06 2012 18:02 Alejandrisha wrote:really a shame to see.. though i looked a game i played vs him on ladder during his meteoric rise through GM s6 i don't know much about camera locking so if some one can fill in those blanks go right on ahead http://drop.sc/130143+ Show Spoiler +not a single scan until 15:00, but this is negligible since i'm assuming this style is fairly rigid despite protoss composition. though i did find it strange to see no urgency to establish infrastructure to hold any kind of 2 base push. nothing to write home about, though. 16:30-17:30 the 2 medivacs going around the map... the camera suddenly pans to the unscouted expansion, and the move command is corrected to fly outside the range of the cannon in the mineral line. and then the move command suddenly becomes an unload command. it's true that it's not ridiculous to assume that, after scanning the natural 3rd and not seeing a base there, that i might have taken an odd 3rd location, it still seems strange to me that the path/commands of the medivacs was altered in these ways. it's almost as if it's certain that there is in fact a base there, and that there are cannons in the mineral line. as you can see, he considers dropping them in the corner of the base, but then after looking at the fow for a second he changes the path so that they drop upon the cannons that are not yet completed.21:35 - center your camera on his 4th. literally one second before the WP comes into sight, his army, which was entirely sans hotkeys before this point, is suddenly boxed and move commands are spammed right where he would defend the wp had he seen it coming. it appears to be an attempt to react naturally, though it occurs just a mere second before the wp comes into vision.10 seconds later, instead of cleaning up the drop, he sends new commands to stop before the ramp. he has no vision and does not scan the middle, yet appears to sense that an army has just arrived..
So I watched the replay, and some of the things he did are very interesting.
First off, is it usual to scan a third and even though you scan empty space never move your camera to look at it?
(Spades scanned alej's natural third but NEVER moved his camera to look at it.)
Secondly, his reaction to the first warp prism drop was completely normal and he did not react until he was being attacked by it.
Thirdly, he spread out his entire army without hotkeys around the perimeter of his base, with no vision outside of his base. I feel like this is strange b/c if he was attacked he would have very little time to hotkey/group his army, and almost like he knew he was goign to have warning of an attack.
Fourth, his drop on the bottom right was weird. I can understand blindly dropping that base when he knows you didn't take your natural third, but to look at it, look down a bit then slide back up and order medivacs to drop seems off.
Fifth, move commanding your entire army to your fourth without seeing anything then stopping after you see the drop seems off. Its like he knew that he couldn't stop the drop without getting flanked, so he stopped. Could just be good game sense though.
All in all this replay is not in itself enough evidence to show Spades is a maphacker, but it has some very fishy parts in it.
|
On June 06 2012 18:54 starcraft911 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 18:48 ceaRshaf wrote:On June 06 2012 18:32 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 18:28 ceaRshaf wrote:On June 06 2012 18:13 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 18:00 ceaRshaf wrote:
I didn't watch all the Catz analysis but only 1 hour.
They made such a fuss about the unsiegeing at minute 35 but didn't one bother to think "hey, if this guy can see the whole map, why didn't he defended his 3rd AND the drop in his base?"
They even managed to find evidence that there was a slight chance of Spade to see that drop incoming. From that point on I didn't bother to follow their analysis because I did not agree with their reasoning. This is not how you judge a person.
People get on board on the negative aspects of ESPORTS so easy it's sad. This guy could be a fair player and this community painted him in black just from speculations. Because you're looking at a guy who's very familiar with hacking. 10+ years of playing RTS and prior admission of having hacked. If you're going to hack you can't make it obvious like Impa or you're going to get found out and exposed. TT1 said it best, sometimes you have to just lose to DTs. The other thing worth mentioning is that even pros miss stuff. I've seen a lot of pro BW players miss incoming drops that they should had vision of because they were focused on another area. Just because you have maphack doesn't mean your attention is always at the point where it matters. It's a maphack... it gives you information, it doesn't play the game for you. On June 06 2012 18:02 mTwTT1 wrote:On June 06 2012 17:58 starcraft911 wrote:On June 06 2012 17:50 RuMCaKe wrote:
What really irritates me about this the most, is that someone is willing to make a post, that potentially destroys someones career, but hides behind a smurf to conceal who they are. Why would someone do this? If you are confident in what your saying, there is no reason to hide. Only reason I can think of, is you were afraid the community would say your wrong, and then you'd be the one that looks bad.
I don't know what to think about the whole thing, I haven't watched the replays, and I am not planning on doing so, that being said, I don't want to put my opinion in on if I think he actually cheated or not. It just really bothers me the OP didn't want people to know who he really was. TL knows who it is, but they have chosen not to reveal the identity at the current time. They stated that they may choose to do so at a later time. I think it's better for the OP to be anonymous personally because it keeps people from looking for ulterior motives in the OP. If you're looking at this objectively without bias it shouldn't matter who the OP is. If the OP is full of shit then you'll be able to discern that from the evidence. Though, out of curiosity I'd like to know who it is. My guess is probably a masters level player who just saw some inconsistencies and isn't a pro, but that's just a hunch. i think hes someone known or else they wouldnt be deliberating over whether or not to reveal his identity Yea, I can see that as well. My reasoning behind thinking it was a mid masters was based on the analysis of the game provided by the OP, but yea... that's really not saying much. You're probably right. The fact that he could have staged all his mistakes proves nothing. It's a point that is made to accuse a hacker even if his decision making doesn't look like the ones of hackers. So that action of not defending his 3rd is not part of a conspiracy when deciding if he is hacking but it's proof that he may be not hacking. If you analyze his replays with the mindset "oh, every mistake he makes is intentional just not to be obvious that he is hacking" then we might as well call him a hacker and be done with it. It's like you claim the killer of a woman is her husband and I tell you "but he looked like he really loved her" and you tell me "lol, but he could have faked that so hard and easy". That's just bs. We can't accuse people on stuff like this. I'm aware of this. I didn't say it was proof of anything. I was just answering someones question about why would someone using a hack fail to stop a drop. If you're hacking and you make it obvious you're hacking you're going to get found out. When you read a quote of a quote you should read the entire conversation instead of just reading a blip of it and making an uninformed response. You said an obvious point that proves nothing. You assume a lot and draw radical conclusions. Very wise. =)) Uninformed response =)) I agree with your general sentiment but not defending his 3rd is NOT proof that he may not be hacking, either. I agree, but we have to give evidence that HE IS hacking not that he is not. So when Catz gets all over his head about the resiege he doesn't take all the factors of that moment that may show that the situation is not that obvious as they made it look like. It wasn't obvious to the person asking the question. Hence the whole me answering the question part. I also stated that it proved nothing from the start when you're reminding me of for some reason. What radical conclusion have I drawn? I feel like I'm being trolled or something is being lost in translation with you. Stick to the facts. There is evidence he's hacking. 100% FOW peeking in one set versus 0% in another. What part of that is difficult to comprehend?
Dude, you quoted me. Are you trolling me or you don't realize that I quoted you quoting me. WTF is this.
|
On June 06 2012 18:56 dae wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2012 18:02 Alejandrisha wrote:really a shame to see.. though i looked a game i played vs him on ladder during his meteoric rise through GM s6 i don't know much about camera locking so if some one can fill in those blanks go right on ahead http://drop.sc/130143+ Show Spoiler +not a single scan until 15:00, but this is negligible since i'm assuming this style is fairly rigid despite protoss composition. though i did find it strange to see no urgency to establish infrastructure to hold any kind of 2 base push. nothing to write home about, though. 16:30-17:30 the 2 medivacs going around the map... the camera suddenly pans to the unscouted expansion, and the move command is corrected to fly outside the range of the cannon in the mineral line. and then the move command suddenly becomes an unload command. it's true that it's not ridiculous to assume that, after scanning the natural 3rd and not seeing a base there, that i might have taken an odd 3rd location, it still seems strange to me that the path/commands of the medivacs was altered in these ways. it's almost as if it's certain that there is in fact a base there, and that there are cannons in the mineral line. as you can see, he considers dropping them in the corner of the base, but then after looking at the fow for a second he changes the path so that they drop upon the cannons that are not yet completed.21:35 - center your camera on his 4th. literally one second before the WP comes into sight, his army, which was entirely sans hotkeys before this point, is suddenly boxed and move commands are spammed right where he would defend the wp had he seen it coming. it appears to be an attempt to react naturally, though it occurs just a mere second before the wp comes into vision.10 seconds later, instead of cleaning up the drop, he sends new commands to stop before the ramp. he has no vision and does not scan the middle, yet appears to sense that an army has just arrived.. So I watched the replay, and some of the things he did are very interesting. First off, is it usual to scan a third and even though you scan empty space never move your camera to look at it? (Spades scanned alej's natural third but NEVER moved his camera to look at it.) Secondly, his reaction to the first warp prism drop was completely normal and he did not react until he was being attacked by it. Thirdly, he spread out his entire army without hotkeys around the perimeter of his base, with no vision outside of his base. I feel like this is strange b/c if he was attacked he would have very little time to hotkey/group his army, and almost like he knew he was goign to have warning of an attack. Fourth, his drop on the bottom right was weird. I can understand blindly dropping that base when he knows you didn't take your natural third, but to look at it, look down a bit then slide back up and order medivacs to drop seems off. Fifth, move commanding your entire army to your fourth without seeing anything then stopping after you see the drop seems off. Its like he knew that he couldn't stop the drop without getting flanked, so he stopped. Could just be good game sense though. All in all this replay is not in itself enough evidence to show Spades is a maphacker, but it has some very fishy parts in it.
i dont play terran and was only gold but even i know he was scanning 3rd to check for fast 3 cc and you can see blank space on minimap as he seen no cc there didnt need to look at it.
|
I came in here with an open mind because I don't follow the scene much anymore and don't have any interest in Spades to begin with, but after watching the replays and also the analysis from top players, along with my own judgement I have to say it is not even debatable, even after just a few replays it became painfully obvious. There is also too much variance between his streamed/non hacking games and reps.
1. Fishy play, shadowboxing, predicting future with movements and pre positioning units
2. Anticipating all b/o's with perfect counters in a series, never being countered himself.
3. Impossible actions such as the 'magic' scans, or moving army while being locked on other units
4. Camera locking for 4-9 seconds at a time, several times. I have yet to meet a silver player who stares at a screen like that.
5. Wasting scans to scout unknown starting location while the scv is making its way there anyway (money scans too, 100% success rate of location)
6. scouting and not even checking the base even once, several times this occurred.
For those who have done their own research and also made themselves available to the opinions of top players who continue to defend Spades, I say you need to man up and apologize to those who have been accusing him of hacking. I find there are pple here who are bashing the OP and calling for his head and requesting a perm ban on TL etc.. but this guy is a hero for outting him and protecting other players from his hacking. Pro/GM players have worked hard to get to where they are and to lose to something like this is saddening. Come out and admit there is way too much soft/hard evidence combined in 100% of his showmatch and also in the extra fishy games provided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
