[nGenLight]

Originally Posted by FaDeMeatex

I'm sorry as much as you might not want to draw conclusions one a single replay with no obvious map hacking no matter how I look at it - even when I try to find reasons I cannot come up with anything that makes sense and does not equate to losing games

I left the game because I'm just not interested in playing a hacker. And while this is the only replay I remember thinking he was a hacker before too.

In GM level there may be valid points to making extra cannons because you are unsure but that doesn't address the timing of his so called scout nor does it address that he basically sends the probe to die by actually a-moving to the bottom of the ramp at my natural.
Also note his supply right before my roaches arrive - that is he has had no indication of any all in. And this is when he has only 1 gate. There is no reason he would be spending that money on an additional pylon - given where he placed it - unless he knew an attack was coming and didn't want the 2 pylons already there to unpower his excessive cannon count. At 30/44 no less.

I also noted his reaction right after I dropped my roach warren. He was supply blocked but was making a pylon in his main. Granted he may just be retarded so he made 2 pylons though why he wouldn't prefer to spend that money on... you know more than 1 gateway. Cause he'll be safe for sure against an attack he has no idea is coming in theory but he won't be able to do anything. He can't even tech what with only 1 gas.

Maybe he planned the wall that way from the beginning, maybe his mechanics really are so bad that he has one gate and a free 20 supply with another pylon on the way. He is protoss after all and you don't exactly have to be good to win as protoss
Or more logically he is hacking as not even a platinum would lose in a macro game to this guy that gets supply blocked at 18 for a painfully long time and counters that by getting 3 pylons ahead in supply. Then makes 4 cannons - no gates and late gas meaning any tech is going to be late. All this against the most standard of standard ZvP builds in diamond - speedling expo.
I am the first to criticize blizzard on their fail coding but not even I can fathom how a protoss can get into diamond by playing such a style as his standard against 14/14 regardless of how OP protoss may be

MC had apparently no scouting infromation on Idrain that MLG game (according to Tastosis). Whether MC knew it was coming we wouldn't have a clue, we are not MC.

I was debating sentiments with Nemo, I have absolutely no interest if whether this player hacks or not.

Listen to what Yang said, and don't even try pinning hacks on one game. I've won game on old metal close position where I just went a build that requires my opponent in the close spot to be successful. But I did it blindly anyway, because I can. I can stare at the fog of my opponents whenever I want, I did that in CH tourney to prove how silly it is, anyone watching those replays would call me a hacker outright. These EVIDENCE IS WEAK.

Consider this scenario: I sent an ob to my terran opponents base, my opponent scans and kills it before I see anything. I have no idea what he is doing, but because I know the potential of medivac drop comes around a particular timing, I automatically place units in my main to deny drops - this with no information at all but my experience and my desire for not being killed because I'm playing unsafe. Does that reaction make me a hacker?

Quick Comments

	NvRossi:	u argue lots
	AxSGRiM:	but i like it when u argue
	asdfSchnitzel:	arguing is key :)

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by xGKingLight

Listen to what Yang said, and don't even try pinning hacks on one game. I've won game on old metal close position where I just went a build that requires my opponent in the close spot to be successful. But I did it blindly anyway, because I can. I can stare at the fog of my opponents whenever I want, I did that in CH tourney to prove how silly it is, anyone watching those replays would call me a hacker outright. These EVIDENCE IS WEAK.

Do I understand you faked hacking to prove searching for such evidence of maphack is wrong ? People usually are not faking maphacking. No accused people ever tried to pretend that. I'm not even certain that you could really trick us because the real evidences are when the hacker react every time opponent is doing something and at no other moment. And if you're faking maphack you can't obviously do that. If you're interested in my methods, we can watch together Ghosts 4 games and I'm interested to hear what you think about what I found and what you find in those games.

Originally Posted by xGKingLight

Consider this scenario: I sent an ob to my terran opponents base, my opponent scans and kills it before I see anything. I have no idea what he is doing, but because I know the potential of medivac drop comes around a particular timing, I automatically place units in my main to deny drops - this with no information at all but my experience and my desire for not being killed because I'm playing unsafe. Does that reaction make me a hacker?

Well, Ghost never made a Obs in the 2 games he hacked in where he had a robo (only one in end game when there was a unscouted Ghost Academy thrown down by Timber) ...
But if you make a obs to scout it's already a good sign of not maphacking. Then if you can't scout (or don't want) and make assumptions, you will let some troops and cannons were you think there are danger. But if you don't scout, don't prepare for anything, then prepare yourself every time he's out without you seeing anything, then there is something fishy. The problem of Ghost was that he was not preparing for anything, never scouted and was never caught offgard.
Watch those with me, I'm interested in your opinion.

Quick Comments

PiG:

agree

[nGenLight]

Originally Posted by Nemo

Do I understand you faked hacking to prove searching for such evidence of maphack is wrong ? People usually are not faking maphacking. No accused people ever tried to pretend that. I'm not even certain that you could really trick us because the real evidences are when the hacker react every time opponent is doing something and at no other moment. And if you're faking maphack you can't obviously do that. If you're interested in my methods, we can watch together Ghosts 4 games and I'm interested to hear what you think about what I found and what you find in those games.


Well, Ghost never made a Obs in the 2 games he hacked in where he had a robo (only one in end game when there was a unscouted Ghost Academy thrown down by Timber) ...
But if you make a obs to scout it's already a good sign of not maphacking. Then if you can't scout (or don't want) and make assumptions, you will let some troops and cannons were you think there are danger. But if you don't scout, don't prepare for anything, then prepare yourself every time he's out without you seeing anything, then there is something fishy. The problem of Ghost was that he was not preparing for anything, never scouted and was never caught offgard.
Watch those with me, I'm interested in your opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I think you are doing an amazing job and putting in an incredible amount of effort doing these analysis, and it's certainly doing much more good than anything. I really don't have the time to determine if this guy is hacking or not but just from the posts I can tell that his actions are extremely suspicious and definitely worthy of discussion.

What I was trying to say is that, no matter how suspicious someone is, it is impossible to pinpoint someone as hacking. Let me give an example: I spawn on Shakuras Plateau PvP, I constantly check one of the two possible spawn locations of my opponent, I blindly proxy gate near the spawning location I was checking, I proceed to two gate and win. I do this for 10 games in a row. 5 of these games I would be called out for "blatant hacking" when I'm just doing something completely retarded and risky. This is what I mean by no matter how suspicious someone is, there are no conclusive evidence.

Regarding the Diamond protoss player that went 4 cannons against a Possible Roach rush. There is by far not enough evidence to even classify him as suspicious.

[Zealo]

Originally Posted by xGKingLight

What I was trying to say is that, no matter how suspicious someone is, it is impossible to pinpoint someone as hacking. Let me give an example: I spawn on Shakuras Plateau PvP, I constantly check one of the two possible spawn locations of my opponent, I blindly proxy gate near the spawning location I was checking, I proceed to two gate and win. I do this for 10 games in a row. 5 of these games I would be called out for "blatant hacking" when I'm just doing something completely retarded and risky. This is what I mean by no matter how suspicious someone is, there are no conclusive evidence.

no one reasonable is suggesting something like that example would be enough to call them a 'blatant hacker'

Quick Comments

nGenLight:

I had someone do sumfing like that to me 2 games in a row, pretty sure he was hacking

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by xGKingLight

Don't get me wrong, I think you are doing an amazing job and putting in an incredible amount of effort doing these analysis, and it's certainly doing much more good than anything. I really don't have the time to determine if this guy is hacking or not but just from the posts I can tell that his actions are extremely suspicious and definitely worthy of discussion.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by xGKingLight

What I was trying to say is that, no matter how suspicious someone is, it is impossible to pinpoint someone as hacking. Let me give an example: I spawn on Shakuras Plateau PvP, I constantly check one of the two possible spawn locations of my opponent, I blindly proxy gate near the spawning location I was checking, I proceed to two gate and win. I do this for 10 games in a row. 5 of these games I would be called out for "blatant hacking" when I'm just doing something completely retarded and risky. This is what I mean by no matter how suspicious someone is, there are no conclusive evidence.

It's the accumulation of evidence that make proof. It's a question of statistic. If a slightly suspicious move has 80% chance of being luck or game sense and 20% chance of being Map Hack, then if you have 10 consecutive occurrences of it, then the odds become (80%)Exp8 = 10,7% of chance it's still luck. And if in 2 games like that it becomes 10,7%*10,7% = 1,1% of chance it's luck.

You can't be that precise of course in measuring luck and hack probability but it's to illustrate the process of accumulation.

If you're doing blind proxy gates systematically, you give your last 3 replays of PVP on Shakuras and all suspicion is lifted.

Originally Posted by xGKingLight

Regarding the Diamond protoss player that went 4 cannons against a Possible Roach rush. There is by far not enough evidence to even classify him as suspicious.

I have watched the replay. It's a too short game to have any conclusion about this.

Meatex was still right to post it. That's curious enough to be attentive in the future. I'm pretty sure our process is not going to condemn an innocent guy. They have the possibility to defend themselves.