[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 :)

[iM yang]

I watched the replay and I would address your points if they made sense. A diamond player might say to himself 'oh i might be getting allined i better make cannons' but nothing further.
You straight up shouldn't try to call somebody out on being a hacker with this little evidence, despite the rationalizations you make with this theorycrafting.

Looking over Zealo's replay - it looks like he scouted you and your opening basically shows all you can see against a 1-1-1 and all his reactions make sense, getting colossi and expanding.

[Meatex]

So a random strat that outright loses to standard ZvP is just him getting lucky?
A diamond player that gets supply blocked for a minute-ish and gets nearly 20 extra supply with another pylon on the way when he has 1 gateway and isn't putting chrono on the nexus - this guy is going to have such crisp timings that he knows he needs 4 cannons and 3 pylons so he doesn't lose power to them.
Not to mention that 3 seconds after my roach warren drops is when he starts dropping extra cannons.
At least with close spawns its a 33% chance of being successful.

I did say this several times that this isn't the only game, just the only replay I have presently. I don't make this post lightly or out of rage or anything like you seem to think.
I have lost ZvZ matches where the guy 6 pool all 1 spine rushed me and sent his drone to the right spawn first time in two seperate games. TDA and entombed valley - he couldn't have inferred by scouting overlord to narrow the odds either but he could have just gotten lucky twice in a row.

I had to deal with the whole evets debacle so don't insult me by insinuating I am accusing this player without proper consideration

[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

[Zealo]

Originally Posted by FaDeMeatex

I did say this several times that this isn't the only game, just the only replay I have presently.

it is all the evidence you have, and it's not enough to make such a serious accusation. it's enough to say "this looks suspicious, does anyone else have replays against this guy on ladder?"

no one is going to call him a hacker based on your feelings or based on replays you deleted. the sooner you accept this the easier it will be for everyone.

I don't make this post lightly or out of rage or anything like you seem to think.

well you seem pretty emotional...

[iM yang]

Originally Posted by FaDeMeatex

So a random strat that outright loses to standard ZvP is just him getting lucky?
A diamond player that gets supply blocked for a minute-ish and gets nearly 20 extra supply with another pylon on the way when he has 1 gateway and isn't putting chrono on the nexus - this guy is going to have such crisp timings that he knows he needs 4 cannons and 3 pylons so he doesn't lose power to them.
Not to mention that 3 seconds after my roach warren drops is when he starts dropping extra cannons.
At least with close spawns its a 33% chance of being successful.

I did say this several times that this isn't the only game, just the only replay I have presently. I don't make this post lightly or out of rage or anything like you seem to think.
I have lost ZvZ matches where the guy 6 pool all 1 spine rushed me and sent his drone to the right spawn first time in two seperate games. TDA and entombed valley - he couldn't have inferred by scouting overlord to narrow the odds either but he could have just gotten lucky twice in a row.

I had to deal with the whole evets debacle so don't insult me by insinuating I am accusing this player without proper consideration

While you say there's other games, I can't see the replays so that doesn't change how I view this. Sometimes people don't have extremely crisp openings and precise reactions to everything. Maybe he was distracted, then he thought since you denied his scout instead of going to his base you might be allin'ing and he panicked.
I'm only saying that you have posted in this thread that this guy is a hacker in your eyes with this incredibly flimsy replay to back up your opinion.

[pRoTimber]

nth much to say from my own replay except for weird build, movements. 1st thing that came to my mind is nobody that is good play this way. A while after my game, i find him bragging on sc2sea chatbox with his record, and also zvz builds saying why nobody go for 15hatch etc and answering zvz strat questions from stallion. ngeneclipse and ngenphoenix both lost and didnt notice any sign of hack, im assuming maybe its harder to notice as a toss. but from his match history, his zvz victories over player like kottbullar and revenant as well as other zerg players are really suspicious, i would thought to myself, who the hell plays like this. and also in zvt, roach kills if theyr played in a way like iceiceice did, but not in a manner like this guy did in most of his zvt. more replays would be helpful!

Quick Comments

Nemo:

Timber, the bane of hackers !

[Zealo]

i wish i could give yang rep for every one of his posts in this thread

Originally Posted by crAzerk

It's good to post in here to catch potential hackers and stuff, but I would like to encourage everyone to save your posts for until you have good reason to believe the person is hacking.

what do you suggest for replays that are 'suspicious', but not conclusive? i think it's worth having somewhere to post them so other people can check their replays against that player; if they really are hacking it's about the only way to gather evidence.

i agree there are some accusations that go far beyond the evidence, but anyone willing to make such accusations would probably make them anyway in a new thread.

[Meatex]

Originally Posted by Zealo

it is all the evidence you have, and it's not enough to make such a serious accusation. it's enough to say "this looks suspicious, does anyone else have replays against this guy on ladder?"

no one is going to call him a hacker based on your feelings or based on replays you deleted. the sooner you accept this the easier it will be for everyone.


well you seem pretty emotional...

I posted my analysis of the replay
Yes it is not enough for anyone else to say 100% he is likely a hacker but I have had more experience and was simply noting that to give the initial post some context.
I thought the whole does anybody else have thoughts or evidence thing was a given but my mistake

And I am getting annoyed because I made a post with all due consideration and people are responding with disrespect and insinuating I am doing this out of a QQ fit or something. That is simply insulting to me especially when the roles where reversed when the same players telling me its just luck, get over it where crying fowl over a single replay of evets while I was giving the same arguments - maybe it was luck etc etc.

But I will leave it here - I've had enough underhanded bm for today

[iM yang]

You're taking this very personally, don't get so worked up. I didn't even post when the evets discussion was happening. I've said this multiple times, you seem like you're reading too much into this game. As basically everybody has said since you posted the replay.

[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 FaDeMeatex

Yes it is not enough for anyone else to say 100% he is likely a hacker

i find it hard to understand how you can acknowledge this and still be upset people refuse to call him a confirmed hacker :S

I have had more experience and was simply noting that to give the initial post some context.

that applies for the first time you mentioned these 'other games', why did you bring them up another 7 times after that?

I thought the whole does anybody else have thoughts or evidence thing was a given but my mistake

people posted there thoughts and other replays of him, wtf else do you want?

And I am getting annoyed because I made a post with all due consideration and people are responding with disrespect and insinuating I am doing this out of a QQ fit or something.

no one responded to your initial post in the way you're describing. everyone loved your initial post. people are responding negatively to the way you keep repeating the same accusation over and over with no new evidence in an increasingly whiny fashion.

That is simply insulting to me

it's nothing personal, my perception of you from what i've seen/remembered is very positive. i hate hackers as much as anyone, and am very supportive of posts like your initial post as people may look more closely at that player and if something concrete is found another hacker can be exiled and made an example of.

Quick Comments

	Meatex:	you failed to understand why i'm upset - and i even explained
	asdfSchnitzel:	Counter rep rep rep....rep!

[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

[NvRossi]

Originally Posted by pRoTimber

nth much to say from my own replay except for weird build, movements. 1st thing that came to my mind is nobody that is good play this way. A while after my game, i find him bragging on sc2sea chatbox with his record, and also zvz builds saying why nobody go for 15hatch etc and answering zvz strat questions from stallion. ngeneclipse and ngenphoenix both lost and didnt notice any sign of hack, im assuming maybe its harder to notice as a toss. but from his match history, his zvz victories over player like kottbullar and revenant as well as other zerg players are really suspicious, i would thought to myself, who the hell plays like this. and also in zvt, roach kills if theyr played in a way like iceiceice did, but not in a manner like this guy did in most of his zvt. more replays would be helpful!

Watched the replay.

Contrary to lights will to argue and his weird examples i pinpoint this pelican as a 100% hacker

Reasons for include:

1. Incredible lack of scouting (No xel'naga tower control, No overlord spread, no unit sacrifices)
2. Producing units in reaction to unseen pushes
3. Constant repositioning of army in reaction to yours without having any vision of your army.
4. so many obvious examples but one that I'm sure anyone would agree with is his overlord scouting of your 3rd at 20:20. Completely random and he hasn't even scouted your bottom expansions once.


Yep he hacks, and hes also a douche-bag for his comments at the end.

[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.

[pRoTimber]

yeah rossi, he is a douchebag..thanks for your review!

one does not simply win over revenant in ZvZ and brags about it in sc2sea chatbox

Quick Comments

x5.Revenant:

[pRoTimber]

i forgot to name him...his in game name is MeLo

Quick Comments

AxSGRiM:

[AxSGRiM]

MeLo was once a terrible protoss player camping at the bottom of masters league. Now, aided with his maphacks, he goes straight to gm w/ zerg.

[EveSnow]

Watched Timber replay on MeLo. Blatant maphack. Army movements goes against what he sees. Anw GJ taking him down even though he hacked

[ToRSpartaz]

Just saying that this thread, kinda has destroyed my trust in the game. Even at the slightest sign of a "Hacker" I just dont feel the same as I once did. It really sucks tbh. Although I do still appreciate the amazing game sense by some players though (: