Top level player allegedly maphacking in CoH2

This is exactly what happened. Looks like Brosras was mad and decided to clip all possible smart plays. Which is weird. He is top player who knows these details.

Brosras isn't the only one who clipped. And all the other top players who also thought he was cheating are capable of thinking for themselves...

Brosras isn't the only one who clipped. And all the other top players who also thought he was cheating are capable of thinking for themselves...

Yeah and the guy that is saying Brosras is biased is actually a friend of Kimbo/Seeking. Thats what that crew is running with "Asha and Brosras just mad cause we were stream sniping them all day l0l"

pretty transparent though.

Really out of the loop on this stuff I haven't followed COH2 in a few years now and just stumbled across the AE video in a discord, but I want to add some historical context.

Most of the SUS clips can be explained by what I have been saying for years but no one wants to believe: What you see in game is not what the server is doing. You are the client and operating on the data you have available. There is other data coming to the server from other players etc.

So most of the clips are of things that have units on the edge of the FOW. I would not accept any of those as cheating.

Most (maybe all?) games I've played that have some sort of saved or instant replay system have issues where the data in the replay is not perfectly in sync with what actually happened in the game client, so I agree units reacting to what is just barely beyond the fog in the replay seems like weak evidence IMO.

In a COH1 fairplay maphack report the person reviewing had to show that there was a consistent pattern of sketchy unexplainable movements, and this usually took multiple replays, otherwise there wasn't enough confidence that the suspect behavior wasn't just a coincidence. One of the exceptions to this would be if someone called in a strafing run on hidden cloaked snipers or storm troopers, that was an instant banhammer case closed situation. What happened with the Brumbar looked like one of those types of offenses to me. I don't remember if you can find ATG's with the green cover on the cursor in COH2 like you could in COH1, but regardless that still looked very damning. Being able to multi task during a big engagement, and not only find the location of the AT gun but perfectly lead the shot where it is moving, and managing to do that not once but twice in a short time span looks like a hardcore red flag to me. Historically I think that's the sort of evidence that would've been considered sufficient for a ban all on its own.

Ops, never think we would be on A_E channel like this.

To anyone wanna watch the map of Flap/Satup/Deadbolt or whatever hacking, we have a replay and Youtube video for you:


Replay file: https://www.coh2.org/replay/107725/top-55-at-using-maphack-keep-looking-into-fow/page/2#post_id855187

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8W069TU4e0

Yeah, we are your average top 100 2vs2 players that like to using multiply accounts to smurf arounds for casual playtime but we are not dumb: we know how to smell bullshit in the air, we know when our counter-sniper starts to get flushout for no reason.

And next time don't flock to defend your clan-mate right away without carefully watching replay.



Yeah Mr.top 1, we did post and you did get anal.

P/S: I Guess this is our 4th confirmed hacker cases then

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8W069TU4e0

Literally spends more time staring at the FoW than his own units lol

Literally spends more time staring at the FoW than his own units lol

I never understand why map-hacker like to play with sniper: it's the most easiest way to reveal yourself as maphacker because you will start doing dumb flush out, hold fired and zoom your camera into enemy sniper lol.

Right at the first moment with the " strange flush out sniper ", we already feel like bullshit in the air so we started playing in a way to bait him for evidences => tada

Regarding the hacking accusations towards Seeking

Firstly I would like to exhibit some criticism on the way things have been handled. Personally I think the way this has been handled hasn’t been completely proportional. This all seems rather damaging towards Seekings long standing reputation. As far as I am aware this is the first accusation. Also according to the vid AE published it seemed that Relic had been contacted in advance and Relic concluded that there were no hacks, Relic required more convincing evidence. I feel like that since all this can be very damaging to Seekings reputation and since Relic required more evidence, maybe people should have waited a bit longer going public till such evidence was required if it exists. Then again, now we get more claims because they went public. The thing is that Seeking was not asked about his point of view prior the issue going public (from my understanding), which should have happened in my opinion.

Which brings me towards the future of this process, can someone clarify how the process will continue? Will there be some jury, if so who? Will there be some more clear claims revealed, some of the clips have not even a claim how are u supposed to defend against that? In case there is a jury I feel it should consist of people that are as objective as possible and don’t have self-interest. Are there any guidelines on how the people that make the decision should make the decision? Such things should be shared if its transparency what we want.

Also I was wondering if the document with the 19 opinions will be updated with the opinions of others, at the moment it seems rather one sided in the direction of hacking, while Relic so far concluded the opposite by lack of convincing evidence. So I’m wondering if there will be other new opinions added of those would give the benefit of the doubt, by lack of more convincing evidence. I have spoken with some people about it. Hooligan (my brother) did not seem completely convinced yet and the same goes for Refero, they both require more convincing evidence. Also the Angry Dutchman ( https://clips.twitch.tv/CheerfulQuaintFlyTheTarFu-e1fC6Ivcbzm5A8Ep ) and Sturmtiger Ghaddafi don’t seem convinced.

I would ask people to carefully reconsider if they are absolutely a 100% sure, because the stakes for Seeking are insane. He could get banned for life. Its only reasonable to demand a 100% certainty in that case. Because if people are uncertain, this case could be a dangerous precedent for others in the future. Competitors accusing eachother because somtimes something fishy happens, but while they ain’t 100% sure could lead to a unhealthy competitive climate. I’m myself ain’t 100% sure as well and would therefor give the benefit of the doubt for now by lack of more convincing evidence. At this lvl of play I think very often things can happen that seem fishy to the normal players like me, but maybe easily able to be logically explained by prof plays and players. And seeking is such a prof there is no doubt about that imo. And im not up for banning someone for life if I ain’t 100% sure, then just let him play and keep an eye on him or do whatever other refs did in the past with incidents.

Then all clips a side, maybe some the computergods that are present in this community could investigate seekings pc of traces of third party apps or the removal of such apps. (Not an computer god myself but I thought something like this could be done at the very least). That would save us time speculating on a bunch of clips of which some are quite circumstantial like Sturmtiger Ghaddaffi pointed out in his stream. Then we could even completely pass this discussion about clips, and leave that behind us.

Thing is, looking at the fow for extended periods of time is extremely suspicious.

[snip]
Then all clips a side, maybe some the computergods that are present in this community could investigate seekings pc of traces of third party apps or the removal of such apps. (Not an computer god myself but I thought something like this could be done at the very least). That would save us time speculating on a bunch of clips of which some are quite circumstantial like Sturmtiger Ghaddaffi pointed out in his stream. Then we could even completely pass this discussion about clips, and leave that behind us.

I'll snip the first paragraphs. I am not involved in any of the processes, but from what I got the current discussion revolves around banning Seeking from ML tournaments. While this is bad for him, it is different from being banned by Relic from CoH2 in general. I am not sure if you are aware, because your post is not clear on this.

Last paragraph would be a heavy privacy breach. Unless Seeking is fine with random people searching through his private computer (which he absolutely should not be), this is definitely not an option.

I'll snip the first paragraphs. I am not involved in any of the processes, but from what I got the current discussion revolves around banning Seeking from ML tournaments. While this is bad for him, it is different from being banned by Relic from CoH2 in general. I am not sure if you are aware, because your post is not clear on this.

Last paragraph would be a heavy privacy breach. Unless Seeking is fine with random people searching through his private computer (which he absolutely should not be), this is definitely not an option.

i mean we all live to play and watch the tourneys not? but yea i meant the tourney bans.

regarding the last paragraph, yea its up to him, but it crossed my mind and the mind of others so i felt the need to mention the option. Its his call to make ofc. Maybe he would permit under supervision i dunno, but im not here to speculate. All i wanted was to mention the option.

i mean we all live to play and watch the tourneys not? but yea i meant the tourney bans.

regarding the last paragraph, yea its up to him, but it crossed my mind and the mind of others so i felt the need to mention the option. Its his call to make ofc. Maybe he would permit under supervision i dunno, but im not here to speculate. All i wanted was to mention the option.

I just find it absurd to consider this a real option. if this is taken as a serious possibility and he rightfully declines, it will just feed into 'ofc he did because they could have found the cheats' mindset and smear him further. There should be a serious step back and just let the process take its time. There have been a lot of accusations, Seeking should have his time to defend and afterwards everyone can reevaluate who he believes more. Suggestions that are so unproportionate help no one. Seeking is accused of potential cheating, not of criminal assault, murder or large scale drug trafficking. There is no reason to throw a 'let's search his private PC' into the pot.

At least my two cents.

I'll snip the first paragraphs. I am not involved in any of the processes, but from what I got the current discussion revolves around banning Seeking from ML tournaments. While this is bad for him, it is different from being banned by Relic from CoH2 in general. I am not sure if you are aware, because your post is not clear on this.

Last paragraph would be a heavy privacy breach. Unless Seeking is fine with random people searching through his private computer (which he absolutely should not be), this is definitely not an option.

I think that a lot of the anti-cheat programs do look at the files on people's computers - specifically, the game directory.

Unless Steam decides to work with Relic to implement a VAC for COH2, people (allegedly including Seeking) are free to use maphacks. Most people won't because cheating feels wrong.

My two cents as some one who hasn't played the game for a while and has been out of the community for a while (meaning I have absolutely no dog in the fight).

First of all, unless there was a lot of private discussion between A_E, Seeking, other top players/respected community members, I do not think that this situation was handled correctly at all. Now that the accusations are public, Seeking's reputation is tarnished regardless of the outcome he has been found guilty in the court of public opinion. *IF* he is not guilty, this is a major problem. *IF* he is guilty, the evidence could be made public after the fact. Either way, calling him out publicly is the tie-lose scenario because regardless of guilt or innocence his reputation is stained.

As for the evidence presented in A_E's initial video... in my opinion it is exceedingly weak. Some community members messaged me some other clips that were slightly more convincing but personally I am not convinced that there was foul play. I will admit that I have not gone through all of the evidence so I don't want to give an official opinion on guilt or innocence, I'm merely commenting on the publicly presented evidence from A_E's youtube video. The only clip that was even remotely suspicious in my opinion in A_E's initial video was when Seeking chased an AT gun to the corner of a map and from A_E's interview with Seeking, Seeking said that he had seen the AT gun prior to the clip itself. I have not verified this claim, but if true, even that clip isn't worthwhile.

The Brumb attack ground is mildly suspicious at best, however ordering an attack ground into a bottleneck when you know or suspect a push is coming isn't exactly mind-blowing. And I believe the AT guns had been shooting at his brumb when he ordered the second attack ground - although this was difficult to discern from A_E's youtube clip.

Looking at the edge of the fog of war isn't really suspicious in my opinion, especially early game if you're anticipating that a squad could show up, or trying to listen for some sort of vehicle. Everyone in this community listens into the fog for engine sounds/repair sounds or checks spawn locations in the case of team games to look at the base footprints. In 99-100% of my team games, I've looked into the fog to determine spawn locations, would that be evidence of maphacking? In general no, but if I had been accused publicly and people were LOOKING for evidence, it could be. Particularly if my camera happens to pan onto a squad while looking into the base.

To be clear, I have no dog in the fight. I understand that A_E is trying to do what is best for his tournament, and that is his prerogative. It's his personal tournament, as far as I'm concerned he could ban or allow anyone to compete based on his opinion or mood at the time. Would it make for an optimal tournament? Of course not, but I'd still argue that as it is his tournament, he has the right to do so.

However, I did feel like addressing the way that the entire situation was handled in hopes of encouraging similar situations to be handled differently in the future. The initial evidence showed little to no hard evidence of maphacking, and I believe that many of the clips that followed were simply confirmation bias. People started actively looking for suspicious moments, so of course they found them. If we went through dozens of DevM/Luvnest/Asha/Isi replays with a fine tooth comb and analyzed every little camera movement, or look into the fog, or look at the edge of the fog... how many suspicious moments would we find? I guarantee that plenty of players "look" into the fog to listen for something, or to order a unit to move into cover at a particular location. Common sense says that, if this happens enough, and if we look at enough examples, eventually we are going to find instances of "looking" through the fog and units being present at that location. If we're going into these replays with the bias that the player is maphacking, we're going to cite that as evidence when in reality the player was "looking" there for a reason other than maphacking.

At the end of the day, I guess what I'm trying to say is that we need to be careful of our mindset when investigating something like this. If Seeking is publicly accused (he was), then people are going to start going through every example that they can in at attempt to try and find suspicious moments and there will be at least some suspicious moments regardless of foul play, especially given how many games Seeking was playing each day. Calling him out publicly makes him guilty in the court of public opinion and also tends to push people's bias into finding suspicious moments rather than watching the replays from a more objective mindset.

My two cents as some one who hasn't played the game for a while and has been out of the community for a while (meaning I have absolutely no dog in the fight).

First of all, unless there was a lot of private discussion between A_E, Seeking, other top players/respected community members, I do not think that this situation was handled correctly at all. Now that the accusations are public, Seeking's reputation is tarnished regardless of the outcome he has been found guilty in the court of public opinion. *IF* he is not guilty, this is a major problem. *IF* he is guilty, the evidence could be made public after the fact. Either way, calling him out publicly is the tie-lose scenario because regardless of guilt or innocence his reputation is stained.

As for the evidence presented in A_E's initial video... in my opinion it is exceedingly weak. Some community members messaged me some other clips that were slightly more convincing but personally I am not convinced that there was foul play. The only clip that was even remotely suspicious in my opinion in A_E's initial video was when Seeking chased an AT gun to the corner of a map and from A_E's interview with Seeking, Seeking said that he had seen the AT gun prior to the clip itself. I have not verified this claim, but if true, even that clip isn't worthwhile.

The Brumb attack ground is mildly suspicious at best, however ordering an attack ground into a bottleneck when you know or suspect a push is coming isn't exactly mind-blowing. And I believe the AT guns had been shooting at his brumb when he ordered the second attack ground - although this was difficult to discern from A_E's youtube clip.

Looking at the edge of the fog of war isn't really suspicious in my opinion, especially early game if you're anticipating that a squad could show up, or trying to listen for some sort of vehicle. Everyone in this community listens into the fog for engine sounds/repair sounds or checks spawn locations in the case of team games to look at the base footprints. In 99-100% of my team games, I've looked into the fog to determine spawn locations, would that be evidence of maphacking?

To be clear, I have no dog in the fight. I understand that A_E is trying to do what is best for his tournament, and that is his prerogative. It's his personal tournament, as far as I'm concerned he could ban or allow anyone to compete based on his opinion or mood at the time. Would it make for an optimal tournament? Of course not, but I'd still argue that as it is his tournament, he has the right to do so.

However, I did feel like addressing the way that the entire situation was handled in hopes of encouraging similar situations from being handled differently in the future. The initial evidence showed little to no hard evidence of maphacking, and I believe that many of the clips that followed were simply confirmation bias. People started actively looking for suspicious moments, so of course they found them. If we went through dozens of DevM/Luvnest/Asha/Isi replays with a fine tooth comb and analyzed every little camera movement, or look into the fog, or look at the edge of the fog... how many suspicious moments would we find? I guarantee that plenty of players "look" into the fog to listen for something, or to order a unit to move into cover at a particular location. Common sense says that, if this happens enough, and if we look at enough examples, eventually we are going to find instances of "looking" through the fog and units being present at that location. If we're going into these replays with the bias that the player is maphacking, we're going to cite that as evidence when in reality the player was "looking" there for a reason other than maphacking.

At the end of the day, I guess what I'm trying to say is that we need to be careful of our mindset when investigating something like this. If Seeking is publicly accused (he was), then people are going to start going through every example that they can in at attempt to try and find suspicious moments and there will be at least some suspicious moments regardless of foul play, especially given how many games Seeking was playing each day. Calling him out publicly makes him guilty in the court of public opinion and also tends to push people's bias into finding suspicious moments rather than watching the replays from a more objective mindset.

Totally agree with you.

I think that a lot of the anti-cheat programs do look at the files on people's computers - specifically, the game directory.

Unless Steam decides to work with Relic to implement a VAC for COH2, people (allegedly including Seeking) are free to use maphacks. Most people won't because cheating feels wrong.

Yes those obviously do. They are a problem too if they transmit personal data. Optimally, they only transmit if they found something weird and the rest gets never saved.

But we don't have such a thing. If I got it correctly, people are suggesting that some 'experts' get remote control access over Seekings PC and check all installed programs and data files.

Yes those obviously do. They are a problem too if they transmit personal data. Optimally, they only transmit if they found something weird and the rest gets never saved.

But we don't have such a thing. If I got it correctly, people are suggesting that some 'experts' get remote control access over Seekings PC and check all installed programs and data files.

You'd also need to look at everything that has been deleted. Presumably, *IF* he was hacking, he has since uninstalled the program since he is under suspicion. You'd also have to hope/assume that he hadn't run some sort of drive/free space wipe on the SSD/HDD that the hacks were installed to. And there's still the potential that he played on his own account, on his uncle's PC, hacked via his uncle's software, but never hacked on his own computer.

It's an idea to let some one trusted analyze his PC, although I doubt there are many (if any) of us in this community with the proper knowledge/credentials to do it properly. And it wouldn't necessarily rule out foul play. And Seeking shouldn't willingly give anyone that level of access to his PC because going through a forensic process like that is extremely invasive.

I don't understand, was he playing with some shared accounts with a known cheater?

I don't understand, was he playing with some shared accounts with a known cheater?

His uncle has 3 VAC bans across multiple steam accounts, and is suspected of hacking in coh2. He admitted to playing on/boosting his uncle's account.

His uncle has 3 VAC bans across multiple steam accounts, and is suspected of hacking in coh2. He admitted to playing on/boosting his uncle's account.

While I agree that the accusations probably shouldn't have been made public, just the boosting speaks volumes to his character and is ban-worthy all by itself. Are you really here to defend boosting?

His uncle has 3 VAC bans across multiple steam accounts, and is suspected of hacking in coh2. He admitted to playing on/boosting his uncle's account.

Then how do you know who's doing what? Is this uncle for real?