Top level player allegedly maphacking in CoH2

F

Seeking is not being perma banned

1. uncle play games
2. he live with uncle(!) and play on same computer
what a bunch of nonsense
either lies or they are 2 imb***ls. More likely - both his accounts for cheating (1)freely and (2)stealthily

In other game top player was permabanned from tournaments just FOR INSTALLING (not using it once) "cheat engine" (you responsible for shit you have on your comp). In game it was a month ban of new account. (first one for 130$ was closed too). 2nd account was allowed bc he is openly steaming it 40+ hours per week.

Here is known long time cheater who is not getting kicked. He will simply return with new name to abuse fair players.
Only appologies are needed to those who played against this trash

1. uncle play games
2. he live with uncle(!) and play on same computer
what a bunch of nonsense
either lies or they are 2 imb***ls. More likely - both his accounts for cheating (1)freely and (2)stealthily

In other game top player was permabanned from tournaments just FOR INSTALLING (not using it once) "cheat engine" (you responsible for shit you have on your comp). In game it was a month ban of new account. (first one for 130$ was closed too). 2nd account was allowed bc he is openly steaming it 40+ hours per week.

Here is known long time cheater who is not getting kicked. He will simply return with new name to abuse fair players.
Only appologies are needed to those who played against this trash

In what game was someone banned for having CheatEngine installed on their computer? That seems a rather draconian decision.

CheatEngine is just a hex editing tool, despite the name (and what most people do use it for) it isnt /inherently/ just for cheating.

In tark. player was arven93. And i dont know for which program

Lol. Reputation. Like this is something important. Of course Seeking won't be banned. Cheating (probably) or not. An 8y old game with barely the playerbase, blowing this sh** out of proportion. People just like to feel important I guess.

If this were at all serious, you'd watch the clips, analyze and make a decision. Pretty much every thing on those clips can be summed down to "luck" or "game sense", and as such, no damning decision will be made, so stop this nonsense thread.

You don't need a comity of 300 posts and people following this BS thread to make a decision.
"Innocent until proven guilty" won't pass here because you don't have any concrete evidence. Only suspicious behaviour... so don't give all that BS about "innocent until proven guilty". Proven guilty about what? Even if he had 10 cheating bans on the account, it doesn't prove a thing.
So again. Stop this BS public thread. Go private. Decide whoever you feel like has no life to actually waste time arguing/proving this case like it's a life/death situation and get on with it.


EDIT: I mean, "seeing this investigation through".... You're hoping to get your hands on a video camera showing Seeking turning on the cheats?

If you wanted to make a decision, you would have done it. There is nothing smart or profound to be found here. You have a male/female person that had an above average number of "luck instances". That's all there is to it. Simple statistics. From my experience, as an average player (so trying to push my luck as far as it goes since I have nothing to lose, unlike tournament plays), I'll get 2-3 instances of pure luck in a game. Be it retreating in just the right time, moving something out of harms way, without knowing the harm is coming, randomly barraging FOW and getting a squad or two in the process..... etc.... so from my point of view, the clips on the first page are extremely suspicious. No amount of game sense is going to give you such precision. You can get lucky once or twice, but that's it.

There's such an arrogance to people on this forum it just pisses me off. Just makes using coh2.org a miserable experience. Who are you to demand closing a thread? Just don't look at it. And it's always the people most involved in the forum wars who make these judgemental statements about other peoples threads and opinions.

How is analyzing circumstantial evidence not a valid way to come to a conclusion? You have this very naive assumption that "proven guilty" means some kind of absolute proof is required. That's not how it works lol.

Also this thread has nothing to do with the decision making. No one claimed 300 posts were needed. It's just a forum where people talk about topics surrounding their favorite game. You have 700 posts in it. Wtf are you on about.

How is analyzing circumstantial evidence not a valid way to come to a conclusion? You have this very naive assumption that "proven guilty" means some kind of absolute proof is required. That's not how it works lol.

Also this thread has nothing to do with the decision making. No one claimed 300 posts were needed. It's just a forum where people talk about topics surrounding their favorite game. You have 700 posts in it. Wtf are you on about.

There was a time where I didn't think this forum was filled with delusional no-lifers, and that's when I actually posted and was involved in discussions (naive me).
Anyway, how does anyone plan to prove this guy was guilty without a shadow of a doubt? No matter how many hours you put in into analyzing each and every game he played and comparing them to the suspected replay, you will never be able to say "yeah, he cheated".
I'm not saying to close this thread because I don't like it, but because a player is being lynched without actual evidence. I mean, I think he did cheat, but that is not for the general public to decide. That's why this thread should not exist. And I did not actually look at it. I looked at the OP post, a few posts below it and commented. Don't mistake me for someone who gives a bit of a fu** about this forum. What I do give a f*** about is the fact that a "trial" is being made public, without any reason and that people are jumping on the bandwagon defending/attacking the person involved. I don't care about his/her reputation, nor his game. What I do care about is not abusing the fu***** mob mentality because some dumb fuc*s idea was to make it public.

EDIT: Yeah, you need absolute proof for stuff like that. If COH2 is one part of his income, then yeah, absolute proof is needed. What you're going to do? Deny him the opportunity because he was suspicious? Got lucky?
Again, I think he did cheat, since I do not believe such plays are possible and so many instances of luck can occur in one game, but that's not for me to decide (and in the end I don't care if he gets banned or not)

There was a time where I didn't think this forum was filled with delusional no-lifers, and that's when I actually posted and was involved in discussions (naive me).
Anyway, how does anyone plan to prove this guy was guilty without a shadow of a doubt? No matter how many hours you put in into analyzing each and every game he played and comparing them to the suspected replay, you will never be able to say "yeah, he cheated".
I'm not saying to close this thread because I don't like it, but because a player is being lynched without actual evidence. I mean, I think he did cheat, but that is not for the general public to decide. That's why this thread should not exist. And I did not actually look at it. I looked at the OP post, a few posts below it and commented. Don't mistake me for someone who gives a bit of a fu** about this forum. What I do give a f*** about is the fact that a "trial" is being made public, without any reason and that people are jumping on the bandwagon defending/attacking the person involved. I don't care about his/her reputation, nor his game. What I do care about is not abusing the fu***** mob mentality because some dumb fuc*s idea was to make it public.

EDIT: Yeah, you need absolute proof for stuff like that. If COH2 is one part of his income, then yeah, absolute proof is needed. What you're going to do? Deny him the opportunity because he was suspicious? Got lucky?
Again, I think he did cheat, since I do not believe such plays are possible and so many instances of luck can occur in one game, but that's not for me to decide (and in the end I don't care if he gets banned or not)

This isn't a trial nor a lynching. It's just a discussion. And no you don't need the kind of proof you're talking about to ban someone. That's not even how it works in the legal system, much less in a private gaming tournament where it's a purely ethical question lol.

Watch your wording mate. You can criticize the process and handling as much as you want, but insulting the people behind it is a no go.

That being said, you do realize that your standard is unachievable? Your putting higher hurdles on someone getting banned in a video game than people getting sent to jail in real life.
In the rarest cases you will have doubtless video and audio footage of someone committing a crime. Would you let a drug trafficker go because there is no video evidence of him handling drugs (not related to Seeking in any sense)? Just a lot of fitting phone connections, emails/notes, potentially DNA on a package but that could have gotten there in another way. Circumstantial evidence is being used every day, every where. The only question is how much evidence do you need to minimize the number of people being hit falsely.

And again, you can criticize the handling of this case as much as you want. For what it is, the discussion here has stayed very civil. Even if you disagree with making this public - and there are quite some arguments for keeping it private - "lynching" is the wrong word for it.

FYI from the ML discord:

A_E — Today at 10:23 AM
@everyone Two bans, and three apologies

Dear A_E,
thank you a lot!

• Thank you for taking action when the situation asked for it
  
• Thank you for now closing the case
  
  

It is precisely this “acting and deciding in circumstances of difficult or contradicting information” that made your leadership in this case so valuable from my perspective. (after all, if the road ahead is obvious, what do you need leadership for….)

And being able to apologize openly – that is awesome.
We probably all know people who delay decisions indefinitely and then blame other people and so on…..
You did not blame, you did now delay indefinitely.

I do hope, if we can make life easier for you in this community in the future, you tell us how. The goal in the end is to keep you around. So it should be fun in 70% (or whatever...) of the time.
cheers
gg

Watch your wording mate. You can criticize the process and handling as much as you want, but insulting the people behind it is a no go.

That being said, you do realize that your standard is unachievable? Your putting higher hurdles on someone getting banned in a video game than people getting sent to jail in real life.
In the rarest cases you will have doubtless video and audio footage of someone committing a crime. Would you let a drug trafficker go because there is no video evidence of him handling drugs (not related to Seeking in any sense)? Just a lot of fitting phone connections, emails/notes, potentially DNA on a package but that could have gotten there in another way. Circumstantial evidence is being used every day, every where. The only question is how much evidence do you need to minimize the number of people being hit falsely.

And again, you can criticize the handling of this case as much as you want. For what it is, the discussion here has stayed very civil. Even if you disagree with making this public - and there are quite some arguments for keeping it private - "lynching" is the wrong word for it.

+1 - A good player will be nearly impossible to "convict" based on replays. I think a lot of people are assuming that he either maphacks all the time or none of the time. The truth may be more complicated. None of us really know.

If it was a robbery case and I was on the jury, I probably would've voted for conviction. If it was a more serious charge, maybe not. Part of the problem is that I'm not one of Seeking's peers when it comes to knowledge of the game, particularly sniper play. I completely understand why AE end up taking the middle ground of a time ban.

While IMO the combination of circumstances gave enough reasons as to ban Seeking indefinitely (lying several times, giving impossibles explanations to some of the clips, association with someone who is 100% maphacking and had previous activity in doing so and finally repeating an offense despite been warned against it) i can understand why you went for the middle route although i don't agree with it.

I've seen other game scenes ban for similar reasons (BF3) and not giving as much thought, analysis and leeway to the accused part. Even Seeking himselfs admits it during his 1on1 with A_E. Hell, i could even see this happen in CS:GO/Valorant/R6 and he wouldn't be that fortunate neither.

Hell, i could even see this happen in CS:GO/Valorant/R6 and he wouldn't be that fortunate neither.

Well if you take into consideration CS:GO overwatch, then its requred to all the investigators proclaim suspect to be cheater. Even if one of them disagrees, then the suspect is innocent. Everything else is handled by the anti-cheat.

R6 has Battleeye, which is by the most retarded and bruteforce anti-cheat, which may ban you just because he thought that you did something suspicious even if its not related to the game itself. And its constantly scanning your system.

Dont know about valorant.

As I said multiple times, lying\giving wrong explanations are not something you can ban player for. Yes it may lead to tournaments bans (as it happened), but in terms relic comunity guidelines.

The only thing which is a mistery to me, why the fact that Seeking was playing on deadbolt acc and gave deadbolt his acc (considering he used cheats) didnt let to a ban. Because in this instance its a clear guideline violation because according to it, any accaunt you play on\own may be banned if a previosly banned player actively play\played on it.

I mean, we had instances of new accaunt being banned, which were own by the ppl who was banned previosly. There is a whole bunch of the examples of such bans. Its just a strange, ofcouse if Deadbolt maphacking is 100% proven and replays\videos confirm it.

Well if you take into consideration CS:GO overwatch, then its requred to all the investigators proclaim suspect to be cheater. Even if one of them disagrees, then the suspect is innocent. Everything else is handled by the anti-cheat.

I don't think one can veto a ban. Each overwatch investigator has an invisible score, which determines the weight of that individuals resolution. Eg. If a new investigator says the suspect is not cheating and a "veteran" says they are, then the ban will incur. I don't think anyone knows what the border is for ban. How many people need to be in agreement is still unknown for overwatch. Not only that, but overwatch is kinda pointless as CS GO is free. I usually overwatch 3-5 cases a day and in every single one there is a hacker. 1/20 or 30 are non hacking people. Of course, CS GO is mostly played by kids and no-lifers so it's not surprising. Hell, I remember playing one game on Saturday morning. Took a break, made lunch, studied, went on a jog and then in the evening I got paired with the same guy I played with in the morning. CS GO is really in a sad state. Both player wise and anti-cheat wise.

How that has anything to do with this?
Most people found Seeking guilty. Simple. Issue a ban, but don't drag this out publicly.

I don't think one can veto a ban. Each overwatch investigator has an invisible score, which determines the weight of that individuals resolution. Eg. If a new investigator says the suspect is not cheating and a "veteran" says they are, then the ban will incur. I don't think anyone knows what the border is for ban. How many people need to be in agreement is still unknown for overwatch. Not only that, but overwatch is kinda pointless as CS GO is free. I usually overwatch 3-5 cases a day and in every single one there is a hacker. 1/20 or 30 are non hacking people. Of course, CS GO is mostly played by kids and no-lifers so it's not surprising. Hell, I remember playing one game on Saturday morning. Took a break, made lunch, studied, went on a jog and then in the evening I got paired with the same guy I played with in the morning. CS GO is really in a sad state. Both player wise and anti-cheat wise.

Interesting, I think if more hacking comes to light in our community perhaps this is something we can learn from.

...

Well maybe, I dont play CSGO, so i'm not intirely sure how it works. I've red an article and watched some videos in before, and I thought that it requare all investigator to call suspect guildy. Also speaking of F2P, I also thought that they review only more or less hight ranked games. Aswell as more expirienced investigators reviewing more hight rank games. But I might be wrong here.

Most people found Seeking guilty. Simple. Issue a ban, but don't drag this out publicly.

It would have been logical solution, but problem is, in CSGO, for excample, judges are unbiased. They dont even know nick name of suspect and they rotate + they are part of the Valve sistem.

In coh2, we not only dont have unbiased opinion because each of the top player know each other, but also we have very few of them. Even in this situation, half of the clips (even from top players) are completly useless and were captured only because they were salty with a thought in their mind that Seeking is a cheater. This move already sabotaged whole proccess. And top players (nor, as it seems, community contributors) are part of the Relic system, which means they cant ban someone only based on their opinion.

Its a double edged sword. On the one hand I fully agree that this should have never been public, on the other hand almost all top players called Seeking a cheater, while after all this drama case was droped because of the lack of evidence. Wasnt it not been public, seeking would have had status of a cheater, but as I said previously he still wouldnt have been banned, because Relic themselfs didnt find anything worth banning.

Problem with your statement, is that if we start issuing bans based on opinion, then pretty much everybody can be banned because of an RNG or lucky guesses. Lets say, we all report to sturmpanther, and during my 100 games, I had 10 really lucky moments, which are very fishy. Then sturmpanther have all rights to issue me a ban, because he didnt see all other 90 games and his oppinion will be based only on 10 games. But based on thouse 10 games I would look like a cheater.

Problem with your statement, is that if we start issuing bans based on opinion, then pretty much everybody can be banned because of an RNG or lucky guesses. Lets say, we all report to sturmpanther, and during my 100 games, I had 10 really lucky moments, which are very fishy. Then sturmpanther have all rights to issue me a ban, because he didnt see all other 90 games and his oppinion will be based only on 10 games. But based on thouse 10 games I would look like a cheater.

100 games and 10 lucky moments are not really a statistical anomaly. It's quite normal.
Problem comes when one has 3 or more completely lucky moments in one game. I'm not talking luck like penetrating a KT with scott on max range but shooting randomly, for no reason and scoring a direct hit. Sure one time it can happen. Two times? Sure. Three times? Eh, if it's your day. But 4 or more times it's really becoming a chore. Furthermore, a player can defend themselves retroactively. They get accused, look at the suspicious replay and make up excuses for most of the situations. A cheater will not be able to completely explain every random shot they decided to take. That's why.

Trust me, you won't have 10 lucky moments in one game. Might be a case if it were 10vs10 with super duper resource generation. But in 2v2 or 3v3, not gonna happen.

If you get 10 completely lucky shots in one game. I'll give you my address and you can come and beat the shit out of me.

100 games and 10 lucky moments are not really a statistical anomaly. It's quite normal.
Problem comes when one has 3 or more completely lucky moments in one game. I'm not talking luck like penetrating a KT with scott on max range but shooting randomly, for no reason and scoring a direct hit. Sure one time it can happen. Two times? Sure. Three times? Eh, if it's your day. But 4 or more times it's really becoming a chore. Furthermore, a player can defend themselves retroactively. They get accused, look at the suspicious replay and make up excuses for most of the situations. A cheater will not be able to completely explain every random shot they decided to take. That's why.

Trust me, you won't have 10 lucky moments in one game. Might be a case if it were 10vs10 with super duper resource generation. But in 2v2 or 3v3, not gonna happen.

If you get 10 completely lucky shots in one game. I'll give you my address and you can come and beat the shit out of me.

The two attack ground shots on the cloaked AT guns looked more than just a little too "lucky", especially considering that I didn't see any other times when he randomly fired into the FOW or any other attack ground on something that he didn't see.

...

I think we are mixing things here. One thing is a game wide ban coming from the studio developer or in case they relegate that function to an anti cheat system.

The other one is been vetoed from playing in competitive games. Whether is due to private anti cheat, third party review system or infringing in other kinds of behaviour.


1- R6: one of the best players was banned (unjustified) because people found his plays to be TOO GOOD and the only thing MOSS (private) detected was an inhumane amount of clicks press through his macro (just number 4 been pressed). That was enough for a ban. Even if it was proven that MOSS was unreliable and there's an easy explanation as to why that number of key pressing was possible.

2- CS:GO. If you are found boosting, win trading, betting, you bet Valve will fuck your ass hard. Good luck if you are found playing with the account of someone cheating or even worst in the same computer as one.

3- Any other E-Sport.
Toxicity. Be it during events or PUB games. Depending on how big the game is, those standards goes further into IRL behaviour and social media.


Outside of few clips, it's hard to claim with certainty if something is just "game sense" or maphacks, therefore making plenty of the list inconclusive or unreliable. The problem for Seeking comes when all the other factors are taken into account.

My point was, Seeking already broke community guidelines by letting Dealbolt play on his accaunt. In this thread it was brought up that Deadbolt was playing vCoH and got ban in it.

In other words, everybody were focused on finding is Seeking was or wasnt maphacking, and when it wasnt proven that he had used maphack case was droped, and all he got is tournament ban.

While even in guidelines its stated, that if you are banned for cheats, you should be banned from all relic games. I'm sure they are not doing it, but I still belive that if you are proven to be guildy in the past and if you are proven to be in a situation such as this one, it should justify another ban on all accs you were playing.

But it all went un-noticed because ... reasons. Its like, main goal was to find is seeking as a person is a cheater or not, while every other offences were left behind. One year ban for boosting cheater (since its kinda proven, as far as I understand) who was previosly banned and letting him play on your acc. Second action, is permabannable by relic themselfs.

While even in guidelines its stated, that if you are banned for cheats, you should be banned from all relic games. I'm sure they are not doing it, but I still belive that if you are proven to be guildy in the past and if you are proven to be in a situation such as this one, it should justify another ban on all accs you were playing.

I imagine this is going to be a big deal when AoE4 comes out and a bunch of people are banned. They are addressing it in CoH2 to prepare for the new release.