Top level player allegedly maphacking in CoH2

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

damn, that took you a while to figure xD

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).

You say through the medium of a forum post

My point was, Seeking already broke community guidelines by letting Dealbolt play on his accaunt.

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.

If you are SOMEBOBY, you are not banned.
If you are NOBODY, you are banned.

Relic should banned Seeking's account to give us a fair judgement.

Providing further clarification because I see theories and conclusions based on incorrect assumptions.

1) Nobody is claiming Deadbolt played on Seeking's account. No proof of that. I initially raised that suspicion based on some "noobish" mistakes from the clips; however, once I got my hands on the replays, it was clear that Deadbolt didn't play on Seeking's account in those games.
2) Seeking played on Deabolt's account AFTER he was warned not to.
3) Seeking and Deadbolt DO NOT live under the same roof nor do they use the same computer unless Seeking visits his uncle and plays to boost him. Seeking openly talked about this.
4) The process created for this was ultimately flawed and unfair even though Sturmpanther and AE had the best of intentions. Clips released without prior context are inconclusive at best and given the format of the decision making, the whole process is riddled with opinions of people that are openly in conflict of interest.
5) Evidence of Seeking's hypothetical hacking will surely be submitted to Relic for further investigation. If he gets banned, he gets permabanned from ML as well. Let Relic do their job.
6) Deadbolt is a pathetic egotistical imbecile.
7) Seeking is a dumbass for getting himself in this position.
8) Fair warning to all current ML participants (or ML hopefuls), getting mixed up with Deadbolt in 2v2 AT after this point will get you on the top of ML shithead list.

If you are SOMEBOBY, you are not banned.
If you are NOBODY, you are banned.

Relic should banned Seeking's account to give us a fair judgement.

Complete and utter BS. That situation never happened. I see you are relatively new but don't just spew pathetic nonsense out.

Historically speaking, community organized tournaments have always reacted to Relic bans, regardless of the player's stature. If Relic bans your account, well guess what? You have no game client to play the tournament on. There is no SOMEBODY and NOBODY, if you are a cheater you get banned.

Complete and utter BS. That situation never happened. I see you are relatively new but don't just spew pathetic nonsense out.

Historically speaking, community organized tournaments have always reacted to Relic bans, regardless of the player's stature. If Relic bans your account, well guess what? You have no game client to play the tournament on. There is no SOMEBODY and NOBODY, if you are a cheater you get banned.

If Seeking was some random Asian or Eastern European automatch player he would be banned already just because of the clips. He wouldn't have been allowed to respond to the claims either. Seeking recieved very preferential threatment and if you think this is wrong I suggest you start talking to people who got banned for map hacking before and ask them how many days/chances to form a defense against the accusations they recieved.

If Seeking was some random Asian or Eastern European automatch player he would be banned already just because of the clips. He wouldn't have been allowed to respond to the claims either. Seeking recieved very preferential threatment and if you think this is wrong I suggest you start talking to people who got banned for map hacking before and ask them how many days/chances to form a defense against the accusations they recieved.

Wrong! Stupid! Ridiculous!

You are mixing up two completely different scenarios. ML is not Relic, ML doesn't ban players from the game, ML is a community funded effort and as such there is always some sort of collective decision about "big" actions. Suspending/Banning someone FROM ML has always in ML history been done via consensus of patreons.


Since Relic didn't see fit to help us out in a timely fashion, Sturmpanther and A_E took it up on themselves to publicly present the problem based on some very serious accusations in order to protect the integrity of the tournament and start gauging opinion of Patreons about the situation. Whether that was right thing to do or not, it is debatable.

Every single in-game ban thus far has been issued by Relic. Sometimes based on community provided proof or based on their own investigations. WE DID NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF RELIC'S ASSISTENCE this time around and that was clearly stated when this whole mess started.

As part of the investigations into hacking, we discovered other proof and decided to act based on what we know 100% in order to avoid further controversy and splitting of Patreons' vote and Seeking was accoringly suspended from ML within a day and a half.

This has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, country or whatever color of panties Deadbolt wears. Please stop with "woke" liberal BS, you are plain wrong.

Wrong! Stupid! Ridiculous!

You are mixing up two completely different scenarios. ML is not Relic, ML doesn't ban players from the game, ML is a community funded effort and as such there is always some sort of collective decision about "big" actions. Suspending/Banning someone FROM ML has always in ML history been done via consensus of patreons.


Since Relic didn't see fit to help us out in a timely fashion, Sturmpanther and A_E took it up on themselves to publicly present the problem based on some very serious accusations in order to protect the integrity of the tournament and start gauging opinion of Patreons about the situation. Whether that was right thing to do or not, it is debatable.

Every single in-game ban thus far has been issued by Relic. Sometimes based on community provided proof or based on their own investigations. WE DID NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF RELIC'S ASSISTENCE this time around and that was clearly stated when this whole mess started.

As part of the investigations into hacking, we discovered other proof and decided to act based on what we know 100% in order to avoid further controversy and splitting of Patreons' vote and Seeking was accoringly suspended from ML within a day and a half.

This has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, country or whatever color of panties Deadbolt wears. Please stop with "woke" liberal BS, you are plain wrong.

Please read what I wrote and try to understand my point. What you just wrote has nothing to do with my point.

I have never said that the ML and its organizers ban players from COH2.

My point is that Seeking has received preferential treatment compared to an average coh2 players when confronted with hacking accusations. The point is this: Some random automatch player would have never gotten a chance to defend himself. He would have just been banned by Relic and that would have been it. Meanwhile Seeking had the chance to explain everything and has now not been banned even though the presented evidence would have easily gotten someone else banned.

Please read what I wrote and try to understand my point. What you just wrote has nothing to do with my point.

I have never said that the ML and its organizers ban players from COH2.

My point is that Seeking has received preferential treatment compared to an average coh2 players when confronted with hacking accusations. The point is this: Some random automatch player would have never gotten a chance to defend himself. He would have just been banned by Relic and that would have been it. Meanwhile Seeking had the chance to explain everything and has now not been banned even though the presented evidence would have easily gotten someone else banned.

Did seeking get banned from automatch? You're comparing apples and oranges.

Did seeking get banned from automatch? You're comparing apples and oranges.

No he wasn't which is exactly my point. Preferential treatment.

snip

From how I read the messages, Relic refused to ban Seeking due to lack of evidence even before everything went public.

All the explanation that Seeking was allowed to do is purely for the ML. If you think a "normal" average automatch player would have been banned for that, you need to complain to Relic. They are the ones who made the decision to not ban him from automatch. It has nothing to do with Seeking "now" not being banned by ML (or at least should have nothing to do with it).

No he wasn't which is exactly my point. Preferential treatment.

Based on publicly available information I the impression that Relic are going through cultural/ procedural/ staff changes at the moment, sometimes when that happens there's teething issues and common sense takes a back seat to risk minimisation.

This may explain why the Deadbolt/Satup account are not banned despite the evidence both concrete factual and opinion based being overwhelming from the community.

We're living in a different environment to the one when Sturmpanther was the community's representative on these issues, and if we run our own tournaments, we have to shoulder the burden of responsibility and take the risks.

Please read what I wrote and try to understand my point. What you just wrote has nothing to do with my point.

I have never said that the ML and its organizers ban players from COH2.

My point is that Seeking has received preferential treatment compared to an average coh2 players when confronted with hacking accusations. The point is this: Some random automatch player would have never gotten a chance to defend himself. He would have just been banned by Relic and that would have been it. Meanwhile Seeking had the chance to explain everything and has now not been banned even though the presented evidence would have easily gotten someone else banned.

I just described to you the whole process and the difference between issuing in-game bans and ML bans.

If Relic bans any random automatch player quicker then the other, it is probably because they were able to determine one case quicker then any random other one. We don't know what Relic's ban decision process is like.

As ML referee and financial supporter, I take extreme objection to your notion that any form of racial profiling or stature is used to determine eligibility of any player to play in ML. Seeking's case became public since Relic refused to assist and we didn't know how else to make a proper decision.

Had Relic jumped in and acted concretely to all the evidence related to Seeking's case, I assure you, there wouldn't have been any discussion or debate because he would have gotten instantly banned or instantly cleared.

Given the fact that we only ever suspended or denied participation to 3 players (CaptainSPrice and now Seeking and Deadbolt) since the inception, I am asking you not to mix our bans with Relic's.

Obviously I don't speak in any way whatsoever for Relic, however I imagine their process is quite different than this community process.

Based on how other companies in the industry operate I would wager that Relic has (or at least had) some sort of tool that either looks for third-party applications running, or (to put it simply because it is slightly more complicated and technical than this) asks the game client a "question" and the anti-cheat tool knows an expected "answer." If this "answer" is different than the expected/known answer this would be an indication of a modified client, or their tool might do both of these things. Or it might look at the hash values of game files during gameplay to check for modifications. There are many ways they could go about it.

In the case of an anti-cheat tool like this, the accounts flagged by such a tool will be *highly* likely to be cheating in some manner.

All this is to say that, because Relic owns the game and presumably has access to tools that the community does not, the accounts that Relic flags and ends up banning are almost certainly guilty of some sort of an offense. A community investigation on the other had tends to be more subjective because of the implicit biases (good or bad) that players have between each other and the fact that it is more difficult to make a judgement call when it can't be definitively proven that, at a minimum, SOMETHING fishy was going on with a third party application or with the game client itself.

To suggest that Relic bans people on a whim is laughable. It's not at all in their best interests as a company.

Edit: Not going to edit the content of my post, but I wanted to add that Relic says that they have proprietary anti-cheat software in their community code of conduct: https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/246443/community-code-of-conduct

No he wasn't which is exactly my point. Preferential treatment.

That doesn't make any sense. Your main argument was that seeking was given time for a defense etc. That happened in the context of ML. Why would he get banned by relic? Is anyone getting banned? There just simply hasn't been a ban wave on relics part recently.

Is anyone getting banned? There just simply hasn't been a ban wave on relics part recently.

Not true, since John is our new CM, there were alot of bans. But mainly based on reports via Email.

I have found your interjection into these debates to be deeply hypocritical.

You were involved in a subjective community process to accuse a player that didn't get detected by Relic Entertainment, you found evidence he (or an account linked to him) was involved on hacking forums, which was used in conjunction with the subjective clip based evidence that had been collected.

Here we had a subjective community process to accuse a player that didn't get detected by Relic Entertainment, we found evidence (he played on the pc and account of a player who everyone agrees hacked in replays), which was used in conjunction with the subjective clip/replay based evidence that had been collected.

All of your raz clips/replays could have been explained with "game sense bro" in just the same way as ours.

Do me a favour, go and watch one of the last 1v1 games Seeking played before the accusations went live. He manhandles a player that goes life and death with everyone. Don't look at my time stamps, put your head in the players and count at the times you go "hmm", then watch any other 1v1 game replay on the ladder and do an equal exercise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy2gxRMwuW8

Now I'm willing to accept either of the following two scenarios:

1) Seeking has an innovative gameplay style and incredible game sense that would always have led to suspicion at some point - but you don't agree with the panel of top players, referees, and casters that analysed his play and felt yourself to be in a position of unbiased view so were able to compose a google doc declaring it was mostly chance and game sense.

2) Seeking was hacking either via Fog of War or the minimap (both currently possible) - but you don't agree with the panel of top players, referees, and casters that analysed his play, and felt yourself to be in a position of unbiased view so were able to compose a google doc declaring it was mostly chance and game sense.

Which is it?