What is the requirement for him to pull it off? In the description it only says, that frontline and cut-off sectors are getting bombarded. However, frontline sectors exist at any time in the game, that's dangerous enough I think. How exactly does this ability work?
frontline sectors in this case here are the territory sectors that are the closest to the enemy but not cut off, those get hit by light mortar fire only. This was done so the ability always does something and it only happens if you are not cut-off, however ofc it's not worth the cost at all as the ability only works at ~5% effectiveness here.
100% effectiveness of the ability kicks in if the sector is cut-off. Basically your units get hit by dozens of stuka dive bombs, artillery grenades and panzerwerfer barrages in extremely quick succession until everything is dead. The damage output can be so big that I've seen fullhealth ISU-152's getting destroyed within 5 seconds
However, at around minute 29 the opponent used his "Close the pocket" ability (Encirclement doctrine) and wiped my complete infantry and team weapons. Can you please explain to me, how to counter/react to this? Am I actually supposed to leave all of the frontline sectors and return to base while the ability is active? I have never encountered this, that's why I got hit so hard. We only managed to come back because they didnt capitalize on it and I was floating MP big time.
Unfortunately, most of the times it's already too late to retreat if the enemy activated it already. Close the Pocket basically deletes your entire army if the enemy manages to pull it off. Only vehicles have a decent chance to survive if you pull them out fast. But yes ofc try the same with infantry and hit the retreat button asap.
The best way to counter this ability is by not allowing your enemy to pull it off. This means once you realized that he picked this commander: Immediately plant fuel/ammo caches on the 2 or 3 points that cut off the entire map. Pay attention for hidden stormtroopers in the area and the health of the caches
Family shared accounts are still independent accounts.
Its not possible for relic to identify shared accounts anyway, only steam can do that(and they themselves took action against smurfing in dota using this method and ban shared accounts as well).
I am 95% sure that CoH2 bans cannot be bypassed with family share, only through buying the game again
I feel this is not the correct way to discuss such things openly in front of the community. Please step all back and watch the damage you have done.
yeah I dont quite understand the point of this whole thread either.
1) The maphack "prosecutions" against seeking got dropped for now, a decision I am 100% fine with
2) The whole MasterLeague suspension thingy should be handled privately, I agree. I have nothing to do with the MasterLeague referee system and that stuff is none of our business. Technically a tournament organizer can (time)ban someone from their tourney for whatever reason they want.
3) Whilst the "top player allegedly maphacking" thread was already really controversial: this one right here is rly just pure drama and toxic bullshit
The thing that needs to be understood here is that no one at Relic is actually capable of deciding if someone is map hacking or not. They don't have functioning tools to check for hacks and they also don't have any people working for them that are actually familiar with competitive C0H2. The way these cases have been handled in the past was that people contacted Sturmpanther with their suspicions and then Sturmpanther checked for hacks by watching replays (as well as asking other respected high-level community members for their opinion). It seems that in this case Sturmpanther and the community asked Relic to ban Seeking but they declined because Seeking is a "high-profile case". This might also have something to do with the new community manager we recently got. It would be very naive to think that Relic and their skeleton crew could actually watch a replay and decide if a person is map hacking. To spot hacks and judge a replay you need to be a good player with competitive experience (the likes of which were mentioned in the first google document).
this. Relic's verdict in this case can safely be ignored, people.
Their whole new anti-cheat policy has proven to be utterly useless when it comes to super-rare cases like this. If you have a name in a community, they want to be 100.0% sure with 0 possible doubt at all.. which makes perfect sense of course at first thought.
The problem that not even Relic will be able to answer however: How can you ever be 100.0% sure when you dont have any auto-detected anti-cheat system for most maphack programs implemented in your own game, and when nobody at Relic nowadays is even remotely familiar with CoH2. You might as well jump to the last page of 4v4 ladders and ask some rank 10,000 player if he thinks a sniper clip might be maphack. No popular player with a brain cell will zoom the camera into a sniper and then rifle-nade it, which is probably the type of video clips they would need.
The replays vs Isildur in the finals are there to show the difference between seeking looking and acting in fow, while a ref is watching him, and without ref / without streaming in automatch.
They are available in the video format as well for those who are interested:
What i dont understand is why seeking or in this case Kimbo is the one who had to deliver the context for this clip. Isnt it the job of those who accuse him of cheating to prove that the situation doesnt allow anything else than a maphack to be the explaination before Seeking has to defend his position?
How many of those clips can be explained with the context of the situation instead of Seeking writing an essay about why, when, how and what his feelings, hopes and dreams were in an intense game?
I get that, but in this particular katyusha clip, nobody told me/us that there is a Twitch VoD available for it. And we certainly won't check hours of VoDs because there might be a context clip.
And I can assure you that I am 100% unbiased in this whole case since the start. If an argument against seeking doesn't make sense or if a clip (even or especially after seeking's defense statement) is bad & weak -which some of the clips on the word document certainly were- I would immediately acknowledge that.
context, why?? i thought i could out you as a liar and threaten your reputation with just these out of context quotes? no? my bad. guess i have to make some clips then, brb
No matter how much context gets put into the "edge of FoW" clips, fact is that seeking said "I saw one gren model, then I started shooting the katy". Similar explanations for the other clips. Crazy to think that suspicion gets bigger after you question that person... oh wait, that happens all the time in real life when the police questions someone.
The katyusha clip was mildly suspicious to me. Then it turned into "very suspicious" after Seeking's statement.
I know you are a good friend of seeking, and that your quote above was meant as a joke/metaphor, but what is so hard to understand?
The biggest problem for me are still all the clips where it was argued "it happened on the edge of FoW, and FoW is badly synced in replays". Those are the katyusha clip, the volks sandbag vs pathfinder clip and the assgren sprint clip mainly.
In all of them, Seeking repeatedly said (even on stream), that he reacted that way because he saw the units. Which is kind of 100% debunked at this point as others mentioned... on top of the fact that there is still 0 proof yet that fog of war is poorly synced in a replay.
Germany
Relic Entertainment
