I've been running some tests.
First of all, random note, vehicles apparently do not always appear in the FOW when they get hit. It seems completely random. But just as often they stay invisible. No idea why.
Second of all, a vet 1 Pak 40 does not have a high enough fire rate to manually target a vehicle that got lid up by a previous attack ground shot.
Yes, but it would give him all the information he needed to take a follow up attack ground. The fall of the hit by the little shed there could just be scatter from a shot in the same place, or maybe he assumed that the opponent would back up the T70 after the connecting hit and he adjusted for that, nothing in that clip seems remarkable. |
"Curved Shots" are caused by the accuracy check succeeding, and forcing the shell to home in on the target. They only occur on actual attacks, not attack grounds, and only when the shot succeeds an accuracy check, as previously mentioned.
The fact that the shot didn't actually hit the t-70 on the third attack indicates this didn't happen, I don't think there's anything to see with regards to a "Curved shot".
It's odd that he "knew" where the T-70 was after it trundled back into the fog, especially as it changed direction after it stopped being visible, but vehicle sounds in the fog can be used fairly well to locate an unit. I'm not sure I'd call this /all/ that suspicious.
When you hit something the FOW it is momentarily revealed. Note that the "FOW" box is clicked on but the T70 is visible. |
Curved shots can only occur when a gun rolls a hit, and then the shell will follow the enemy vehicle regardless of its movement, causing curved projectiles. It can obviously only do that when it can directly target the enemy vehicle. So with direct line of sight. A curved shot with attack ground is impossible.
The question however is whether the curve is a camera angle or replay illusion or real. I suspect it's the former because I highly doubt the maphack (I have no idea how it works) allows to directly target vehicles in the FOW.
So this implies the map hack interacts with the game play (basing rolls off vision provided by the map hack)? |
can you explain this shot?
T70 is in FOW but his AT shoot to T70 with curved projectiles that cause by normal attack not ground attack .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCfe8aslYDw
https://imgur.com/cD4oS2w
He takes an initial lucky shot through the FOW (nothing abnormal here, you can hear the T70 through FOW and taking attack ground shots is completely normal for the 1st...you see this all day on twitch streams of players attack grounding through that hedge). The lucky shot connects, now people seem to think the 2nd shot is very suspicious but it is not, when you hit something in the FOW through lucky attack grounds, the item you hit is momentarily revealed through the FOW (you can hear the *donk* of the round hitting). https://imgur.com/a/jFJKFlQ FOW enabled, but the T70 is revealed.
I don't know what the picture of the "curved" shot is supposed to imply...are you saying he has some sort of aim hack? |
Or Seeking is just a very intelligent player, who takes minimal risk of being caught as to why he is always on the edge with FOW.
Unless the map hack provides a FOW overlay to illustrate exactly where the edge lies, I find this extremely hard to believe someone would be that skilled to have such precise estimation at essentially 100%. Surely there would be instances people could find where he was pre-emptive sooner. |
What are you asking exactly? The clip has follow camera on, he stops building bags as soon as he looks into the fow and 'sees' pathfinders and stop building the bags immediately.
This seems to be the point at which the volks stop, unless I'm watching incorrectly (this is the earliest point where it looks like the volks begin the reaching for their rifles animation instead of having their hands on the ground). I agree that this would be too fast reaction time from Seeking, but on the other hand, why would he wait this long until the pathfinders are at this spot before canceling the sandbags? Why wouldn't he have moved his volks to an optimal position to the green cover right there before the Pathfinders reached their green cover? It would be nice to see this clip at normal speed from Seekings POV for the duration (it only has POV for a small portion). If there are desync issues in the game +/- 1 second (I believe there are) then wouldn't pretty much all of these cases of pre-emptive moves fall within the margin of error? |
One thing I find suspicious is the extremely short reaction time.
Even given (Rosbone's point) many of these cases where something happens at the edge of the FOV are inconclusive due to desyncs, you still need some time to react.
However, how exactly does this hack work?
From the accusations it is assumed that he at least sees some ghost units in the FOV. Or does he just get straight FOV? Does the old FOV indication stay? If he sees everything, why does he sometimes react so "late"? In the example of the assgrens sprinting to support a flanked MG42 against Conscripts, he could have sprinted earlier with similar effect.
Why does all of this happen at the absolute edge of the FOV where we are dealing with synchronization issues, and not 5-10 meters out?
The only explanation is that he actively waits until the edge of the FOV to not look suspicious. But in this case he must have a god-like feeling of the exact FOV of his units and always nail it with accuracy of those 1-2 meters.
It would be good to have the actual replay files or at least full length games as video. What matters is not only when he DID do suspicious things, but also the amount of times when he did not in the same game. And nobody can judge that from mostly 1 minute clips.
The thing that is suspicious with this is the units are so close to the FOW edge in the damning cases, there are no clips shown where he indicates he knows the unit is approaching further off. I think this supports the desync theory that Rosbone mentioned in the first response. Now this is being explained that he is "extremely good at using the map hack" in the video, this seems like a huge stretch as well, you would think someone would be able to find a very concrete piece that people wouldn't argue over.
Why bother building sandbags that long with the volks if he knows pathfinders are approaching at all? Why wouldn't he have taken cover sooner? In a play where he repositions an MG because a con is not visible and at the very edge of FOW, he would have lost that MG if it did not have assgrens right there and supported it, why would he have waited so long to reposition the MG to the point where it was successfully flanked and in danger of being lost or forced off? Oh it's because he is as skilled at using map hack in making wishy washy arguable pieces of evidence as he is at playing the game! |
My 2 cents from watching the clips: the 'evidence' is lacking in quality in determining if he is cheating or not. So many can be explained by clips out of context, or coming from the point of view of being a lower rank player instead of what high rank players must learn to do when they are playing top ranked games every day (IE moving an MG once one squad is suppressed, I am guessing that top level players know that once a squad is suppressed, there is a high probability another one will instantly be coming to flank it). The most damning one seems to be the Brummbar firing through FOW, I think this can lay in the realm of good guessing as this spot of the map is an area where units become bunched up and he had prior knowledge of the AT guns being around there. The Brummbar gets hit by AT gun fire about 8 seconds before he fires into that area using attack ground, he knows the AT guns are there, it's hardly evidence or proof of hacking. He avoids an MG in one clip and then comes back to flank it as it packs up and resets, how on earth is this be taken as evidence? This sort of luck or caluclated play happens every game. A Stuka barrage into the FOW which manages to miss an infantry blob and kill one or two models on a .50 cal, in the most populated, highly contested area of the map is evidence? Come on...There is one where he attack ground a T70 through the FOW, something that is entirely common, the shot connects. What people say is proof of cheating here is that he takes another shot and it connects with the T70 in a slightly different position, this is preposterous as when you hit something through FOW from a guess shot, it reveals the unit, he could easily just readjust for the 2nd shot since he knows where the T70 is from a game mechanic.
There is no smoking gun here and this becomes extremely suspect in itself that the community managers chose to expose this and try this guy in the court of public opinion instead of dealing with this confidentially at first and letting him say his side of the story. Even if he can prove 100% that he is innocent, these community managers have already destroyed his reputation, this shows extreme negligence and very poor logic on the part of the community managers from my perspective.
|
ignore the previous matchups of svt/stg volks |
I just tested svt cons vs stg volks no cover at near, mid and far vanilla, near, mid and far at vet 3 con and vet 5 stg volk, and the same scenario in both green cover (comparable vet [none-max] at near, mid and far) and the SVT cons very easily won every single engagement, the least amount of cons left in their worst outcome was 2 models left, often 3-4 models. For a 240 mp+60muni upgrade, that is pretty damn OP. |