cheater or not?
And i extremely doubt that there will be any proove in future, since i am pretty sure he is a fair-player.
I wonder why....
do not say, that i have fooled anyone because i didn't, accept that u were wrong and do not try to defend yourself, the thing it looks like walhack it does not must to mean that someone uses a walhack in realitydo not take back your previous words because u deny by this the mistake u did and trying to hide the shame, deep in u, u will always know that u made a mistake, have balls to admit that, and do not search anything to explain the fail
don't hide yourself under "i wanted to see the demos first" umbrella, because u going to lie yourself, i know what u thought about the movie watching it, so please do not pretend now it was different
f1, fala. many thanx for lesson. and also for sharing some part of your experience for free
@devs
plz fix that annoying bug when quote is restored in editor after pressing 'preview' button, so you got 2 quotes: an edited one and another one full, unedited.
this topic is to prove u guys that there won't be any 100% sure proofs about wallhacking, because it is almost impossible to detect, and often people trying to explain how the cheat working without taking in consideration that the suspected person does not cheat
take this bish ->
http://www.excessiveplus.net/files/forum/2007/08/2xf-o-_193.dm_68
it is possible to detect a wallhack 100% as long as he uses it totally or he fucks up.
in this demo the guy does both, in ligas demo he does both too.
if u do not use a wallhack totally, it ends up being same effective as somebody with good sound beside the fact he doesnt hear people behind.
there even a decent wallhack fucks up, if its easily possible to hear somebody while he doesnt but he still reacts around corners as if he had sound.
other point where wallhacks mostly fuck up is distance. if its not possible to hear somebody its barely possible to go below 300msec reaction (narc did 80).
also there is wrong tendency to say that someone cheats because he has not enough experience to play this way, thats completely wrong conclusion, even someone who playing by a month or few months can play "sound style"
yep, torzelan showed it best, he became top5 within e+ within 3 days.
the point is rather, if somebody cant do a nadejump properly u wont belive him he accs up to 50 percent. since both needs the same, aiming, just at different things.
same goes for hitting people when u have a total sluggish mouse.
btw: @ doomcore: the most important fact about cheaters is that they always fuck up a second time if u spec them just long enough. the problem is that the level of players is so high in e+ meanwhile that u really need a big big big unexplainable thing to get them and even then its hard to ban people with a name.
if u would be so kind u can provide us whole list/list of all people which are cheater for hypers (imo i read something there within ur words eh?) so we can actually take a closer look? or u finally shut up?
I wont point finger at anyone, I don't care anymore. Even you said it: ''The problem is that the level of players is so high in e+ meanwhile that u really need a big big big unexplainable thing to get them and even then its hard to ban people with a name.'' So, what's the point to continue further? But thanks for consideration Skull.
Good luck!!!
i read all the posts... and still.... scrind will be banned or not ?)))
by the looks of this discussion, we are at the circus right now....
Good luck!!!
the point is that i as good player sometimes do not recognise if somebody might cheat cuz im used to good enemys here and then but frag them mostly anyways.
also any hint can be usefull, but heh, as u wish, shut up already.
This case prooves that judgement can be wrong, but does not proove that we can't claim smb's guilt (can't be sure but can be "sure enough"). To solve any cheater's case we simply need to take some assumptions. The major one would be that normally players try to be effective and not just attract attention with their strange play style. The other issue is advantage - if this strange play work, when normally shopuldn't - here it was crucial. Movie showed advantage, but it was not that obvioyus when compared to play style from demo. Ofc you could fake that too and jump straight, walk into walls... etc. but making diversion to proof that one could be wrong is also proof that assumption of normal play was right. You can always say that smo is looking at located sound source, but seriously it's not normal way towards effectiveness. If you want (and have ability) you can convience judge that you are guilty even when you didn't really commited any crime (You can for example plant evidence so it point at you). Guilt proven over any doubt is just an expression in todays law.
BUT ... http://www.excessiveplus.net/forums/thread/shadow-ban-poll?page=8#comment-287153
i read all the posts... and still.... scrind will be banned or not ?)))
by the looks of this discussion, we are at the circus right now....
what are you talking about scrind will be banned ding ding come again...
- there are few things that differs a wh user from a sound player
- when someone playing on sound the reaction time is still normal, unless he decides to spam with rail, but if he want to hit the target hes going to press the button when he going to see the target
- wh user know the exact location of the target so his reaction is faster than a sound player, because the shot decision of wh user was before the target appears, while sound player just knows the location of the target but the shot decision is made after hes going to see the target in most of the situations
but if u have watched the demos u saw i have preses fire button before enemy appears in my pov, thats why u won't catch walhacker unless hes a stupid no skill and trying to use wh as a main advantage
I am addicted to life.