Jump to content


Invisible tank mod or bugged camo spotting


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
45 replies to this topic

cragarion #1 Posted 11 November 2017 - 04:44 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 41791 battles
  • 2,164
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

what do you think, watch from 06:00 0:500 slow it right down to 1x16 and watch the direction the shells come from yes there is cover but at this range ? what did they do in Thursdays patch ?.

 

http://wotreplays.eu...ion-amx_elc_bis


Edited by cragarion, 11 November 2017 - 05:41 PM.


Jigabachi #2 Posted 11 November 2017 - 04:53 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17753 battles
  • 17,642
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
Can't watch now, but that thread title is already a reason to take a deep breath.

AliceUnchained #3 Posted 11 November 2017 - 05:03 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 37820 battles
  • 8,522
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

No need to watch, hacks obviously. Thank you, good day. Case closed, issue resolved, situation explained. Moderators please junk this garbage thread.

 

In all fairness, I would have actually bothered to watch the replay were it not for the instant 'zomg hacks?' in the title. Seriously, what's up with you simpletons? Why can't you lot simply describe the situation, provide the replay, and ask for an explanation without always first suggesting there are hacks involved?

 

Edit: Did watch the replay, and OP of course already accused the enemy player of cheating in chat during the game. I would suggest no one even wastes another second in this thread, or the replay. Or the OP in general for that matter.


Edited by AliceUnchained, 11 November 2017 - 05:21 PM.


cragarion #4 Posted 11 November 2017 - 05:10 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 41791 battles
  • 2,164
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

View PostAliceUnchained, on 11 November 2017 - 05:03 PM, said:

No need to watch, hacks obviously. Thank you, good day. Case closed, issue resolved, situation explained. Moderators please junk this garbage thread.

 

In all fairness, I would have actually bothered to watch the replay were it not for the instant 'zomg hacks?' in the title. Seriously, what's up with you simpletons? Why can't you lot simply describe the situation, provide the replay, and ask for an explanation without always first suggesting there are hacks involved?

 

Because you have to watch it other wise you will scream replay or it didn't happen,

and if you look at any thread i have posted in concerning hacks you will see i always say there are no hacks in wot everything is server side,

but this makes me think is it possible has someone found a crack in the defences ?.

this tank should have been spotted on the second shot and i get that close you should be able to see it without it shooting a 3rd time when it's still not spotted.

 



Jigabachi #5 Posted 11 November 2017 - 05:10 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17753 battles
  • 17,642
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostAliceUnchained, on 11 November 2017 - 05:03 PM, said:

Seriously, what's up with you simpletons? Why can't you lot simply describe the situation, provide the replay, and ask for an explanation without always first suggesting there are hacks involved?

This. But then again, we should be glad about every replay we find in threads with those titles. That only happens once every... I don't know. Once every year? Once every 100 threads?



Vajsravana #6 Posted 11 November 2017 - 05:11 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 32827 battles
  • 890
  • Member since:
    04-10-2013

View Postcragarion, on 11 November 2017 - 05:44 PM, said:

yes there is cover but at this range ?

 

I don't think that range is any important when the enemy is behind double bush. Or am I wrong?

cragarion #7 Posted 11 November 2017 - 05:13 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 41791 battles
  • 2,164
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

View PostVajsravana, on 11 November 2017 - 05:11 PM, said:

 

I don't think that range is any important when the enemy is behind double bush. Or am I wrong?

 

Will you lot stop commenting on whats happened without even watching the replay.



ZlatanArKung #8 Posted 11 November 2017 - 05:15 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
Haxxxzzz

Vajsravana #9 Posted 11 November 2017 - 05:15 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 32827 battles
  • 890
  • Member since:
    04-10-2013

View Postcragarion, on 11 November 2017 - 06:13 PM, said:

 

Will you lot stop commenting on whats happened without even watching the replay.

 

I watched the replay. Again. And again I answer:

 

View PostVajsravana, on 11 November 2017 - 06:11 PM, said:

I don't think that range is any important when the enemy is behind double bush. Or am I wrong?

 


Edited by Vajsravana, 11 November 2017 - 05:16 PM.


Phobos4321 #10 Posted 11 November 2017 - 05:17 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 42831 battles
  • 7,830
  • Member since:
    09-27-2011
doesnt seems like you had an intention todiscuss anything anyway since  your preffered result was clear from the beginning

cragarion #11 Posted 11 November 2017 - 05:21 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 41791 battles
  • 2,164
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

View PostVajsravana, on 11 November 2017 - 05:15 PM, said:

 

I watched the replay. Again. And again I answer:

 

 

 

From what i can see there is no double bush and the distance still does matter.

TsundereWaffle #12 Posted 11 November 2017 - 05:25 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 25832 battles
  • 10,740
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013

View Postcragarion, on 11 November 2017 - 05:21 PM, said:

 

From what i can see there is no double bush and the distance still does matter.

 

maybe you're graphic settings are too low to see the bush?

AliceUnchained #13 Posted 11 November 2017 - 05:25 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 37820 battles
  • 8,522
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View Postcragarion, on 11 November 2017 - 05:10 PM, said:

and if you look at any thread i have posted in concerning hacks you will see i always say there are no hacks in wot everything is server side,

but this makes me think is it possible has someone found a crack in the defences ?.

this tank should have been spotted on the second shot and i get that close you should be able to see it without it shooting a 3rd time when it's still not spotted.

 

So... why then call that enemy player a 'cheating bastard' already in the game? And then continue screaming in chat he/she is using some kind of cheat?

 

Now why should you have spotted that Marder on the second shot? A Marder 38t with camouflage net, camouflage paint, and 100% camouflage on the crew behind a dense bush gets a camouflage rating of 63.31 according to wotinfo.net. What is your view range with the ELC on the move?



Vajsravana #14 Posted 11 November 2017 - 05:33 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 32827 battles
  • 890
  • Member since:
    04-10-2013

View Postcragarion, on 11 November 2017 - 06:21 PM, said:

 

From what i can see there is no double bush and the distance still does matter.

 

Well, I think that if he's hugging the horizontal red line, he may have 2 trees between. Marder 38t is a very nimble tank and could be completely hidden behind trees.



vasilinhorulezz #15 Posted 11 November 2017 - 05:37 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 21192 battles
  • 866
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014

People will always claim hacks, not to admit the're bad:mellow:.

 

Anyway, I blame QB,

as soon as that video came out, hack-accusation threads pop up like crops.

 

PS. I don't mean to be offensive, the comment was criticizing solely the title. Seriously change it.



Balc0ra #16 Posted 11 November 2017 - 05:38 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 62814 battles
  • 14,431
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View Postcragarion, on 11 November 2017 - 05:13 PM, said:

 

Will you lot stop commenting on whats happened without even watching the replay.

 

39490 games and you still don't know how the game calculates camo. It's sever side. No hack or mod can perma camo anything, or prevent them from getting spotted. If it was that easy, every game would have 29 invisible tanks.

 

This I suspect was a mix of good camo and packet loss. When he first fired on you, it was not on his own spotting. It was either arty/hetzer that still kept you lit even tho you had taken them out. When he first fired on you, he and 3 trees tops between you and him when you were on top of the hill. And he was 15m behind two of them. So no one would spot that, even at that range. When you got closer under the tree line and more in the open. I suspect some data got lost between you and the server.

 

 Edit: I take it back. Seeing it again, I can clearly see I got the location of the Marder wrong. And going by the screens below me... it's a double bush situation. He was more then 50m away when he died. If he was at the first location. Then packet loss for sure. But.. the tree line was still covering him with 2 or even 3 trees when he died, and he was still 15m behind at least 1 of them.

Edited by Balc0ra, 11 November 2017 - 05:42 PM.


cragarion #17 Posted 11 November 2017 - 05:39 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 41791 battles
  • 2,164
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

As far as i can see there is no bush only trees the bushes are further left,

 



UrQuan #18 Posted 11 November 2017 - 05:40 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 19049 battles
  • 5,793
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

Checked the replay & response is simple, hetzer + arties kept you lit up initially (yes they died shortly after, but you still remain spotted for a while after getting seen). This allowed the Marder to shoot you without spotting you & he couldn't be seen either as he's in a very dense forested area (double/triple bushed up). If he has viewrange increasing equipment (optics by example) or camo increasing skills, it will be very hard to see him, while he can see you.

 

I notice you got binocs & camonet, these only work when stationary, very likely is that if you had optics, you would actually have spotted him while driving (optics is always active)

 

Edit:

View Postcragarion, on 11 November 2017 - 05:39 PM, said:

As far as i can see there is no bush only trees the bushes are further left,

 

 

This screenshot gives a good indicator where the Marder is, the shot comes a bit form the side, where there's several trees. If he's behind them at the redline, you'd have a hard time spotting him if he got camo skill & you don't have optics.

On the second screenshot you provided, if you see to the left of your wreck, you notice a bunch of trees in a dense clump, that's where he is hiding behind.

 


Edited by UrQuan, 11 November 2017 - 05:45 PM.


cragarion #19 Posted 11 November 2017 - 05:47 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 41791 battles
  • 2,164
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

View PostUrQuan, on 11 November 2017 - 05:40 PM, said:

Checked the replay & response is simple, hetzer + arties kept you lit up initially (yes they died shortly after, but you still remain spotted for a while after getting seen). This allowed the Marder to shoot you without spotting you & he couldn't be seen either as he's in a very dense forested area (double/triple bushed up). If he has viewrange increasing equipment (optics by example) or camo increasing skills, it will be very hard to see him, while he can see you.

 

I notice you got binocs & camonet, these only work when stationary, very likely is that if you had optics, you would actually have spotted him while driving (optics is always active)

 

Edit:

 

This screenshot gives a good indicator where the Marder is, the shot comes a bit form the side, where there's several trees. If he's behind them at the redline, you'd have a hard time spotting him if he got camo skill & you don't have optics.

 

 

What on earth are you talking about ?

look at where the shot came from, look how close i am to where the shot came from,

yes the direction thing is is further right than it should be but the actual direction of the shot is corect it should just be an inch further left on the image.

and at that difference you don't need optics.



Balc0ra #20 Posted 11 November 2017 - 05:51 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 62814 battles
  • 14,431
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View Postcragarion, on 11 November 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

 

What on earth are you talking about ?

look at where the shot came from, look how close i am to where the shot came from,

yes the direction thing is is further right than it should be but the actual direction of the shot is corect it should just be an inch further left on the image.

and at that difference you don't need optics.

 

When he is 15m behind 1 or even 2 trees with a 60+ camo rating at that range... Even having 999999999m view range would not spot him. It's a simple double bush. I've had people closer then that in my E25 behind a few trees with no issues. If he was behind the closest tree, you would have spotted him. But with half a forest between you and him? Not really. As I suspect you were further then 50m away to even proxy him.

 

 

As I said, no hacks or mods here. As that is still done server side. Server says to your client when he is spotted, not when the Marders mods tell you to. So there are two things that can be a cause when this happens. Either you have the double bush effect. Or.. packet loss, and the server told you he was spotted, but your client never got that memo. As parts of the data string got lost on the way. Even that can happen.


Edited by Balc0ra, 11 November 2017 - 05:55 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users