Jump to content


BBC piece of news

Bbc cheat

  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

malachi6 #21 Posted 19 September 2019 - 05:55 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 50929 battles
  • 4,304
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011

A bloody knife is found at a scene of a stabbing.  This is evidence.  It is tested and found to have been used for butchering beef.  Another knife is later found and is tested and found to have the victims blood on it.  Witness reports find the victim cut himself with that knife.  Later still his partner walks into a police station with another bloody knife and admits to the murder.  testing the knife is found to match the wounds, the blood matches and CCTV images are found showing the deed.  These are examples of weak and strong evidence.  Some of which lead to proof.  

 

Evidence is not proof.



4nt #22 Posted 19 September 2019 - 05:57 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29587 battles
  • 1,605
  • Member since:
    04-09-2013

View Postpecopad, on 19 September 2019 - 05:31 PM, said:

 

Baldrick, I think this discussion will take us nowhere, like the thousands of discussions we had before in this forums. Nobody knows the code for WoT, and nobody really knows how it works and if wall-hacks and other ESP hacks are possible or not, so we better not go that way.

 

I'v been playing on-line games almost since they were invented, always assumed online games are the wild wild west. Even played a web browser game where the developers were caught cheating, go figure....

 

Just remembered now, even in lan games, was playing Chess and had a friend who used to cheat... he used a Chess game,, and pretended he knew how to play chess.

 

But everyone with half thought about it knows wallhacks and esp are not possible on serverside games. 

 

Why? Because equations of the program are same for everyone on same server. What that means? Someone who is skilled enough to bypass, say, WGs firewall, has used his time to give everyone the same benefits since program sends the same data to every player in same game. Yes it is possible, if very useless and pointless use of time for the hacker... But it'd be clientside obvious to everyone. Obviously it is quite unlikely, in example, for WG not to have put in automated checksum checker for server, so likely the hacker would have to disable that too. And of course notifications for control, so they cannot see that their server is f**d. 

 

Quite frankly if I could hack that good I'd sell myself to government or do something little more profitable.

 

Cheats exist but hacking is highly, highly unlikely, since no money is at stake. Also the constant minipatches make hacking quite tiresome process over time.



Inappropriate_noob #23 Posted 19 September 2019 - 06:00 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 17478 battles
  • 5,354
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

Cat among the pigeons here,I wonder how many of the high stat gamers use some form of cheat,and then judiciously stat shame those who do not?

 

They say aim bots are bad, no that is one mod, illegal as it is what would make my stats climb.



4nt #24 Posted 19 September 2019 - 06:10 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29587 battles
  • 1,605
  • Member since:
    04-09-2013

View PostNoobySkooby, on 19 September 2019 - 06:00 PM, said:

Cat among the pigeons here,I wonder how many of the high stat gamers use some form of cheat,and then judiciously stat shame those who do not?

 

They say aim bots are bad, no that is one mod, illegal as it is what would make my stats climb.

I would guess less than one can take a birdshot at. Using aimbots and such leads to very (atleast what YouTube presents) static and useless way of playing, not to mention aimbots become seemingly clueless when they face overangling and sidescraping. Not productive for good stats, whatever people think they are. 

 

Also due to cheats replacing map and situation awarness, I'd say (also due YouTube vids) maximum WR any cheatuser could achieve would be around 53-55, and that if their aimbot would be above run of The mill weakspot targeter. Not impossible but expensive for their Wn8 stat boosting only... Must be a bummer to reach lofty Heights of almost 2k wn8 and get banned in some random banwave :)

 

Edit: to Be a dockwad doesn't require even good stats, actually yours are exellent vs most who cry 'lost' and 'loser team' in My matches.


Edited by 4nt, 19 September 2019 - 06:12 PM.


Mystic_Q #25 Posted 19 September 2019 - 06:11 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 8563 battles
  • 70
  • Member since:
    03-18-2012
It's just too funny how "blind" some people can be. Make me laugh like hell :teethhappy: But hey, keep living in your "theres no cheats in wot bubble".. :trollface: 

IntruderFI #26 Posted 19 September 2019 - 06:11 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 50501 battles
  • 602
  • [S3AL] S3AL
  • Member since:
    07-05-2014

View Postmalachi6, on 19 September 2019 - 07:11 PM, said:

 

I did not say you cannot cheat in server-side games.  This is known as a straw man.

 

You are heavily invested in this topic, i wonder why.



spamhamstar #27 Posted 19 September 2019 - 07:14 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 64313 battles
  • 2,479
  • [WIKD] WIKD
  • Member since:
    12-02-2012

View Postmalachi6, on 19 September 2019 - 04:55 PM, said:

A bloody knife is found at a scene of a stabbing.  This is evidence.  It is tested and found to have been used for butchering beef.  Another knife is later found and is tested and found to have the victims blood on it.  Witness reports find the victim cut himself with that knife.  Later still his partner walks into a police station with another bloody knife and admits to the murder.  testing the knife is found to match the wounds, the blood matches and CCTV images are found showing the deed.  These are examples of weak and strong evidence.  Some of which lead to proof.  

 

Evidence is not proof.

 

What did I say earlier about silly posts?  Well thanks for proving me right.

 

I've now said this 3 times, but apparently it needs said again.  Proof & evidence are the same thing.  Your post is both proof & evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

The 1st knife in your story is indeed both proof & evidence.  It's shows that knife was used to butcher some beef.  It is both evidence of this & also proof of that.  It may well be taken into evidence by the police initially, but it no longer remains as evidence once shown to only have cows blood on it.  As it is not proof of the murder it is also not evidence of it.  How simple is that or you?

 

The 2nd & 3rd knives in your little story both prove that they had the victims blood on them & they are both also evidence of this.  In themselves neither are proof nor evidence that the partner was guilty of any crime, only that the victims blood was on them.

 

The CCTV evidence & the confession are both proof & evidence.

 

Evidence is proof.  Why do you insist on arguing semantics when you quite clearly have so little grasp of the subject?

 

 


Edited by spamhamstar, 19 September 2019 - 07:20 PM.


malachi6 #28 Posted 19 September 2019 - 08:09 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 50929 battles
  • 4,304
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011

View Postspamhamstar, on 19 September 2019 - 07:14 PM, said:

 

What did I say earlier about silly posts?  Well thanks for proving me right.

 

I've now said this 3 times, but apparently it needs said again.  Proof & evidence are the same thing.  Your post is both proof & evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

The 1st knife in your story is indeed both proof & evidence.  It's shows that knife was used to butcher some beef.  It is both evidence of this & also proof of that.  It may well be taken into evidence by the police initially, but it no longer remains as evidence once shown to only have cows blood on it.  As it is not proof of the murder it is also not evidence of it.  How simple is that or you?

 

The 2nd & 3rd knives in your little story both prove that they had the victims blood on them & they are both also evidence of this.  In themselves neither are proof nor evidence that the partner was guilty of any crime, only that the victims blood was on them.

 

The CCTV evidence & the confession are both proof & evidence.

 

Evidence is proof.  Why do you insist on arguing semantics when you quite clearly have so little grasp of the subject?

 

 

 

It's not semantics.  Evidence is used to supply proof.  Evidence can mislead or indeed be wrong.  I am not saying that people do not cheat I am saying that the existence of cheats does not mean that the assumption of cheating is correct. Evidence needs to be proved and discarded if it is not the truth.  Some people will use the terms interchangeably.  I do not. 

 

I think our issue is how you and I use the term.  You appear to regard evidence as that which proves a truth.  From my training, evidence is that which can lead to a hypothesis.  Such evidence is then tested against the hypothesis to ensure a working model.  Evidence may be dropped or added to reinforce or change the model.  I have attempted to supply examples of such uses.  

 

Here is a link that perhaps better explains than I have.

 

https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-evidence-and-vs-proof/

 

 

 

 



LordMuffin #29 Posted 19 September 2019 - 08:41 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 53499 battles
  • 13,409
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View Postspamhamstar, on 19 September 2019 - 07:14 PM, said:

 

What did I say earlier about silly posts?  Well thanks for proving me right.

 

I've now said this 3 times, but apparently it needs said again.  Proof & evidence are the same thing.  Your post is both proof & evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

The 1st knife in your story is indeed both proof & evidence.  It's shows that knife was used to butcher some beef.  It is both evidence of this & also proof of that.  It may well be taken into evidence by the police initially, but it no longer remains as evidence once shown to only have cows blood on it.  As it is not proof of the murder it is also not evidence of it.  How simple is that or you?

 

The 2nd & 3rd knives in your little story both prove that they had the victims blood on them & they are both also evidence of this.  In themselves neither are proof nor evidence that the partner was guilty of any crime, only that the victims blood was on them.

 

The CCTV evidence & the confession are both proof & evidence.

 

Evidence is proof.  Why do you insist on arguing semantics when you quite clearly have so little grasp of the subject?

 

 

No!

 

Proof and evidence are not synonyms and can not be changed without also changing the meaning of the sentence.

 

The 2 premises 

1:I have proof that this man killed that man.

2: I have evidence that this man killed that man.

Are vastly different.

 

Especially in hard science is this difference visible.

 

Ex in Math.

Evidence for the Pythagorean theorem would be that a person have measured some right triangles and found out that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square of the 2 other sides. 

This does not prove the Pythagorean theorem at all, it does imply there might be a connection, nothing more.

To prove the Pythagorean theorem you need to draw from mathematical axioms and deduce a relation. When done, you have created a proof of the Pythagorean theorem.

 


Edited by LordMuffin, 19 September 2019 - 08:48 PM.


4nt #30 Posted 19 September 2019 - 08:45 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29587 battles
  • 1,605
  • Member since:
    04-09-2013
Oh god, I've been had all this time- evidence shows that using substances is a factor in onset of psychotic disorders, but it actually has been proof all the time! I've wasted 4 years doing nothing!

Nishi_Kinuyo #31 Posted 19 September 2019 - 09:28 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9276 battles
  • 6,546
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View PostSaintMaddenus, on 19 September 2019 - 05:17 PM, said:

Used to play battlefield heroes before I went to WOT.  head shot as soon as I spawned on some servers, got very boring...

One of the very reasons why I play WoT to begin with.



spamhamstar #32 Posted 19 September 2019 - 09:53 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 64313 battles
  • 2,479
  • [WIKD] WIKD
  • Member since:
    12-02-2012

View PostLordMuffin, on 19 September 2019 - 07:41 PM, said:

No!

 

Proof and evidence are not synonyms and can not be changed without also changing the meaning of the sentence.

 

The 2 premises 

1:I have proof that this man killed that man.

2: I have evidence that this man killed that man.

Are vastly different.

 

Especially in hard science is this difference visible.

 

Ex in Math.

Evidence for the Pythagorean theorem would be that a person have measured some right triangles and found out that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square of the 2 other sides. 

This does not prove the Pythagorean theorem at all, it does imply there might be a connection, nothing more.

To prove the Pythagorean theorem you need to draw from mathematical axioms and deduce a relation. When done, you have created a proof of the Pythagorean theorem.

 

 

If you have evidence that this man killed this man, then you can also be said to have proof of that.  If it later turns out that he did not kill that man, then the evidence is flawed & as such is not evidence at all & would not be presented in a court of law as such.  The 2 words are entirely interchangeable in this example.  Both proof and evidence can be flawed in which case they are neither proof nor evidence. 

 

View Postmalachi6, on 19 September 2019 - 07:09 PM, said:

 

It's not semantics.  Evidence is used to supply proof.  Evidence can mislead or indeed be wrong.  I am not saying that people do not cheat I am saying that the existence of cheats does not mean that the assumption of cheating is correct. Evidence needs to be proved and discarded if it is not the truth.  Some people will use the terms interchangeably.  I do not. 

 

I think our issue is how you and I use the term.  You appear to regard evidence as that which proves a truth.  From my training, evidence is that which can lead to a hypothesis.  Such evidence is then tested against the hypothesis to ensure a working model.  Evidence may be dropped or added to reinforce or change the model.  I have attempted to supply examples of such uses.  

 

Here is a link that perhaps better explains than I have.

 

https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-evidence-and-vs-proof/

 

 

 

 

 

It is semantics if we are arguing over the meaning of words, or if you wish to be more precise lexical semantics.  

 

I get what you are both arguing, in that proof can be seen as the final verdict, but you must surely accept that proof does not have to be definitive & can simply mean something that compels someone to believe a conclusion.  Exactly the same as evidence.   There are many examples, in law especially, where proof has been accepted & a guilty verdict reached, only for it to later be disproved.  So it wasn't proof at all was it, but it also was.

 

There has also been photographic proof of many things, a couple of examples being Loch Ness monster and the Cottingley Faires, both of which turned out to be faked.  In both cases we would appear to have definitive proof which led many people to believe the conclusion that these things actually existed.  Again, not proof or evidence.

 

So we can argue about our own personal definitions for time immemorial, while completely ignoring the flexible nature of the English language.  Either way continuing this discussion would appear to be pointless & completely off topic.



kubawt112 #33 Posted 19 September 2019 - 10:52 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 3378 battles
  • 782
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostNoobySkooby, on 19 September 2019 - 06:00 PM, said:

Cat among the pigeons here,I wonder how many of the high stat gamers use some form of cheat,and then judiciously stat shame those who do not?

 

They say aim bots are bad, no that is one mod, illegal as it is what would make my stats climb.

 

Perhaps, or even likely, a few use a 'little something', but I doubt it'd do much. WoT might be simple, but merely aiming at the right places won't get you too far. Many WoT players do things basically 'by heart'. Chances are that a 'bad' player would benefit a bit more from some form of aiming assist, but I really doubt it'd have much of an impact.

I'd rather bet on the, supposed, 'average' players were more inclined to use the aforementioned 'a little something', judging from how they act in chat. If I were to cheat, I'd be pretty [edited] off if it didn't get me anything. :P

 

Also, #BBVisBBC.



Baldrickk #34 Posted 20 September 2019 - 02:54 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32167 battles
  • 16,875
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View Postw00pzy, on 19 September 2019 - 06:11 PM, said:

It's just too funny how "blind" some people can be. Make me laugh like hell :teethhappy: But hey, keep living in your "theres no cheats in wot bubble".. :trollface: 

Who said there were none?

We said there are less than in other hashes because entire classes of cheats just are not possible. 

 

Bots exist. 

They're pretty rare now,  I've seen one on the last couple of years that I could confirm (and got the account banned for it too)

They used to be really common though, before WG got stricter. 

And they suck,  as in 40-44% WR level. 

Aimbots exist too, but are constrained by accuracy and aiming involved in this game,  and vision too, unlike say, a CS aimbot that can be linked with a wallhack, know where everyone is even without line of sight and can headshot them as they come around a corner or through soft cover with 100% accuracy every time. 

Neither type of not can read the game and predict enemy actions, and react accordingly  which is a huge factor in actually being good at this game consistently. 

They are an advantage to bad players, but that's it pretty much. 

 

They exist, they get used, but compared to other games,  their impact is significantly less due to how the game is designed. 

02:01 Added after 6 minute

View Postpecopad, on 19 September 2019 - 05:31 PM, said:

 

Baldrick, I think this discussion will take us nowhere, like the thousands of discussions we had before in this forums. Nobody knows the code for WoT, and nobody really knows how it works and if wall-hacks and other ESP hacks are possible or not, so we better not go that way.

 

I'v been playing on-line games almost since they were invented, always assumed online games are the wild wild west. Even played a web browser game where the developers were caught cheating, go figure....

 

Just remembered now, even in lan games, was playing Chess and had a friend who used to cheat... he used a Chess game,, and pretended he knew how to play chess.

 

 There are things we know and things we don't. 

We have people capable of reading player locations from memory,  hence the redball mod cheat. 

There's a good reason why it only shows last spotted location - when unspotted, the client literally doesn't have that information. 

 

Players have worked out tons of formulas and mechanics in detail. 

You can't just say we know nothing. 

Every single action provides evidence,  and from that we can infer almost everything about how the game works. 

We may not have the code,  but through studying cause and effect, we can determine the underlying rules.  That's when we're not just told that information right off the bat. 



rageman4u #35 Posted 20 September 2019 - 03:32 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18770 battles
  • 657
  • Member since:
    09-20-2012
At least 20 percent of wargaming players use cheat.

kaneloon #36 Posted 20 September 2019 - 03:36 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 31120 battles
  • 3,858
  • [RHIN0] RHIN0
  • Member since:
    11-18-2011

View Post4nt, on 19 September 2019 - 05:10 PM, said:

I would guess less than one can take a birdshot at. Using aimbots and such leads to very (atleast what YouTube presents) static and useless way of playing, not to mention aimbots become seemingly clueless when they face overangling and sidescraping. Not productive for good stats, whatever people think they are. 

 

Also due to cheats replacing map and situation awarness, I'd say (also due YouTube vids) maximum WR any cheatuser could achieve would be around 53-55, and that if their aimbot would be above run of The mill weakspot targeter. Not impossible but expensive for their Wn8 stat boosting only... Must be a bummer to reach lofty Heights of almost 2k wn8 and get banned in some random banwave :)

 

Edit: to Be a dockwad doesn't require even good stats, actually yours are exellent vs most who cry 'lost' and 'loser team' in My matches.

 

Not all used cheating mods are aimbots.

Some mods (included in XVM packages) were used by players that helped them :

- zoom out

- climb paths

- proxy alarms

- gun directions

- stock tanks indicators

And even worse :

- modules positions on tanks encountered

- tundra mod

...

Without any mods we all recently saw cheaters platooning in solo Steel Hunters and doing EZ "good games".



NUKLEAR_SLUG #37 Posted 20 September 2019 - 03:38 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 34430 battles
  • 4,823
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View Postspamhamstar, on 19 September 2019 - 09:53 PM, said:

So we can argue about our own personal definitions for time immemorial, while completely ignoring the flexible nature of the English language.  Either way continuing this discussion would appear to be pointless & completely off topic.

 

Flexibility of English doesn't excuse the incorrect usage. Proof has a very specific meaning, as does evidence and those meanings are not interchangeable despite it being done so in common usage.



spamhamstar #38 Posted 20 September 2019 - 04:37 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 64313 battles
  • 2,479
  • [WIKD] WIKD
  • Member since:
    12-02-2012

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 20 September 2019 - 02:38 AM, said:

 

Flexibility of English doesn't excuse the incorrect usage. Proof has a very specific meaning, as does evidence and those meanings are not interchangeable despite it being done so in common usage.

 

I can't help you if you're just going to contradict yourself.  Using bold does not make you correct & by definition the common usage of a language is the correct usage of that language.  Next you'll be telling me "cool" has to refer to temperature & "discrimination" must be a good thing.

 

The word "proof" is of latin origin from the word "probare" which literally translated means "to test".   "Evidence" is also of latin origin & means obvious to the eye, if you want to be so pedantic about these things.  We no longer speak latin & proof no longer means "to test", or maybe it does, sometimes.  Care to explain your very specific meanings for me?  Perhaps with yet another example of where the two words are interchangeable?

 

So instead of just jumping on a bandwagon in an attempt to score fantasy internet points or likes, why don't you actually think before you just repeat what other people have been claiming incorrectly, or not.

 

View Postspamhamstar, on 19 September 2019 - 08:53 PM, said:

Either way continuing this discussion would appear to be pointless & completely off topic.

I've even put it in bold seeing as you like that & hopefully won't miss it this time :facepalm:



LordMuffin #39 Posted 20 September 2019 - 06:12 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 53499 battles
  • 13,409
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View Postspamhamstar, on 19 September 2019 - 09:53 PM, said:

 

If you have evidence that this man killed this man, then you can also be said to have proof of that.  If it later turns out that he did not kill that man, then the evidence is flawed & as such is not evidence at all & would not be presented in a court of law as such.  The 2 words are entirely interchangeable in this example.  Both proof and evidence can be flawed in which case they are neither proof nor evidence. 

 

 

It is semantics if we are arguing over the meaning of words, or if you wish to be more precise lexical semantics.  

 

I get what you are both arguing, in that proof can be seen as the final verdict, but you must surely accept that proof does not have to be definitive & can simply mean something that compels someone to believe a conclusion.  Exactly the same as evidence.   There are many examples, in law especially, where proof has been accepted & a guilty verdict reached, only for it to later be disproved.  So it wasn't proof at all was it, but it also was.

 

There has also been photographic proof of many things, a couple of examples being Loch Ness monster and the Cottingley Faires, both of which turned out to be faked.  In both cases we would appear to have definitive proof which led many people to believe the conclusion that these things actually existed.  Again, not proof or evidence.

 

So we can argue about our own personal definitions for time immemorial, while completely ignoring the flexible nature of the English language.  Either way continuing this discussion would appear to be pointless & completely off topic.

No.

 

If you have evidence that 1 guy killed another you have something that implies it.

Like. Person A was caught on camera in the vicinity of the victim at the time of the murder. 

 

Proof would be: Person A was cough on camera doing the killing.

 

In general, courts don't have proof, they have evidence, and try to construct logical chains uf evidence to build a case to try and prove something. 

 

Evidence is garnered from personal experience.

Proof is a conjecture of many personal experiences in an attempt to define a truth about something.

 

Social sciences never have proofs of anything for example.

 

 

In this thread, you are the minority, so you are, for this sub-group of people,  using the words incorrectly.


Edited by LordMuffin, 20 September 2019 - 06:29 AM.


4nt #40 Posted 20 September 2019 - 06:45 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29587 battles
  • 1,605
  • Member since:
    04-09-2013

View Postkaneloon, on 20 September 2019 - 03:36 AM, said:

 

Not all used cheating mods are aimbots.

Some mods (included in XVM packages) were used by players that helped them :

- zoom out

- climb paths

- proxy alarms

- gun directions

- stock tanks indicators

And even worse :

- modules positions on tanks encountered

- tundra mod

...

Without any mods we all recently saw cheaters platooning in solo Steel Hunters and doing EZ "good games".

I used aimbot as an example because lazy. Yeap that's pretty much every major known cheat there is, and unlisted are so minor that they get little visibility.

 

Isn't that impressive, is it?

 

Also teaming and counting has been about in almost every other game... Quake DM, TF, pubg, so forth. Only thing differing is how easy\hard it's made, and sadly WoT teaming is moderately easy outside peak times.


Edited by 4nt, 20 September 2019 - 06:50 AM.





3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users