Jump to content


BBC piece of news

Bbc cheat

  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

Ceeb #41 Posted 20 September 2019 - 07:26 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Beta Tester
  • 33330 battles
  • 6,393
  • [BEXF] BEXF
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011

View PostTheDrownedApe, on 19 September 2019 - 12:29 PM, said:

My lad (18) does this with CSGO accounts. Not sure exactly what but he sells them all around the world

 

Yeah, mine does too, even sells the knives, sold one for £1k last year (some super rare thing)  little git bought a Stienhart Ocean One. just to rub it in.



jabster #42 Posted 20 September 2019 - 09:30 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12775 battles
  • 26,298
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

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.


Common usage drives meaning so pretty much by definition it can’t be incorrect. The dictionary is descriptive not prescriptive.



spamhamstar #43 Posted 20 September 2019 - 09:54 AM

    Captain

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

View PostLordMuffin, on 20 September 2019 - 05:12 AM, said:

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.

 

Is that right?  So you've decided to split us off into a sub group of 4 people, just so you can be right about this, whereas general use of the english language says you are wrong.

 

The standard of evidence that is required to validate a criminal conviction state that it must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.  So by itself being caught on cctv in the area of a crimnal offence is neither proof nor evidence of anything other than being in that location, of which it is both proof and evidence.  Why do you keep bringing up terrible examples that not only prove my point, but are also evidence for it?  It's like you have a complete inability to accept that you might be wrong about something, when quite clearly it doesn't even matter, especially in this thread.

 

As I said you can argue this all you like, but as the majority of english speakers in the world & not just you & a couple of your mates state that I am using these definitions correctly, while you have created your own restrictions for no apparent reason other than to appear to be correct.  You can stick your head in the sand all you like, but the English language remains & always has been highly fluid.  You can either accept that or turn into an old fuddy duddy speaking some archaic language that no longer exists for the rest of the world.



HugSeal #44 Posted 20 September 2019 - 10:10 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 22752 battles
  • 2,249
  • [SWEC] SWEC
  • Member since:
    05-10-2012

View Postspamhamstar, on 19 September 2019 - 05:29 PM, said:

 

Evidence that cheats exist within WoT are replays showing players cheating, or websites offering cheat mods for downloads.  Being shot is not evidence of cheating.

 

Not understanding this leads to silly posts.

 

Websites offering cheat mods is not proof of cheats. I could easily whip up a simple webpage offering an unlimited gold hack for WoT, that does not mean an unlimited gold hack exist.

 

I have seen a few replays of people cheating, most commonly with an aimbot. But I have never seen any replay showing off any cheat that would require changes on the server side (ie autocrits, autohits, spotting unspotted tanks, shooting through walls etc.)

 

Nnot understanding that leads to silly posts.



SovietBias #45 Posted 20 September 2019 - 10:15 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 39187 battles
  • 1,710
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View PostHugSeal, on 20 September 2019 - 09:10 AM, said:

 

Websites offering cheat mods is not proof of cheats. I could easily whip up a simple webpage offering an unlimited gold hack for WoT, that does not mean an unlimited gold hack exist.

 

I have seen a few replays of people cheating, most commonly with an aimbot. But I have never seen any replay showing off any cheat that would require changes on the server side (ie autocrits, autohits, spotting unspotted tanks, shooting through walls etc.)

 

Nnot understanding that leads to silly posts.

 

We can keep arguing ad infinitum about this, but generally sites offering cheats also feature videos of different cheats working.

 

I do remember a particular one that allowed arty to shoot at an higher arc than the standard game allowed.



HugSeal #46 Posted 20 September 2019 - 10:15 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 22752 battles
  • 2,249
  • [SWEC] SWEC
  • Member since:
    05-10-2012

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

 

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

 

 

 

Simply restating something doesn't make it true.

 

Some random quotes from dfferent places.

 

In casual conversations, most people use the word "proof" when they mean that there is indisputable evidence that supports an idea.

 

"Proof" is a much stronger claim than "Evidence". Proof is similar to mathematical proofs, of which it is either right or wrong. Evidence can be weak or gray.

 

From wiki: https://en.wikipedia...ki/Proof_(truth)

 

proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition.[1][2][3][4]

 

 

Evidence points at something being true, proof shows it being true.

 



spamhamstar #47 Posted 20 September 2019 - 10:23 AM

    Captain

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

View PostHugSeal, on 20 September 2019 - 09:10 AM, said:

 

Websites offering cheat mods is not proof of cheats. I could easily whip up a simple webpage offering an unlimited gold hack for WoT, that does not mean an unlimited gold hack exist.

 

I have seen a few replays of people cheating, most commonly with an aimbot. But I have never seen any replay showing off any cheat that would require changes on the server side (ie autocrits, autohits, spotting unspotted tanks, shooting through walls etc.)

 

Nnot understanding that leads to silly posts.

 

LOL, who said anything about hacking the servers?  Certainly I haven't, but have instead been having a completely off topic discussion about the definitions of the 2 words, but thank you for yet another post in the same vein.

 

View PostHugSeal, on 20 September 2019 - 09:15 AM, said:

 

Simply restating something doesn't make it true.

 

Some random quotes from dfferent places.

 

In casual conversations, most people use the word "proof" when they mean that there is indisputable evidence that supports an idea.

 

"Proof" is a much stronger claim than "Evidence". Proof is similar to mathematical proofs, of which it is either right or wrong. Evidence can be weak or gray.

 

From wiki: https://en.wikipedia...ki/Proof_(truth)

 

proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition.[1][2][3][4]

 

 

Evidence points at something being true, proof shows it being true.

 

 

It's difficult to take someone seriously who apparently lacks the ability to use the forum & instead replies with multiple posts to a single user & then does so with a complete failure of logic.

 

Either way, as you say simply restating something does not make it true.  I'm unsure why having opened with that you'd then spend the rest of your post restating something?



jabster #48 Posted 20 September 2019 - 10:39 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12775 battles
  • 26,298
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostSovietBias, on 20 September 2019 - 09:15 AM, said:

 

We can keep arguing ad infinitum about this, but generally sites offering cheats also feature videos of different cheats working.

 

I do remember a particular one that allowed arty to shoot at an higher arc than the standard game allowed.


Cheats certainly exist, exactly how common they are - not sure. The good thing, as others have already said, are the impact of them is a lot less due to the server based nature.



HugSeal #49 Posted 20 September 2019 - 10:42 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 22752 battles
  • 2,249
  • [SWEC] SWEC
  • Member since:
    05-10-2012

View Postspamhamstar, on 20 September 2019 - 10:23 AM, said:

 

LOL, who said anything about hacking the servers?  Certainly I haven't, but have instead been having a completely off topic discussion about the definitions of the 2 words, but thank you for yet another post in the same vein.

 

 

It's difficult to take someone seriously who apparently lacks the ability to use the forum & instead replies with multiple posts to a single user & then does so with a complete failure of logic.

 

Either way, as you say simply restating something does not make it true.  I'm unsure why having opened with that you'd then spend the rest of your post restating something?

 

Don't talk about not taking seriously when you completely skip all the points I made and jsut pretend that they aren't there.



spamhamstar #50 Posted 20 September 2019 - 10:45 AM

    Captain

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

View PostHugSeal, on 20 September 2019 - 09:42 AM, said:

 

Don't talk about not taking seriously when you completely skip all the points I made and jsut pretend that they aren't there.

 

Well I didn't want to repeat myself, especially when you'd taken such issue with it.  If you want counter arguments to all the points you made you simply have to read back through this thread, as you'd said nothing that hadn't already been said.  I did in fact point out that you were just restating things & didn't pretend anything wasn't there.

 

 



pecopad #51 Posted 20 September 2019 - 10:47 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29808 battles
  • 2,262
  • [UGN] UGN
  • Member since:
    09-04-2015

View Postjabster, on 20 September 2019 - 10:39 AM, said:


Cheats certainly exist, exactly how common they are - not sure. The good thing, as others have already said, are the impact of them is a lot less due to the server based nature.

 

Why don't you read the article... one third of the players...

09:49 Added after 1 minute

View Post4nt, on 19 September 2019 - 05:57 PM, said:

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.

 I don't think you know what how an ESP or wall hack works... Autoaim and aimbots are esp hacks

 

And again, you are just supposing how things work in WoT, in reality is that your guess how things are done is has good has anyone else.


Edited by pecopad, 20 September 2019 - 10:54 AM.


Baldrickk #52 Posted 20 September 2019 - 10:49 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32167 battles
  • 16,890
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View Postpecopad, on 20 September 2019 - 10:47 AM, said:

 

Why don't you read the article... one third of the players...

Of those surveyed. 

For all we know cheat usage may be different between different games - in fact,  I'd be surprised if it wasn't.



SovietBias #53 Posted 20 September 2019 - 10:50 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 39187 battles
  • 1,710
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View Postjabster, on 20 September 2019 - 09:39 AM, said:


Cheats certainly exist, exactly how common they are - not sure. The good thing, as others have already said, are the impact of them is a lot less due to the server based nature.

 

No doubt. And perhaps more importantly, cheats that completely wreck other FPS games, such as aimbots and aim leads have their effect dampened here due to RNG.

 

EDIT: the best available proxy for it are the number of accounts that WG periodically bans.


Edited by SovietBias, 20 September 2019 - 10:51 AM.


pecopad #54 Posted 20 September 2019 - 10:57 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29808 battles
  • 2,262
  • [UGN] UGN
  • Member since:
    09-04-2015

View PostSovietBias, on 20 September 2019 - 10:50 AM, said:

 

No doubt. And perhaps more importantly, cheats that completely wreck other FPS games, such as aimbots and aim leads have their effect dampened here due to RNG.

 

EDIT: the best available proxy for it are the number of accounts that WG periodically bans.

 

Well, the aimbots I saw, and that were advertised years ago, didn't have RNG on the aim... so there goes your theory down the drain....

 

I think there are still some videos showing that... you just have to look it up..


Edited by pecopad, 20 September 2019 - 10:59 AM.


NUKLEAR_SLUG #55 Posted 20 September 2019 - 11:02 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 34552 battles
  • 4,900
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View Postjabster, on 20 September 2019 - 09:30 AM, said:


Common usage drives meaning so pretty much by definition it can’t be incorrect. The dictionary is descriptive not prescriptive.


True, but right now the dictionary definition of "evidence" is information that increases the probability of a theory being true where additional evidence may be used to further refine that theory and that "proof" is information that categorically confirms the theory as a fact. So, no, they are not the same thing so he's still using the two incorrectly.

 

 

View Postpecopad, on 20 September 2019 - 10:57 AM, said:

 

Well, the aimbots I saw, and that were advertised years ago, didn't have RNG... so there goes your theory down the drain....

 

I think there are still some videos showing that... you just have to look it up..

 

They can advertise whatever they like, it doesn't make it true. The server calculates the rolls, the server decides on the result. That can't be manipulated. If server data could be manipulated you would be seeing E-100s driving around with 1 sec reloads. You don't.



pecopad #56 Posted 20 September 2019 - 11:04 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29808 battles
  • 2,262
  • [UGN] UGN
  • Member since:
    09-04-2015

View PostBaldrickk, on 20 September 2019 - 10:49 AM, said:

Of those surveyed. 

For all we know cheat usage may be different between different games - in fact,  I'd be surprised if it wasn't.

 

But since we don't know, we can't assume anything... or can assume anything we want...

 

But its reasonable to think cheat usage depends on the game, specially on anti-ban policies and cheat catching mechanisms. Also we could also assume that free online games have a much higher number of cheaters because the cost of being caught is much lower.

 

So in the end we have pro and counter arguments...  my sensibility is that WoT has few cheaters than other on-line games.

 

But also other games are plagued with cheaters....


Edited by pecopad, 20 September 2019 - 11:07 AM.


SovietBias #57 Posted 20 September 2019 - 11:07 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 39187 battles
  • 1,710
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View Postpecopad, on 20 September 2019 - 09:57 AM, said:

 

Well, the aimbots I saw, and that were advertised years ago, didn't have RNG on the aim... so there goes your theory down the drain....

 

I think there are still some videos showing that... you just have to look it up..

 

I'm going to wait for you to look them up yourself. Knowing that rolls are server side I highly doubt such cheat exists and I'm not going to waste my time.



pecopad #58 Posted 20 September 2019 - 11:10 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29808 battles
  • 2,262
  • [UGN] UGN
  • Member since:
    09-04-2015

View PostSovietBias, on 20 September 2019 - 11:07 AM, said:

 

I'm going to wait for you to look them up yourself. Knowing that rolls are server side I highly doubt such cheat exists and I'm not going to waste my time.

 

Aim, not rolls. Basically you shoot where you aim.

 

And how do you know rolls are server side? Was there anything published on rolls? 



jabster #59 Posted 20 September 2019 - 11:22 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12775 battles
  • 26,298
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 20 September 2019 - 10:02 AM, said:


True, but right now the dictionary definition of "evidence" is information that increases the probability of a theory being true where additional evidence may be used to further refine that theory and that "proof" is information that categorically confirms the theory as a fact. So, no, they are not the same thing so he's still using the two incorrectly.

 

 

 

They can advertise whatever they like, it doesn't make it true. The server calculates the rolls, the server decides on the result. That can't be manipulated. If server data could be manipulated you would be seeing E-100s driving around with 1 sec reloads. You don't.

 

I’m not talking about specific words but in general about the relationship between meaning and common usage.



SaintMaddenus #60 Posted 20 September 2019 - 11:24 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 38911 battles
  • 2,806
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    03-04-2011
so is this thread Proof or evidence that people like to argue over anything? especially on the web?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users