Jump to content


BBC piece of news

Bbc cheat

  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

4nt #81 Posted 20 September 2019 - 02:26 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29603 battles
  • 1,605
  • Member since:
    04-09-2013

View Postpecopad, on 20 September 2019 - 01:51 PM, said:

 

Then like I thought you are assuming things like everyone else...

 

Wot replays has very little cheats, because you know with raw replay files its very easy to catch cheaters... actually here is a little exercise for you, please try to find any raw game file replays for the most well known players in WoT...never could find it....strange since they use the platform to replay some games from others...


There are plenty of vids of aimbots out there, if have never seen one its because you don't want, so stop playing the naive role...

 

Maybe I'm just more in tune and look for stuff you and many just ignore, I see some replays and sometimes I find weird unexplained stuff

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVBCapbrARA&lc=z22hxzzhbtiotj5y104t1aokgv5suz2unhhmrbzxokb1rk0h00410

 

Here for example one of the latest. There are other occasions when it happens, but its clear at 17:42... target acquired message when the sight is pointing to the sky...

 

Just weird...

I don't know, are you just not reading what I Post or not able to understand? Baffling. I know it is hard but reread them again and maybe you then understand. I cannot bend the bloody rail any further. Atm it feels like you just argue for arguments sake because you just in this post said nothing I hadnt covered before and in same angle. And locking from off bore has nothing to do with server traffic, since target lock data is sent by client. Should he have fired his gun from opposite facing, and there would be same visualization from receiving end- then we'd have serious thing for arguing client modification overriding server calculations.

 

Please, go Back and citate where I've said cheats do not exist. Pretty much certain you come up with some condecending excuse, since you explicically ignored what I said about YouTube before...

 

Your evidence is just as much relevant as WGs statement how the game works. Except they know how their code goes and gain nothing from not being straight about it, you have merely rehashed old greedy communist company-meme. I know it is pointless to point the fallacies on such pattern so won't even start. You argue from your bias, and I refrain to judge this matter (too) unless some tangible evidence is shown. The article, should you choose to call it so, is value of crap paper, failing to conform to basic journalistic principles. We might have plague of cheaters on our hands, but this far 1/3 seems quite exaggerated IN CASE OF WOT. As you said, there have been numbers about more popular shooters that vary from major to almost universal, but really, considering my played games Ive had very few considerations of aimbot in relation to battlecount. Some suspicion about lasmod, one hands fingers about tundra. Compared to CS, there's almost no suspicion! 

 

Edit: actually fudge it, it's useless. Seeing how you twist and outright ignore Hug's post it's clear you have no intention on actual conversation but only post to reinforce your bias and impose it on others. Have fun, won't engage anyone not honest on these matters.


Edited by 4nt, 20 September 2019 - 02:30 PM.


pecopad #82 Posted 20 September 2019 - 02:30 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29723 battles
  • 2,253
  • [UGN] UGN
  • Member since:
    09-04-2015

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, and posters are just derailing it. Just want to make a disclosure.

 

By no means the link I posted was intended to illustrate the use of aimbots, I used it to ilustrate how sometimes I see vids and notice weird stuff.

 

I don't think its an aimbot, there would be no reasons to use aimbots in a HE demonstration like the author was doing in the first place, I have not come across anyone hinting he is a cheater or do I think he is a cheater.

 

I think its just weird, most probably a bug in capture..


Edited by pecopad, 20 September 2019 - 02:34 PM.


CptBarney #83 Posted 20 September 2019 - 02:36 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 18996 battles
  • 4,033
  • [-WR--] -WR--
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013

Normies discover computer games for the first time IRC 1935. :trollface:

 

I forgot about my CSGO inventory, probs need to try and get a knife somehow and then trade up. If i can be arsed with the hassle with that.



Baldrickk #84 Posted 20 September 2019 - 03:00 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32167 battles
  • 16,878
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View Postpecopad, on 20 September 2019 - 02:10 PM, said:

You trully honnor your avatar... 

 

How the hell was he aiming at the tank.. he is  going uphill in a crest in a turretless tank... why would even use autoaim in the first place..

 

More inclined for it being a bug, honestly, it happens in other situations without any reason..

 

Tanks for the link..

 How? The aim reticule isn't locked to the gun like the aim circle is.

The real life equivalent is the commander's periscope, which can be aimed independantly of the body or turret direction, and can be used to dial in a target for the gunner to then aquire.

14:01 Added after 0 minute
It's not a bug,  or a capture issue.
He hit the autoaim button while looking at the tank, then cancelled it.

pecopad #85 Posted 20 September 2019 - 03:29 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29723 battles
  • 2,253
  • [UGN] UGN
  • Member since:
    09-04-2015

View PostBaldrickk, on 20 September 2019 - 03:00 PM, said:

 How? The aim reticule isn't locked to the gun like the aim circle is.

The real life equivalent is the commander's periscope, which can be aimed independantly of the body or turret direction, and can be used to dial in a target for the gunner to then aquire.

14:01 Added after 0 minute
It's not a bug, or a capture issue.
He hit the autoaim button while looking at the tank, then cancelled it.

Baldrick, stop making silly excuses...

 

1 He was on the ridge... no way he could even get the aim on the other tank... and to my knowledge, yes the sight is the one that locks the target. Go and check your mods if that is not the case... And you only get the message if you lock the target, which had to be in your sight to lock.

 

2. The lock target goes on at the same time he was spoted, and his sight and tank are pointing to the sky.

 

First weird thing is how can he lock target, with a turretless tank coming from a ridge and not get spoted sooner by the tank below? He had to be fully exposed to the tank below, and easy to spot

 

3. When he locked the tank, he was fully loaded, so why not take the shot? Why did he even turned towards the tank if he wasn't planning on taking the shot?

 

4. Its not the only time this happens in the video.

 

5.Why would a player like him even use auto aim?

 

Again I repeat I THINK ITS A BUG, makes no sense to use aimbots with Hesh, and the guy has hundreds of videos and I don't recall ever watching any signs of cheating, don't recall ever seeing him using auto aim either.

 

Not saying its not possible, but my point is that its just weird, and that's some stuff I notice in videos.

 

Nobody is, at least I'm not,  accusing him of cheating, so no excuses have to be made, OK, just agree its not normal and its weird...


Edited by pecopad, 20 September 2019 - 03:37 PM.


HugSeal #86 Posted 20 September 2019 - 04:03 PM

    Captain

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

View Postpecopad, on 20 September 2019 - 03:29 PM, said:

 

First weird thing is how can he lock target, with a turretless tank coming from a ridge and not get spoted sooner by the tank below? He had to be fully exposed to the tank below, and easy to spot

 

 

You do know that you can lock on to targets in third person, right? With low enough shell velocity you an even shoot at targets hidden behind a ridge, simply aim or lock on in third perosn.



Baldrickk #87 Posted 20 September 2019 - 04:15 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32167 battles
  • 16,878
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View Postpecopad, on 20 September 2019 - 03:29 PM, said:

Baldrick, stop making silly excuses...

 

1 He was on the ridge... no way he could even get the aim on the other tank... and to my knowledge, yes the sight is the one that locks the target. Go and check your mods if that is not the case... And you only get the message if you lock the target, which had to be in your sight to lock.

 

2. The lock target goes on at the same time he was spoted, and his sight and tank are pointing to the sky.

 

First weird thing is how can he lock target, with a turretless tank coming from a ridge and not get spoted sooner by the tank below? He had to be fully exposed to the tank below, and easy to spot

 

3. When he locked the tank, he was fully loaded, so why not take the shot? Why did he even turned towards the tank if he wasn't planning on taking the shot?

 

4. Its not the only time this happens in the video.

 

5.Why would a player like him even use auto aim?

 

Again I repeat I THINK ITS A BUG, makes no sense to use aimbots with Hesh, and the guy has hundreds of videos and I don't recall ever watching any signs of cheating, don't recall ever seeing him using auto aim either.

 

Not saying its not possible, but my point is that its just weird, and that's some stuff I notice in videos.

 

Nobody is, at least I'm not,  accusing him of cheating, so no excuses have to be made, OK, just agree its not normal and its weird...

 

OMJFC.

 

This is the moment he locks onto the player:

Yes, the gun is facing to the left.    The player's aim however is aimed AT the tank in question.
Watching it again to take this screenshot, because I really didn't pay much attention the last time, because this is obvious, he had noted before the guy was even spotted that he was a one-shot.
He clearly autoaimed, in order to try and snap a shot into centre mass (pretty much a guaranteed kill with AP with that gun, DEFINITELY a one-shot when the enemy is a medium tank and he's firing HE/HESH and they are on 85 HP.

Autoaim would allow him to keep better situational awareness while he takes there shot.

There.... that's the reason he uses autoaim in this case.
He cuts it off and manually aims though, as the enemy player moves beyond the gap, to a point where only his rear is sticking out, so a manual shot is needed to finish him off as an autoaimed shot would have gone into the building.

Where the player is in the screenshot, autoaim wouldl have hit him just fine as at that point in time, the enemy tank was in the open.

 

The enemy had been spotted before the autoaim was activated.  - he also knew where the enemy player was, and where they were going when last spotted, so was already aiming in the general direction of the enemy tank, despite his tank's gun not pointing that way at that time.

 

He was planning on taking the shot.  He didn't fire straight away because his gun was not pointed at the target - quite clear.   He didn't autoaim the shot as by the time he had turned the gun, it wasn't an easy shot that could hit with autoaim.

 

I'm not surprised it's not the only time it happens - he's looking around him and aiming at targets when his vehicle has a fixed gun and takes longer to get there.

 

No bug, not wierd, any problem you have with it is a lack of fairly basic knowlege on how the game works...



LordMuffin #88 Posted 20 September 2019 - 04:20 PM

    Field Marshal

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

View Postspamhamstar, on 20 September 2019 - 09:54 AM, said:

 

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.

The general usage of English language say I am right. As does the subgroup in this thread.

Or bring some evidence to support your point. 

 

Your point is false. No matter how many times you say the same thing.

 

Btw.

The difference of proof and evidence is important in any scientific or academic conversation. But it seems you think such conversations are archaic, fuddy duddy, and no longer exists in the world. 

 

 

It would be nice if you had a point beyond 'I believe this, thus I am right, and I also happen to know that all other English speakers believe the same'.

15:26 Added after 6 minute

View Postspamhamstar, on 20 September 2019 - 12:33 PM, said:

 

From "the dictionary"

 

evidence
 
noun: evidence
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
 
 
Similar:
proof
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
proof
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs
 
evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
 
Similar: evidence
 
 
Seriously, at least try using google before you further embarrass yourself.
 

Similar =/= equal or interchangeable.

It means similar. Which your post nicely shows.


Edited by LordMuffin, 20 September 2019 - 04:22 PM.


NUKLEAR_SLUG #89 Posted 20 September 2019 - 04:44 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 34468 battles
  • 4,844
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View Postspamhamstar, on 20 September 2019 - 12:33 PM, said:

 

From "the dictionary"

 

evidence
 
noun: evidence
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
 
 
Similar:
proof
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
proof
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs
 
evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
 
Similar: evidence
 
 
Seriously, at least try using google before you further embarrass yourself.
 

 

Big bold this time because hopefully it'll help you understand why you just proved yourself wrong.

 

Indication that something is X increases the probability that it is X, it does not establish that it is a 100% probability that is X. Ergo, not the same.

 

 

View Postpecopad, on 20 September 2019 - 01:51 PM, said:

Maybe I'm just more in tune and look for stuff you and many just ignore, I see some replays and sometimes I find weird unexplained stuff

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVBCapbrARA&lc=z22hxzzhbtiotj5y104t1aokgv5suz2unhhmrbzxokb1rk0h00410

 

Here for example one of the latest. There are other occasions when it happens, but its clear at 17:42... target acquired message when the sight is pointing to the sky...

 

Just weird...

 

You are not  "in tune" when you're looking for stuff, you just have a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic game mechanics which means you see perfectly normal replays, have no clue what it is you're looking at and assume the only answer must be hacks. It's not.

 

The video you supplied at 17:42 Dez clearly mouses over the enemy T-54 in 3rd person until he gets a red outline which you briefly see just before he activates the auto-aim. That is how the ingame auto-aim function works, it is how it has always worked. There is nothing in that youtube video that anyone with even a trivial understanding of how the auto-aim feature operates would find to be "unexplained"

 

Get a clue.



spamhamstar #90 Posted 21 September 2019 - 05:20 AM

    Captain

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

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 20 September 2019 - 03:44 PM, said:

 

Big bold this time because hopefully it'll help you understand why you just proved yourself wrong.

 

Indication that something is X increases the probability that it is X, it does not establish that it is a 100% probability that is X. Ergo, not the same.

 

Spoiler

 

View PostLordMuffin, on 20 September 2019 - 03:20 PM, said:

The general usage of English language say I am right. As does the subgroup in this thread.

Or bring some evidence to support your point. 

 

Your point is false. No matter how many times you say the same thing.

 

Btw.

The difference of proof and evidence is important in any scientific or academic conversation. But it seems you think such conversations are archaic, fuddy duddy, and no longer exists in the world. 

 

 

It would be nice if you had a point beyond 'I believe this, thus I am right, and I also happen to know that all other English speakers believe the same'.

15:26 Added after 6 minute

Similar =/= equal or interchangeable.

It means similar. Which your post nicely shows.

Spoiler

 

I really can't believe how long this has dragged on, given that it really has nothing to do with the topic in question. 



HugSeal #91 Posted 21 September 2019 - 08:02 AM

    Captain

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

View Postspamhamstar, on 21 September 2019 - 05:20 AM, said:

I guess reading is very selective for some.  You've highlighted certain parts of the definition while completely ignoring the parts that are identical.

 

Evidence are facts that establish if something is true.

Proof is evidence that establish if something is true.

 

You completely ignore the entire previous debate with each new post.  I have already shown that proof of something does not indicate 100% reliability where things that have been accepted as proven subsequently turn out to be false.  Yet you argue that evidence is not proof because it does not establish 100% probability that it is correct.  "True" is also synonymous with "correct".

 

With each post you seem to decrease the probability that you are correct, while still failing to provide any proof or evidence of your own.

 

 

 

 

 

Have you considered that "the parts that are identical" were "ignored" because there are no parts that are identical?

 

 

View Postspamhamstar, on 20 September 2019 - 12:33 PM, said:

 

From "the dictionary"

evidence
noun: evidence
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
 
Similar:
proof
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
proof
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs
 
evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
 
Similar: evidence
 
Seriously, at least try using google before you further embarrass yourself.

 

Nothing in the definition you posted yourself is identical to what you pretend it is. At least try to understand how a venn diagram works. Proof is evidecne, evidence isn't proof.

 

Seriously, at least try to read what you post before you further embarrass yourself.

 


Edited by HugSeal, 21 September 2019 - 08:05 AM.


spamhamstar #92 Posted 21 September 2019 - 08:24 AM

    Captain

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

View PostHugSeal, on 21 September 2019 - 07:02 AM, said:

 

 

Have you considered that "the parts that are identical" were "ignored" because there are no parts that are identical?

 

 

 

Nothing in the definition you posted yourself is identical to what you pretend it is. At least try to understand how a venn diagram works. Proof is evidecne, evidence isn't proof.

 

Seriously, at least try to read what you post before you further embarrass yourself.

 

 

Oh my, another one.  This really is getting people riled up over nothing. 

 

Evidence can be proof.  Or are you seriously disputing that?  If I presented some evidence, say a video of someone clearly using the tundra mod.  Is that not proof that a) tundra mod exists & b) that specific player has used it?  Yes? No?  Is it not therefore both proof & evidence?  I.e the same <edited> thing.

 

Of course you won't answer that being as you've just said evidence isnt' proof then rabbited on about ven diagrams.

 

While the definitions are not word for word identical, they don't need to be to mean the same thing. 


Edited by spamhamstar, 21 September 2019 - 08:25 AM.


HugSeal #93 Posted 21 September 2019 - 09:05 AM

    Captain

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

View Postspamhamstar, on 21 September 2019 - 08:24 AM, said:

View PostHugSeal, on 21 September 2019 - 07:02 AM, said:

 

 

Have you considered that "the parts that are identical" were "ignored" because there are no parts that are identical?

 

 

 

Nothing in the definition you posted yourself is identical to what you pretend it is. At least try to understand how a venn diagram works. Proof is evidecne, evidence isn't proof.

 

Seriously, at least try to read what you post before you further embarrass yourself.

 

 

Oh my, another one.  This really is getting people riled up over nothing. 

 

Evidence can be proof.  Or are you seriously disputing that?  If I presented some evidence, say a video of someone clearly using the tundra mod.  Is that not proof that a) tundra mod exists & b) that specific player has used it?  Yes? No?  Is it not therefore both proof & evidence?  I.e the same <edited> thing.

 

Of course you won't answer that being as you've just said evidence isnt' proof then rabbited on about ven diagrams.

 

While the definitions are not word for word identical, they don't need to be to mean the same thing. 

 

I'm still waiting for your explanation as to what parts are identical.

 

You put o much weight into that definition you found, I assumed you actually knew what it said.

 

So, what parts "are identical" or "mean the same thing"? Please stop trying to avoid the question by lashing out and attacking people.

 

Because the definition you posted is not at all similar to:

 

Evidence are facts that establish if something is true.

Proof is evidence that establish if something is true.


Edited by HugSeal, 21 September 2019 - 09:06 AM.


LordMuffin #94 Posted 21 September 2019 - 10:10 AM

    Field Marshal

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

View Postspamhamstar, on 21 September 2019 - 05:20 AM, said:

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

I really can't believe how long this has dragged on, given that it really has nothing to do with the topic in question. 

If you had read the definitions in the dictionary you kindly posted, you would know that proof and evidence are different. 

 

The dictionary clearly stated the difference between the two.

09:11 Add6ed after 1 minute

View Postspamhamstar, on 21 September 2019 - 08:24 AM, said:

 

Oh my, another one.  This really is getting people riled up over nothing. 

 

Evidence can be proof.  Or are you seriously disputing that?  If I presented some evidence, say a video of someone clearly using the tundra mod.  Is that not proof that a) tundra mod exists & b) that specific player has used it?  Yes? No?  Is it not therefore both proof & evidence?  I.e the same thing.

 

Of course you won't answer that being as you've just said evidence isnt' proof then rabbited on about ven diagrams.

 

While the definitions are not word for word identical, they don't need to be to mean the same thing. 

Evidence CAN be proof.

It means that there are situations where Evidence ISN'T proof.

 

That sentence indicates that you don't believe proof and evidence are the same thing.


Edited by LordMuffin, 21 September 2019 - 10:14 AM.


Baldrickk #95 Posted 21 September 2019 - 10:27 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32167 battles
  • 16,878
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View Postspamhamstar, on 21 September 2019 - 08:24 AM, said:

 

Oh my, another one.  This really is getting people riled up over nothing. 

 

Evidence can be proof.  Or are you seriously disputing that?  If I presented some evidence, say a video of someone clearly using the tundra mod.  Is that not proof that a) tundra mod exists & b) that specific player has used it?  Yes? No?  Is it not therefore both proof & evidence?  I.e the same  thing.

 

Of course you won't answer that being as you've just said evidence isnt' proof then rabbited on about ven diagrams.

 

While the definitions are not word for word identical, they don't need to be to mean the same thing. 

No, they're not disputing that. 

Evidence can be proof.

 

Note the word "can" that means that sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. 

 

You sound like you don't know your own argument if you're saying that. 

 

Evidence is only proof if it establishes with zero doubt, the truth of a claim. 

 

Now,  can we get back on topic?

I'm getting tired of reading all this



spamhamstar #96 Posted 21 September 2019 - 11:42 AM

    Captain

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

Dear god, I seriously give up.  Proof is not the same as evidence & they are most certainly not synonyms.  The 2 words can never be substituded for one another in a sentence & always, always have completely different meanings. 

 

Just because not one of you can give a single example in relation to the context of this thread, or any other context you've dreamed up for that matter, doesn't mean anything at all.  Proof is always 100% despite only having to be enough to convince people of the truth.  Evidence of something in no way requires any degree of accuracy whatsoever & I was silly to think otherwise.

 

So get back to your never before discussed discussion about cheating which is entirely new & axciting because someone found an article from the BBC about the prevalence of cheating in another game, which of course is or isn't evidence of cheating in WoT but most certainly is not or perhaps is proof of cheating in WoT, because those are 2 entirely seperate things or aren't.  That way we can all throw in entirely new & interesting comments about the game being server side or having rng, or how unicums don't need to cheat, or how we feel like hardly anyone cheats or can't tell anything from getting shot, which mean cheats in WoT are entirely pointless anyway.  Of course that doesn't require proof or evidence just an opinion which in fact constitutes both, despite not being the same thing.  Synonyms always mean exactly the same thing & can always be substituted with each other in 100% of cases & don't even have the slightest difference, even if only in nuance.  In fact Synonyms are proof, but not evidence.

 

Seriously this forum  :izmena:

 

Enjoy

 



jabster #97 Posted 21 September 2019 - 11:48 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12761 battles
  • 26,233
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostBaldrickk, on 21 September 2019 - 09:27 AM, said:

No, they're not disputing that. 

Evidence can be proof.

 

Note the word "can" that means that sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. 

 

You sound like you don't know your own argument if you're saying that. 

 

Evidence is only proof if it establishes with zero doubt, the truth of a claim. 

 

Now,  can we get back on topic?

I'm getting tired of reading all this


I kinda found it more interesting than yet another thread about cheats in WoT.



jabster #98 Posted 21 September 2019 - 12:08 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12761 battles
  • 26,233
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010
To bring it back on topic, what are the signs of someone using an aimbot given you have access to their replay?

Baldrickk #99 Posted 21 September 2019 - 12:42 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32167 battles
  • 16,878
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View Postjabster, on 21 September 2019 - 12:08 PM, said:

To bring it back on topic, what are the signs of someone using an aimbot given you have access to their replay?

Aim circle jumps around without user action, no Activation/ deactivation dialogue for auto aim.

Aim leads targets while user is only looking in the general direction.

Aim snaps to weakspots at close range, and quite often jumps around as weakspots become visible/viable or not. 

 



SovietBias #100 Posted 21 September 2019 - 01:33 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38994 battles
  • 1,672
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View PostBaldrickk, on 21 September 2019 - 09:27 AM, said:

 

Now,  can we get back on topic?

I'm getting tired of reading all this

 

To be fair, there was never much to be said about the original topic. I think nobody denies the existence of cheats in online games. And regarding their prevalence, the article posted brings nothing new to the table.

 

View PostBaldrickk, on 21 September 2019 - 09:27 AM, said:

 

Note the word "can" that means that sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. 

 

You sound like you don't know your own argument if you're saying that. 

 

Evidence is only proof if it establishes with zero doubt, the truth of a claim. 

 

 

I think the issue lies with what is the object of proof and evidence.

 

Generally in academic research you talk about proof when you are referring to the hypothesis being tested or the theorem being proposed, and ( in empirical questions) you seek some sort of statistical validation of facts that establish the relation - or constitute evidence of what - you originally intend to prove.

 

Naturally a single empirical regularity may not be enough to prove whatever you intend to in the first place, and being only a part of a set of evidence needed, there's no equivalence between the whole and it's parts. The issue is that the object is being implicitly assumed different: you mean proof when you talk about the relation being studied, but there is nothing wrong in saying that the body of facts you compiled are evidence of that relation -  as in they prove or validate that relation. When the claim they refer to is the same, they mean the same.

 

Same with a criminal trial. Say evidence A is a CCTV video showing you entering a liquor store where a crime happened. There will be more evidence needed to assert that you are the author of the crime. However, the fact that you being there is not proof you commited the crime, does not mean that evidence of you being there isn't the same as proof of you being there. The issue is that the we are changing the object each time we discuss evidence and proof, hence they will logically differ in domain.

 

At least this is what I can get from this discussion. And such is the nature of a synonym: given a certain context, two words have the same meaning.

 

I think it is clear that we are not arguing this because we believe an indication of X means X is true.

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users