Cheating everywhere, GMs???

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by titanshub [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah Baz, like I said in another post. Nothing is ever 100% provable. To set the bar so high its impossible to reach undermined the legitimacy of the server. This accusation isn't proof they cheated its evidence. Given the consequences to the server of allowing people to cheat as much as they want I think the bar that needs to be used is beyond a reasonable doubt. To most people, I think that line was crossed a long time ago. However, where you draw that line has major impacts on fairness to the individuals accused as well.

If the methodology and calculations used in this argument stand up I have a hard time understanding how someone could make an honest argument in favor of not punishing those who are accused because it seems unbelievable to the point of absurdity that they are not cheating. However, the real question is does OP's argument really hold water or did he make some mistakes. I think that should be demonstrateable. Go look at races further back, make a dataset and show the pack, not the outliers not conforming to the statistical distribution we expect from the human benchmark data.

I never made a claim that things are 100% provable.

I am simply pointing out that OP doesn't even have evidence approaching 80% provable, due to the technical issues related to online gaming.

I will admit OP's video is well produced, but that doesn't make his evidence good. There are a lot of videos online where someone's argument is well presented, and based on poor evidence.

[twill86]

Originally Posted by Goldknyght [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is there a TLDR and TLDW recap? Cheaters gonna cheat n Haters gonna hate. nothing has changed in norrath.

Tldw - vanq probably cheating

Rnf tldr - vanq - "it's only 99.4% likely he is cheating. So nothing should be done since we arent 100% sure"

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by titanshub [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To be truthful, I'm not sure you are understanding the argument that OP is making. If I am the one who is misunderstanding then I am open to being corrected here. However, the argument presented says that certain individuals do not conform to statistical distributions of reaction times across all the races in their dataset. The chances of this being possible to do without cheating is very very improbable. Everyone else conforms to the data set except a person known to be using 3rd part autostart software (Kickinit) and people whose reaction times are so similar as to be statistically indistinguishable as his. Everyone else conforms to the distribution we expect.

I understand the argument completely[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The top three racers on the server could simply be benefiting from low ping due to factors like proximity to the P99 server. OP has zero proof against this possibility, so his argument falls apart.

If the top three racers are good at the race AND have a generally low ping, they are going to win most of the time.

[Viscere]

The staff is litterally giggling at OP, impressed by the level of immersion

Yes, p99 is a total success

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by titanshub [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think that there is an error in this logic. The idea that anything in the real world is completely provable is false. If we assume for the moment that the video in question contains no methodological or calculation errors and we compared that to a hypothetical admission of guilt from the accused parties then the statistical argument presented in the video is still more valid than the admission of guilt. This is because human testimony is a terrible source of information that is generally avoided in favor of empirical data.

All we can ever have is evidence not proof and assuming no methodological or calculation errors in that presentation then the author has moved the bar from something like 99.9% to 99.999%. If you set the bar at 100% then you have asked for the bar of proof to be set so high nobody can ever achieve it. This is bad for a server that promises a fair raid scene and impartial staff. (I'm not saying that staff are not these things just pointing it out) Everyone here including Vanquish should have a vested interest in the server maintaining its integrity.

As stated in the video, this kind of analysis in speed running is done with direct input logs of when buttons were pressed. The devs of the server presumably don't have access to that level of information about the users of p99. For this server to have any integrity in the raid the burden of reasonable doubt not absolute proof needs to be used.

If we use the burden of reasonable doubt then the accused look guilty af.

That being said, I'm bias so if you want to prove it wrong go poke actual objective holes in his analysis instead of hand waving lag from the monitor to the whatever whatever whatever. Provide a counter example where you use his methodology and produce provably honest reaction times that contradict his claims.

wut.

Isn't that all OP provided here? Some false correlations and hand waving?

The only thing supporting his point of view that what he's saying is true is that he wants it to be true.

I don't have to prove anything false. His argument is fucking bullshit, and the fact that GMs haven't made any changes based on the video indicates to me that they agree.

Originally Posted by titanshub [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The racers with the lowest latency has the biggest advantage. If I had to guess other factors are at play here as well such as read write speeds on the I/O. The game is writing that 900+ random to a log file that then needs to be read by the 3rd party software so delays here might be significant or not. None of that negates the use of cheat software. The claim being made by the OP that they are cheating and I'm pointing out that extra sources of lag on his computer alone does not exonerate them from that accusation. The other racers all fell within that statistical distribution dataset from humanbenchmark.com.

The argument presented here is looking at statistical distributions of the reaction times of racers (not just the accused). The OP has controlled for the major and obvious sources of latency and mechanical lag to the user as best as he can. When we do this over multiple races we can see a pattern of inhuman reaction times emerging.

If this was about 1 time then it would be an anomaly. It's the fact that it repeatedly happens time and time again is the accusation. Statistically he should fall further back in that distribution across multiple races. It's always possible that the OP cherrypicked the data which is why a more formalized accusation would be nice to see.

However, even if the OP cherrypicked the data then we are meant to believe that multiple people who have world class Olympian level reaction times all play classic everquest, are very unusually much older than normal for people with these sorts of reaction times, and all play in vanquish. (I assume nobody in riot has been caught doing this but if they are caught everyone should be banned).

I'm skeptical af about that being true. However, I'm not an expert in these things and this is just my understanding of what was presented.

It can't be that he's better than them, nah. NAH.

[Croco]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I understand the argument completely[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The top three racers on the server could simply be benefiting from low ping due to factors like proximity to the P99 server. OP has zero proof against this possibility, so his argument falls apart.

If the top three racers are good at the race AND have a generally low ping, they are going to win most of the time.

Ok now take into account that the best racer on the server has dogshit ping from being located on the west coast and also that he's first off the line every, single, race. Without fail. No matter the time of day, no matter the point in the window that KT spawns. 100% consistency of being first off the line. He never gets tired and is a little slow to react, he never has an off day, never isn't completely focused and ready to bust off the race line first. That's a whole lot of smoke for there to be no fire.

[enjchanter]

introduce mythic+ to wow and that will fix everything

[enjchanter]

Originally Posted by enjchanter [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

introduce mythic+ to wow p99 and that will fix everything

[titanshub]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I understand the argument completely[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The top three racers on the server could simply be benefiting from low ping due to factors like proximity to the P99 server. OP has zero proof against this possibility, so his argument falls apart.

If the top three racers are good at the race AND have a generally low ping, they are going to win most of the time.

If what you are saying about super reaction and ping times is true then why are they the only outliers? If your answer is small dataset then I will say ok, can we provide counter examples? If the methodology fails to control for these variables adequately then it should be possible to be show it via counter examples. Exclude the outliers and show the pack not conforming to the statistical distribution provided. The argument provided is, to my knowledge, really the only way to determine this outside of perfect knowledge like running ring0 anticheat and recording keystrokes. The argument isn't really as much about these players had x number of reaction time please explain that away, as much as it is why do these players repeated reaction times not fall within the normal statistical distribution of reaction times that we should expect.

OP provided a very small dataset of just a handful of races maybe he cherrypicked all the data to conform to his desired results. Only way to really refute this is to do some very light science and show that his methodology is incorrect. Hand waving doesn't really refute someone using math. However, demonstrating errors would.

[Chortles Snortles]

^being this upset
(lol)