Cheating everywhere, GMs???

[Samoht]

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

I'm sorry you feel personally attacked but the calculation of reaction time given knowledge of ping and fps is trivial. It's also explained in the video. You should watch it.

Hand waving evidence because you disagree with the conclusion makes you sound like a flat earther. They do the same thing. I'm open to the possibility that the OPs assertions are wrong. I'll gladly change my mind on the validity of this evidence if you or someone else can provide an actual rebuttal.

It's funny how you have so much to say but so little to add. It's like you take the video as some sort of divine source that includes knowledge that cannot be refuted.

I'm wondering if you were a major contributor then, and you feel so strongly that your evidence is solid that you refuse to accept any outside opinion.

I'm sorry your paper did not pass peer review.

You're looking more and more like a cigarette salesman with every post.

[Ennewi]

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

Can't get better, so we'll frame them for cheating while kickenit starts cheating himself

Jan 2001: "The simple truth is that we outwork everyone. But when you perform at a higher level in a race, you get questions about doping."

[hotkarlmarxbros]

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

I will try to make a very simple math example to show why online games are not a great way to judge reaction times.

In case you don't know, ping measures the round trip time it takes for a player to send data to the server, and receive it back. So if a player has a ping of 20ms, that means it took something like 10ms to send the data out, and 10ms to get the data back. It doesn't have to be a 50/50 split like that, but I will use it for simplicity.

Here are the conditions for the hypothetical example:

1. Racing Player A has 20ms ping.

2. Racing Player B has 200ms ping.

3. Observing Player A has 20ms ping.

4. All three players happen to recieve the "START RACE" message at the same time (in this case the target /random number).

5. Lets assume OP is correct, and normal humans have a 250ms reaction time.

==================================================

Racing Player A would send his "STARTED MOVING" command to the server at the 260ms second mark (250ms reaction time + 10ms to get his command to the server).

Racing Player B would send his "STARTED MOVING" command to the server at the 350ms second mark (250ms reaction time + 100ms to get his command to the server).

Observing Player A would see Racing Player A start moving after 270ms of seeing the "START RACE" message (250ms reaction time + 10ms for the command to get to the server + 10ms for the command to get to Observing Player A).

Observing Player A would see Racing Player B start moving after 360ms of seeing the "START RACE" message (250ms reaction time + 100ms for the command to get to the server + 10ms for the command to get to Observing Player A).

As you can see, it would APPEAR that Racing Player A had a 90ms head start for whatever reason. But that is only due to ping, not to actual reaction time. That is why you can't compare this to an Olympic race, because there is no intermediary between the "START RACE" signal and the players in real life.

Stunningly is very obviously on the west coast. People coming in here trying to spin the idea that ping fluctuates to the extent that 104 can somehow turn into 20 are just showing up to argue in bad faith. Your example leaves off the fact that the client has to receive the message from the server before it then sends its command to the server, so you don't halve the round trip time, you just use it. You also left off the transit time for the server to propagate the information to the observer, but that becomes a wash because the race start and run start both share this overhead.

So stunningly with 100ms ping and zero reaction time necessary due to the use of scripts clocks in at 100ms to the server. An observer with 50 ping will see the roll at 25ms and then stunningly will leave the line at 125ms for a total of 100ms from roll to run.

The fastest racers of the pack (which vary from week to week, with the exception of stunningly and the race bloodeye scripted and submitted his petition) we can say naturally select for above average reaction time and a closer position to the server. So someone on the East coast with a 30 ping and 170ms reaction time will clock in at 200ms to the server. An observer with 50 ping will see the roll at 25ms and then the legit racer (or at least one that baked in a delay to the scripts) leaves the line at 225ms for a total of 200ms from roll to run.

The racers with middling reaction speed of 250ms and located on the west coast with stunningly at 100ms will clock in at 350ms to the server and accordingly 350ms from roll to run to the observer.

Stunningly foolishly showed his hand trying to debunk his bard macroing accusation with a metronome while wildly slapping his keyboard at varying intervals and holding his keys for varying lengths of time. His times are perfectly in line with someone who has that ping and has a near zero delay in starting the race. For someone on the east coast the difference would be even more pronounced.

I'm not sure what the point of all this solidarity where people are standing in support of obvious cheaters is. Who wants to play a game with exploitable engages? If you think stunningly is the first or only person to cheat, you are crazy naive. Any mob pop can be detected via a change in the pixels on a static portion of the screen where the mob always is, any log file can be read, any action can be automated. People are trashing OP for taking time out to make a video holding everyone's hands to explain something that should be immediately obvious to anybody with any amount of imagination and the slightest understanding of computers, but the time he spent on that is a drop in the bucket compared to the time people invest literally staring at their screen doing nothing else waiting for something to happen. A dozen instances of this per week, with windows ranging from 8 (half window "on spawn" rules) to 16 to 24 hours, across anywhere from a couple people to several, all competing for this equates to time that goes directly into the trash while someone watches netflix with their feet up on the desk waiting for their script to fire. If anything is a waste of time it is this "competitive" contrivance with gaping security flaws, not someone who took a fraction of what goes into a week of tracking coverage to explain what is going on at the top end to those stuck without the ability to compete and wondering what exactly is going wrong.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

4. All three players happen to recieve the "START RACE" message at the same time (in this case the target /random number).

This isn't true. The players receive the /random information at 1/2 of their stated ping (not round trip in this case). So player A gets it in 10ms while player B gets it in 100ms.

The observer views the random happening at 10ms. So the observer is 1:1 with player A. All we must do is count frames and know the FPS of the recording to determine reaction time.

For player B the observer knows his ping because he made YouTube videos and we can make a reasonable assumption that this is a normal ping. It also lines up with our expectations of ping for where he lives (or so I'm told).

Because the observer knows his delay is 20ms and receiving packets from the server is half of a round trip, the time at which the observer saw the random appear minus 10ms is the time in which it left the server. We can therefor conclude that player B receives the random information 90ms after it appears on the observers recording.

We then do some basic math that includes determining if it is a 30 or 60fps recording and counting frames we can calculate the reaction time with the available information. Now we have a best case number for getting the best possible reaction time. Any additional delays in hardware thus reduce the amount of time in which the player on char B is exposed to the information before reacting.

Additional sources of lag at this point require faster than calculated reaction times to equal observed actions.

I said "Happen to receive", because it is an example[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] I wanted to keep the example as simple as possible. But sure, let us add that variable in if you want. It doesn't help your case or OP's. Your logic is incorrect here.

================================================== =======================================

I will try to make a very simple math example to show why online games are not a great way to judge reaction times.

In case you don't know, ping measures the round trip time it takes for a player to send data to the server, and receive it back. So if a player has a ping of 20ms, that means it took something like 10ms to send the data out, and 10ms to get the data back. It doesn't have to be a 50/50 split like that, but I will use it for simplicity.

Here are the conditions for the hypothetical example:

1. Racing Player A has 20ms ping.

2. Racing Player B has 200ms ping.

3. Observing Player has 30ms ping.

4. Rolling Player has 40ms ping.

5. The Server is the P99 server.

6. Lets assume OP is correct, and normal humans have a 250ms reaction time.




Rolling Player would send the "REQUEST RANDOM" command to the server at the 0ms mark.

The Server would receive the "REQUEST RANDOM" command from the Rolling Player at the 20ms mark (+20ms to receive the message from theRolling Player)

Racing Player A would receive the "RANDOM NUMBER 900" message at the 30ms mark (+10ms to receive the message from The Server)

Racing Player A would send the "STARTED MOVING" command to the server at the 280ms mark (+250ms reaction time).

The Server would receive the "STARTED MOVING" command from the Racing Player A at the 290ms mark (+10ms to receive the message from the Racing Player A).

Observing Player would receive the "STARTED MOVING" command from the Racing Player A at the 305ms mark (+15ms to receive the message from The Server.




Rolling Player would send the "REQUEST RANDOM" command to the server at the 0ms mark.

The Server would receive the "REQUEST RANDOM" command from the Rolling Player at the 20ms mark (+20ms to receive the message from theRolling Player)

Racing Player B would receive the "RANDOM NUMBER 900" message at the 120ms mark (+100ms to receive the message from The Server)

Racing Player B would send the "STARTED MOVING" command to the server at the 370ms mark (+250ms reaction time).

The Server would receive the "STARTED MOVING" command from the Racing Player B at the 470ms mark (+100ms to receive the message from the Racing Player B).

Observing Player would receive the "STARTED MOVING" command from the Racing Player B at the 495ms mark (+15ms to receive the message from The Server.




So in this example, you would have a difference of 190ms just from ping.

[Samoht]

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

I'm not sure what the point of all this solidarity where people are standing in support of obvious cheaters is. Who wants to play a game with exploitable engages? If you think stunningly is the first or only person to cheat, you are crazy naive. Any mob pop can be detected via a change in the pixels on a static portion of the screen where the mob always is, any log file can be read, any action can be automated.

I think Arcler was the first proven cheat, no? For his AFK trakanon batphones using pixel detection, right? I assume that's why Riot is so good at figuring out that everybody else is cheating and knowing exactly how they do it.

Well, first behind catherine, anyway. Autofire away!

I wonder what Arcler and catherine have in common, hmm... It's definitely not that their both in Vanquish together, is it?

Who's the real fucking cheaters here.

[Nibblewitz]

I would just trust the resident cheaters in KWSM and Riot. They seem to know what they’re talking about.

[titanshub]

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

It's funny how you have so much to say but so little to add. It's like you take the video as some sort of divine source that includes knowledge that cannot be refuted.

I'm wondering if you were a major contributor then, and you feel so strongly that your evidence is solid that you refuse to accept any outside opinion.

I'm sorry your paper did not pass peer review.

You're looking more and more like a cigarette salesman with every post.

I've literally pointed to multiple places where the OPs evidence could be weak. I've said how you or others should go about refuting it. Learn to read.

[titanshub]

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

I said "Happen to receive", because it is an example[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] I wanted to keep the example as simple as possible. But sure, let us add that variable in if you want. It doesn't help your case or OP's. Your logic is incorrect here.

================================================== =======================================

I will try to make a very simple math example to show why online games are not a great way to judge reaction times.

In case you don't know, ping measures the round trip time it takes for a player to send data to the server, and receive it back. So if a player has a ping of 20ms, that means it took something like 10ms to send the data out, and 10ms to get the data back. It doesn't have to be a 50/50 split like that, but I will use it for simplicity.

Here are the conditions for the hypothetical example:

1. Racing Player A has 20ms ping.

2. Racing Player B has 200ms ping.

3. Observing Player has 30ms ping.

4. Rolling Player has 40ms ping.

5. The Server is the P99 server.

6. Lets assume OP is correct, and normal humans have a 250ms reaction time.




Rolling Player would send the "REQUEST RANDOM" command to the server at the 0ms mark.

The Server would receive the "REQUEST RANDOM" command from the Rolling Player at the 20ms mark (+20ms to receive the message from theRolling Player)

Racing Player A would receive the "RANDOM NUMBER 900" message at the 30ms mark (+10ms to receive the message from The Server)

Racing Player A would send the "STARTED MOVING" command to the server at the 280ms mark (+250ms reaction time).

The Server would receive the "STARTED MOVING" command from the Racing Player A at the 290ms mark (+10ms to receive the message from the Racing Player A).

Observing Player would receive the "STARTED MOVING" command from the Racing Player A at the 305ms mark (+15ms to receive the message from The Server.




Rolling Player would send the "REQUEST RANDOM" command to the server at the 0ms mark.

The Server would receive the "REQUEST RANDOM" command from the Rolling Player at the 20ms mark (+20ms to receive the message from theRolling Player)

Racing Player B would receive the "RANDOM NUMBER 900" message at the 120ms mark (+100ms to receive the message from The Server)

Racing Player B would send the "STARTED MOVING" command to the server at the 370ms mark (+250ms reaction time).

The Server would receive the "STARTED MOVING" command from the Racing Player B at the 470ms mark (+100ms to receive the message from the Racing Player B).

Observing Player would receive the "STARTED MOVING" command from the Racing Player B at the 495ms mark (+15ms to receive the message from The Server.




So in this example, you would have a difference of 190ms just from ping.

Your example is irrelevant because we have what we need to calculate it the way I have shown. It's just minor point that it's not even really the thrust of his assertion.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Your example is irrelevant because we have what we need to calculate it the way I have shown. It's just minor point that it's not even really the thrust of his assertion.

Please read the example more carefully, because it is all you need to understand why OP's evidence is invalid. He doesn't have the ping for everybody in the video, so he has no idea how the data was received.

[Ennewi]

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

It's funny how you have so much to say but so little to add. It's like you take the video as some sort of divine source that includes knowledge that cannot be refuted.

I'm wondering if you were a major contributor then, and you feel so strongly that your evidence is solid that you refuse to accept any outside opinion.

I'm sorry your paper did not pass peer review.

You're looking more and more like a cigarette salesman with every post.

Were you a bully?

"Yes, I was a bully. I was a bully in the sense that I tried to control the narrative and if I didn’t like what someone said I turned on them.

Is that your nature – when someone says something you don’t like, you go on attack? Have you been like that your entire life – 10 years old, 12 years old and 14 years old?

"My entire life. Before my diagnosis I was a competitor but not a fierce competitor. When I was diagnosed, that turned me into a fighter. That was good. I took that ruthless win-at-all-costs attitude into cycling which was bad."