Logic's pov ace vs welfare
Comments
-
[MOD]Polleus wrote: »Regardless of the access to shadows, it stands that our LATEST ruling in May of this year stated that shadows aren't allowed. We will most likely adjust this in future events, knowing that really is that easy to enable shadows. As for now, this is how it's going to be. Mike already commented on it.
Ace Gaming is not disqualified. The match is overturned. Ace Gaming falls to the Loser's Bracket, they are not eliminated from the event.
A potential future option would be to post a step-by-step guide to enabling shadows along with allowing them.
I, for example, have no idea how to turn them on. -
Ellustrial wrote: »A potential future option would be to post a step-by-step guide to enabling shadows along with allowing them.
I, for example, have no idea how to turn them on.
TIL people dont know how to use google
for example, this ******
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+turn+on+shadows+for+crossfire -
TIL people dont know how to use google
for example, this ******
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+turn+on+shadows+for+crossfire
The first link is to a cheating website,
The second is for the game "Castlevania Lords of Shadow 2".
The third is the BestSeller Google eBook "Caught in the Crossfire!"
Edit: The only link, in fact, relevant on the entire first page is this:
http://crossfire.z8games.com/events_page.aspx -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU14EOP6f0w&feature=youtu.be
im so kool
livestreamed it at http://www.hitbox.tv/logic1
Hey, Logic, since you guys already got your match overturned, can you at least turn your video back into public view? -
Maybe Wizdom wanted to stir something up, but his team also used shadows so they also get the same thing. Tonight I'll look at adding in a client side check to see if shadows are enabled.
Can someone link me to a guide on what setting needs changed without using CFTool so I know what I'm looking for in game? -
Maybe Wizdom wanted to stir something up, but his team also used shadows so they also get the same thing. Tonight I'll look at adding in a client side check to see if shadows are enabled.
Can someone link me to a guide on what setting needs changed without using CFTool so I know what I'm looking for in game?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyaotAfUQpY
Change the 6th value from 0 to 1 on the system file in the CF folder. -
Maybe Wizdom wanted to stir something up, but his team also used shadows so they also get the same thing. Tonight I'll look at adding in a client side check to see if shadows are enabled.
Can someone link me to a guide on what setting needs changed without using CFTool so I know what I'm looking for in game?
I would tell you exactly how to do it but i won't be home til later. It's just a notepad file in one of the cf folders and i think you change the 6th (not 100% on this) "0" to a "1", and that turns shadows on. -
Maybe Wizdom wanted to stir something up, but his team also used shadows so they also get the same thing. Tonight I'll look at adding in a client side check to see if shadows are enabled.
Can someone link me to a guide on what setting needs changed without using CFTool so I know what I'm looking for in game?
Message me on xfire please. -
-
In Ace Gamings case it's only evidence that shadows were being used for 1 map. It would be unfair for them to be dq'ed for the other map as well. It would have to be ASSUMED that he had on shadows before.
You stated that you would add to the anti cheat a code to check for shadows. Meaning that shadows are not detected currently. In result there is no proof of any user having shadows unless there is video. A screen shot shows one round or one instance, there is not enough evidence to prove it was used before or beyond that point. In logic case he had an entire video/ stream showing him using shadows.
In conclusion pCp.NA should not have the same verdict as Ace Gaming because of the different circumstances. I hope you understand. -
Speak_Truth wrote: »In Ace Gamings case it's only evidence that shadows were being used for 1 map. It would be unfair for them to be dq'ed for the other map as well. It would have to be ASSUMED that he had on shadows before.
You stated that you would add to the anti cheat a code to check for shadows. Meaning that shadows are not detected currently. In result there is no proof of any user having shadows unless there is video. A screen shot shows one round or one instance, there is not enough evidence to prove it was used before or beyond that point. In logic case he had an entire video/ stream showing him using shadows.
In conclusion pCp.NA should not have the same verdict as Ace Gaming because of the different circumstances. I hope you understand.
Hahaha
By that argument, Ace Gaming should only have 1 map overturned.
Also, you (presumably) can't turn shadows on without leaving the game. In other words, him using shadows at any point means he was using it the entirety of the time. Furthermore, ESG's Anticheat takes screenshots while it's running. It would be a simple matter of him checking the screenshots if -- for some reason -- Seoul* had tried to argue "I only had them on for that round!" -
Ellustrial wrote: »Hahaha
By that argument, Ace Gaming should only have 1 map overturned.
Also, you (presumably) can't turn shadows on without leaving the game. In other words, him using shadows at any point means he was using it the entirety of the time. Furthermore, ESG's Anticheat takes screenshots while it's running. It would be a simple matter of him checking the screenshots if -- for some reason -- Seoul* had tried to argue "I only had them on for that round!"
In our case with the screenshot, it would have to be assume for that half only. At half there is a possibility of that person disconnecting to remove them. Again this cannot be proved being that there was no code in the AC at that time. So by your logic only a half could be assumed. Not the entire game.
In Ace Gaming case they should only be dq'ed for that map. If they make a rule it's the responsibility of the organization to enforce it. Why would there not be a code already in place to check shadows? That means at this moment in time that it does not exist there is no way to check if anyone else has been using shadows. We should not be punished for the work ESG did not do. -
Speak_Truth wrote: »At there is a possibility of that person disconnect. So by you logic only a half could be assumed.
I'll reiterate. ESG's anticheat takes screenshots throughout the game. Are you really going to argue that Seoul turned his shadows on mid-half, and make Mike go through the logs and check?
You should stop while you're ahead. -
Ellustrial wrote: »I'll reiterate. ESG's anticheat takes screenshots throughout the game. Are you really going to argue that Seoul turned his shadows on mid-half, and make Mike go through the logs and check?
You should stop while you're ahead.
As I said it will have to be assumed. We should not be punished an entire match based on assumptions and no proof. You should stop being so concerned with others affairs. -
Speak_Truth wrote: »As I said it will have to be assumed. We should not be punished an entire match based on assumptions and no proof. You should stop being so concerned with the others affairs.
Do you not understand what I am saying? Is it really so complicated for you?
The ESG client screenshots during the game; therefore, if Seoul were using shadows in more than 1 half, it would show in those screenshots. In other words, even if Seoul were to come onto the forums and argue exactly how you did, there is no assumption.
You're desperately fishing for your -- third -- tournament life. Man up, and take your loss with grace. Jesus Christ.
Edit:
As for me being concerned with others' affairs...
Bizarre. Whenever I post about Ace Gaming, you always respond with "oh my god, he's right! mods, look into this!". You yourself have posted probably hundreds of threads about other teams / disputes / issues.
Yet, whenever it's about you, I should mind my own business.
-
Ellustrial wrote: »Do you not understand what I am saying? Is it really so complicated for you?
The ESG client screenshots during the game; therefore, if Seoul were using shadows in more than 1 half, it would show in those screenshots. In other words, even if Seoul were to come onto the forums and argue exactly how you did, there is no assumption.
You're desperately fishing for your -- third -- tournament life. Man up, and take your loss with grace. Jesus Christ.
Edit:
As for me being concerned with others' affairs...
Bizarre. Whenever I post about Ace Gaming, you always respond with "oh my god, he's right! mods, look into this!". Whenever it's about you, I should mind my own business.
Thanks for your concern, although it's not needed it's appreciated. Again allow ESG to do their job. -
Speak_Truth wrote: »Thanks for your concern, although it's not needed it's appreciated. Again allow ESG to do their job.
http://forum.z8games.com/showthread.php?t=290142 -
Ellustrial wrote: »
An irrelevant post.
I made them aware of a situation. I didn't give any advise to them on how to do their job like you have. -
Speak_Truth wrote: »An irrelevant post.
I made them aware of a situation. I didn't give any advise to them on how to do their job like you have.
http://forum.z8games.com/showthread.php?p=4085973#post4085973 -
Ellustrial wrote: »
Again a suggestion. I'm not telling them to do anything. Anymore? -
Speak_Truth wrote: »Again a suggestion. I'm not telling them to do anything.
http://forum.z8games.com/showthread.php?p=4052774#post4052774 -
Ellustrial wrote: »
Wrong. Try again. Anymore? -
Speak_Truth wrote: »Wrong.
You redefining words in the English language to mean what you want them to mean -- rather than what they actually mean -- is not the way the world works.Speak_Truth wrote: »I didn't give any advise to them on how to do their job like you have.Speak_Truth wrote: »Again a suggestion.
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/suggest
Look at the first word that links to it. "Advise".
You being too ignorant to see when you've lost an argument is no reason for me to continue arguing with you. And, yes, in answer to your question, there are undoubtedly hundreds more. You complain all the time.
Grow a pair, Tony. You've been acting like a teenage girl this entire event, and in pretty much every event that I've seen you in. Cheers. -
Ellustrial wrote: »You redefining words in the English language to mean what you want them to mean -- rather than what they actually mean -- is not the way the world works.
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/suggest
Look at the first word that links to it. "Advise".
You being too ignorant to see when you've lost an argument is no reason for me to continue arguing with you. And, yes, in answer to your question, there are undoubtedly hundreds more. You complain all the time.
Grow a pair, Tony. You've been acting like a teenage girl this entire event, and in pretty much every event that I've seen you in. Cheers.
That's your problem you look to win arguments. I'm not even arguing with you. You like to be right I was having fun making you look up my previous posts. I wanted to see how far you would go. Reid you are a loser by all means man in every meaning of the word. You try so hard to make people look less intelligent than yourself. It's a sign of insecurity, and a real intelligent person wouldn't waste time with one they consider less intelligent unless they are trying to teach them.
And also you've been acting like a preschool toddler pointing fingers at others faults or sticking your nose into other teams affairs in EVERY tournament I've seen you in. Cheers matey
Lmao you are the loser.
Categories
- All Categories
- Z8Games
- 1 Z8 Forum Discussion & Suggestions
- 15 Z8Games Announcements
- Rules & Conduct
- 2.5K CrossFire
- 710 CrossFire Announcements
- 712 Previous Announcements
- 2 Previous Patch Notes
- 320 Community
- 12 Modes
- 393 Suggestions
- 16 Clan Discussion and Recruitment
- 73 CF Competitive Forum
- 1 CFCL
- 16 Looking for a Team?
- 523 CrossFire Support
- 7 Suggestion
- 15 CrossFire Guides
- 37 CrossFire Off Topic