How to Properly Hide Wallhacks! CSGO

Summary

In this detailed Overwatch case review, we follow a suspect's gameplay in a Counter-Strike-like environment, where suspicious behavior suggests cheating. The suspect consistently shows signs of using wallhacks, positioning perfectly based on information that couldn't be obtained through normal gameplay. Despite attempts to play it off, the player’s awareness of enemy positions and rapid decision-making make it clear that vision assistance is at play. The analysis covers various rounds, ultimately confirming the use of wallhacks, with a brief mention of potential aim assistance and other cheats, offering an in-depth look at the suspect's suspicious actions throughout the game.

Takeaways

• 😀 The suspect in the game is suspected of using wall hacks, evident by their ability to know enemy positions without visual cues.
• 😀 The player demonstrated quick reactions and pre-aimed shots, which are signs of wall hacking, especially when they shot at enemies through walls.
• 😀 In several cases, the suspect seemed overly aware of where the enemies were, even in situations with no auditory or visual confirmation of their locations.
• 😀 The gameplay showcased instances where the suspect aimed at enemies through walls or other obstacles, a clear indicator of vision assistance usage.
• 😀 The suspect frequently reacted as if they already knew where enemies were about to appear, which further supports the theory of wall hacking.
• 😀 The suspect did not exhibit signs of using aimbots or other aim assistance tools, but their ability to hit shots without missing suggests they were still using wall hacks.
• 😀 Despite not using a spinbot in the gameplay, the suspect's ability to track and kill enemies in suspiciously precise ways pointed to cheating, specifically through wall hacks.
• 😀 In one round, the suspect used a shotgun effectively despite the enemy having a stronger weapon (AK), raising doubts about their awareness of enemy locations.
• 😀 Several moments in the match indicated that the suspect was attempting to play off the suspicion of cheating, but their actions were too accurate to ignore.
• 😀 Overall, the investigation revealed that the suspect was using vision assistance (wall hacks) throughout the game, but there was no clear evidence of other cheating scripts like aimbots or bunny hop scripts.

Q & A

What type of cheating is being described in the script?

The script describes wall hacking and potential rage hacking. Wall hacking refers to a cheat where players can see enemies through walls, and rage hacking involves using multiple cheats, such as aimbots, wall hacks, and other unfair advantages.

What is the significance of the suspect's behavior in the script?

The suspect's behavior suggests they have knowledge of enemy positions without any legitimate means of obtaining that information, indicating the use of wall hacks. This is evident in moments where the suspect lines up shots or pre-aims at enemies through walls.

How does the script distinguish between different types of cheats?

The script breaks down the investigation into different cheat categories: aim assistance, vision assistance (wall hacking), external cheats (e.g., bunny hop scripts), and griefing. Each category is evaluated separately based on the suspect's actions during the game.

What does the term 'rage hacking' refer to in the context of this script?

Rage hacking refers to a situation where a player uses multiple cheats, such as wall hacks, aimbots, and other cheats, often aggressively. It is called 'rage hacking' because the player tends to dominate the game and sometimes exhibits erratic or overly aggressive behavior.

What evidence led to the conclusion that the suspect was wall hacking?

The suspect repeatedly pre-aimed at enemies through walls and knew their positions without any obvious cues. The behavior demonstrated a clear pattern of vision assistance, indicating the use of wall hacking. The suspect’s awareness of enemy locations, despite having no line of sight, was a key indicator.

What was the role of the 'overwatch' in this case?

In this context, Overwatch refers to a system used by players or administrators to review potential cheaters. The investigator goes through the suspect's gameplay to determine if they are using cheats, analyzing factors like suspicious behavior, aiming patterns, and knowledge of enemy locations.

Did the investigator find any evidence of aim assistance in the suspect’s gameplay?

No, the investigator found insufficient evidence to conclude that the suspect was using any form of aim assistance. Despite the suspect’s suspicious movements and aiming behavior, no clear evidence of an aimbot or aim lock was found.

What kind of strategy did the suspect use in the game, and how did it relate to possible cheating?

The suspect used a strategy of pre-aiming and positioning themselves in ways that suggested knowledge of enemy locations, particularly during moments where they knew enemies were coming or hiding, which pointed to wall hacking. The use of grenades and flashes also seemed calculated in response to the enemies’ positions.

Was there any sign of external cheats like bunny hop scripts or other hacks?

No, there was no evidence of external cheats like bunny hop scripts or other similar hacks. The suspect's movement and actions seemed to be within the normal bounds of gameplay, with no clear signs of automated scripts affecting their movements.

What was the final verdict on the suspect's actions in terms of griefing?

The investigator found insufficient evidence of griefing. Griefing refers to intentionally sabotaging the game or other players, but the suspect’s behavior was focused on using cheats for an unfair advantage rather than ruining the gameplay experience for teammates.