Profile of Hannibal

I think Brosras needs to redo his clips. He provides 40+ clips that are at least partially used as evidence, most of them are in the realm of 15-30ish seconds. The Katy example shows that this might be not enough, there should be a minute of context before the odd thing happens. Especially in team games where we can't hear additional information provided by Kimbo via voice chat.

On many clips he points out things like Seeking looking into the FOW or moving/stopping a squad that should have moved differently, which proves that he watched them throughoutly. Yet he misses an obvious thing like the blob being spottet 5-10 seconds prior to the Katy barrage (in part 1 you can see the prior engagement and Scott being hit that could explain the situation, however he only disables the follow camera and moves to the suspicious area after this when the blob is hidden again).

It still does not excuse Seeking assumingly lying about Deadbolt and other things, but Brosras' clips are poorly done.

that recording sounds dreadful, the audio is clipping and the bass has been boosted

This.

Cooler is a subjective matter, but more realistic is surely not the case. Not even authentic.

At this point I think we should just wait for Seekings full defense, which I hope is being made public as well.

Regarding the FOV:
If this happens so frequently, it should be doable for him to replicate these setups and show that server lag/desynchronization allow him to see things earlier (plus react in time) than we would see in the replay.
If he can't, welp, he better have a damn good explanation for why he reacted that way.

snip

But all these delays should actually lead to a player reacting slower because he has less FOV than in the replay, shouldn't they? If your opponent send a unit forward, and the server relays this information to you at least half a second later, you will also see this unit half a second later.

The only way I can see this work in Seekings favor is if the opponent changes an order just at the edge of his FOV. So the information for Seeking would be that the unit is visible, until the server recalc and determines it is not a little bit later and corrects the position. But at this point Seeking often has already reacted with another squad, which is very suspicious.

Well the whole point of this is that OKW can use their Raketenwerfer more aggressively than other factions can.

Three things you probably have missed on the negative side:
The crewmembers handling the gun do not get any RA bonus from the gun shield. Other ATGs provide those due to the gun shield
The Raketenwerfer only has 55 range.
The unit is much more vulnerable to AoE damsge sind the gunners are close together. They often get damaged/killed together.

Also, as far as I know the weapon pick up happens with the Raketenwerfer to in case a crewing unit dies on retreat.


EDIT:
There has been a lot of changes over the last patches regarding this unit. I think after all those it sits in a decent spot for both new and experienced players. However the reasoning at the time was that OKW did not have other early AT options, becazse the Sturmpio Schreck was not viable. With the recent patch this has changed, although I would not want to nerf the ATG for it

You'd also need to look at everything that has been deleted. Presumably, *IF* he was hacking, he has since uninstalled the program since he is under suspicion. You'd also have to hope/assume that he hadn't run some sort of drive/free space wipe on the SSD/HDD that the hacks were installed to. And there's still the potential that he played on his own account, on his uncle's PC, hacked via his uncle's software, but never hacked on his own computer.

It's an idea to let some one trusted analyze his PC, although I doubt there are many (if any) of us in this community with the proper knowledge/credentials to do it properly. And it wouldn't necessarily rule out foul play. And Seeking shouldn't willingly give anyone that level of access to his PC because going through a forensic process like that is extremely invasive.

Yes I fully agree. My whole point was how completely bananas and disproportionate this suggestion actually is. But I think we can leave it at this, this subject has already taken enough space.