Why aren't they stopping hackers / exploiters instead of - Rust

Are you asking [B]"Why aren't they working on stopping hackers / exploiters and fixing bugs instead of"[/B] making rocks look better? making wood look better? making the sky look better? twizzling the banger? making the grass look better? adding lockpicks and locked backpacks? removing zombies? adding The Great Duck? Do you really want to play for a couple months with no content updates at all? Because that is what you will get. There are already hundreds of thousands of lines of code in this game, and most new features of any great magnitude can introduce a few hundred, or a few thousand more. What you are asking is "why don't they sit down, look at every line of code, figure out how it can be used in every single scenario and code defensively around it to prevent it from being used in an unintended manner?" Because it would take [b]weeks[/b]. [b]Months[/b]. The devs would go crazy and want to kill themselves from the tedium. Yes, it sucks when new features roll out and have bugs and exploiters find new things to mess with, but pushing it out to the test environment (to us players) is the only way to find these problems. That's the whole idea behind early access. The devs have the disadvantage of being the devs; they will use features the way they expect them to be used. You need people who don't know how it "should" work who will try to make it work in the most bizarre ways imaginable. I'm a software developer. Our QA process misses stuff all the time that the client breaks in the first couple days when we give it to them for testing because we never imagined them trying to attempt such a screwed up workflow as they did. Then we have to go back in and spend time trying to figure out what is causing the problem before we can even fix it. The discovery is what takes the most time, typically. Personally, I'd rather have new content on a regular basis instead of one update every year because they spent 90% of their time in QA.

Is anyone actually complaining about this? I thought they were too busy whining about zombies.. Not trying to be insulting but wouldn't this be more effective in the topic you are referencing?

I think the Gameplay is most important and THEN the hackers.

[QUOTE=Per0vic;43825475]Id like to see you do better. So why dont you make a game. Post it on steam. Its one of the most bought and played games os steam and you ban ALL the hackers. So if i were you i wouldt judge at all as their doing their best.[/QUOTE] ....you really didn't read my post at all, did you?

[QUOTE=Per0vic;43825475]Id like to see you do better. So why dont you make a game. Post it on steam. Its one of the most bought and played games os steam and you ban ALL the hackers. So if i were you i wouldt judge at all as their doing their best.[/QUOTE] Read before you reply.. Not just the first line but all of it...

[QUOTE=Per0vic;43825475]I think the Gameplay is most important and THEN the hackers.[/QUOTE] I miss Bad Reading. You're supposed to read more than just the title before posting here.

VAC deals with hackers. Facepunch just have to sit back and watch the bans roll in.

In Per0vic's defense, the title of the thread is a tad misleading :P Especially considering the usual posts about these kinds of things.

[QUOTE=Necran;43825577]VAC deals with hackers. Facepunch just have to sit back and watch the bans roll in.[/QUOTE] Apparently they are also looking into other anti cheat software as well.

[QUOTE=NeatHedgehog;43825214] Yes, it sucks when new features roll out and have bugs and exploiters find new things to mess with, but pushing it out to the test environment (to us players) is the only way to find these problems. That's the whole idea behind early access. The devs have the disadvantage of being the devs; they will use features the way they expect them to be used. You need people who don't know how it "should" work who will try to make it work in the most bizarre ways imaginable. [/QUOTE] No, most of the exploits are common sense, and it's inexcusable that they were ever live. Every decent dev knows that you can't "trust the client." No doubt there's a treasure trove of other exploits just waiting to be found, thanks to the devs' policy of being reactive instead of proactive. The worst that could happen would be an arbitrary code execution exploit...

[QUOTE=Sievers808;43825603]In Per0vic's defense, the title of the thread is a tad misleading :P Especially considering the usual posts about these kinds of things.[/QUOTE] I agree... not only because you gave me right :P

[QUOTE=racoiaws;43825663]No, most of the exploits are common sense, and it's inexcusable that they were ever live. Every decent dev knows that you can't "trust the client."[/QUOTE] They are common sense to you because you aren't one of the devs. You don't already know how it's supposed to work, so you aren't subconsciously working with it in the way you expect it to be worked with. It is like reading a sentence you wrote with a spelling mistake. You know what it is supposed to say, so you miss the error a hundred times. Everyone else sees it right away.

What you're really claiming is that all devs are naive and not security-conscious. In reality, every dev should be expected to have a good grasp of security best practices. It's like someone relying only on Javascript to validate input. It's not a matter of QA; it shouldn't happen in the first place.

[QUOTE=racoiaws;43825995]What you're really claiming is that all devs are naive and not security-conscious. In reality, every dev should be expected to have a good grasp of security best practices.[/QUOTE] Not really what I'm saying at all, no. And if devs were capable of perfectly QA'ing their own work QA wouldn't be a position. The order of development goes like this: Make thing A. Make thing A work. Make thing A work only the way you want it to. Make thing A work with things B-Z. Make thing A work with things B-Z only the way you want it to. Coding defensively before testing slows down production and vastly increases overhead because you are coding against scenarios which may never happen, especially in an environment where there are a lot of other variables (a game). The best you can really do without slowing development to a snail's pace is to code against the common things you, the dev, [b]know[/b] will happen from experience; these are usually simple checks like "can I walk through this wall?" Then it has to be thrown into the project to see if there is another element that will break it. And what happens when you add new elements to the game that you never planned on? How are you going to code for those situations way at the beginning of development? Without testing it in the project as a whole you will not know what scenarios you need to code against and what features need to be added.

Am I the only person that doesn't have an issue with hackers? In fact, thinking about it, I don't think I've ever seen anybody that stands out as a hacker in my 140 hours of game-time. (Yes, I read the thread, I'm just posting this here for no particular reason).

I realize this is an overused statement, but [B]the game is still in alpha[/B]. Content has yet to be added to the game, both detail wise, and gameplay wise. If you slow down to focus on something that would probably only be fixed temporarily (such as fixing exploits when the core of the game is ever-changing and could break such exploit fixes), you end up grinding content production to a near standstill and giving yourself much more work to do in the long run. It is a gross misuse of time and resources. NeatHedgehog, I'm completely with you on this, though the original post was a bit confusing in how it was laid out. It's sadly all too easy to skip over a post formatted like an angry, misinformed rant against the developers.

Also.. the guy or girl making the rocks look better/different probably isnt the same person that is going to be working to stop hackers.... just sayin.

[QUOTE=BazzBerry;43826214]Am I the only person that doesn't have an issue with hackers? In fact, thinking about it, I don't think I've ever seen anybody that stands out as a hacker in my 140 hours of game-time. (Yes, I read the thread, I'm just posting this here for no particular reason).[/QUOTE] I haven't had much trouble with them myself, really. I think someone speedhacked the other night. I was running away from two guys who were so far away I could barely see them and suddenly one of them was right behind me and shot me. That's about it. [QUOTE=Dreldan;43826297]Also.. the guy or girl making the rocks look better/different probably isnt the same person that is going to be working to stop hackers.... just sayin.[/QUOTE] Exactly. This, too.

[QUOTE=Dreldan;43826297]Also.. the guy or girl making the rocks look better/different probably isnt the same person that is going to be working to stop hackers.... just sayin.[/QUOTE] You're exactly right. They have a team of designers that do those things.

[QUOTE=NeatHedgehog;43825214]Are you asking [B]"Why aren't they working on stopping hackers / exploiters and fixing bugs instead of"[/B] making rocks look better? making wood look better? making the sky look better? twizzling the banger? making the grass look better? adding lockpicks and locked backpacks? removing zombies? adding The Great Duck? Do you really want to play for a couple months with no content updates at all? Because that is what you will get. There are already hundreds of thousands of lines of code in this game, and most new features of any great magnitude can introduce a few hundred, or a few thousand more. What you are asking is "why don't they sit down, look at every line of code, figure out how it can be used in every single scenario and code defensively around it to prevent it from being used in an unintended manner?" Because it would take [b]weeks[/b]. [b]Months[/b]. The devs would go crazy and want to kill themselves from the tedium. Yes, it sucks when new features roll out and have bugs and exploiters find new things to mess with, but pushing it out to the test environment (to us players) is the only way to find these problems. That's the whole idea behind early access. The devs have the disadvantage of being the devs; they will use features the way they expect them to be used. You need people who don't know how it "should" work who will try to make it work in the most bizarre ways imaginable. I'm a software developer. Our QA process misses stuff all the time that the client breaks in the first couple days when we give it to them for testing because we never imagined them trying to attempt such a screwed up workflow as they did. Then we have to go back in and spend time trying to figure out what is causing the problem before we can even fix it. The discovery is what takes the most time, typically. Personally, I'd rather have new content on a regular basis instead of one update every year because they spent 90% of their time in QA.[/QUOTE] Cheating is a society problem and they don't have the solution at facepunch. Quit mp gaming if you can't live with cheaters, it's what I did and it's only right thing to do for now unless Hitler take the power again and make a cultural revolution. haha

[QUOTE=DrFreenote;43826291]NeatHedgehog, I'm completely with you on this, though the original post was a bit confusing in how it was laid out. It's sadly all too easy to skip over a post formatted like an angry, misinformed rant against the developers.[/QUOTE] I figured the people who weren't thinking would just vote it "dumb" and leave without posting so the thread wouldn't get cluttered. Only the people who read the whole thing will actually bother to post a response. Whether or not they agree at least they will be more likely to able to offer their point of view coherently.

[QUOTE=Dreldan;43826297]Also.. the guy or girl making the rocks look better/different probably isnt the same person that is going to be working to stop hackers.... just sayin.[/QUOTE] yeah i don't think people know that it takes a lot of time, work, and a team a people to make games sure you could do it by yourself but it would take years. Indie games like super meat boy was only two dudes one did all the designs the other did all the code. Hackers can be frustrating but i have not had issues with hackers or script kiddies with aim bots in a long time now sense i switched servers.

Too much logic for the internets. How about you dumb it down next time with color pictures and cool noises. Lots of people only read The first sentence before their ADD kicks in. Remember to treat them with the special care they need.

[QUOTE=NeatHedgehog;43825214]Are you asking [B]"Why aren't they working on stopping hackers / exploiters and fixing bugs instead of"[/B] making rocks look better? making wood look better? making the sky look better? twizzling the banger? making the grass look better? adding lockpicks and locked backpacks? removing zombies? adding The Great Duck? Do you really want to play for a couple months with no content updates at all? Because that is what you will get. There are already hundreds of thousands of lines of code in this game, and most new features of any great magnitude can introduce a few hundred, or a few thousand more. What you are asking is "why don't they sit down, look at every line of code, figure out how it can be used in every single scenario and code defensively around it to prevent it from being used in an unintended manner?" Because it would take [B]weeks[/B]. [B]Months[/B]. The devs would go crazy and want to kill themselves from the tedium. Yes, it sucks when new features roll out and have bugs and exploiters find new things to mess with, but pushing it out to the test environment (to us players) is the only way to find these problems. That's the whole idea behind early access. The devs have the disadvantage of being the devs; they will use features the way they expect them to be used. You need people who don't know how it "should" work who will try to make it work in the most bizarre ways imaginable. I'm a software developer. Our QA process misses stuff all the time that the client breaks in the first couple days when we give it to them for testing because we never imagined them trying to attempt such a screwed up workflow as they did. Then we have to go back in and spend time trying to figure out what is causing the problem before we can even fix it. The discovery is what takes the most time, typically. Personally, I'd rather have new content on a regular basis instead of one update every year because they spent 90% of their time in QA.[/QUOTE] snippety snap, snippety snoo, i really should pay more attention to you

op how naive are you? fighting against hacks/cheats is an endless task and is just wasting energy/ressources. even to this day there are hacks/cheats for teamfortress2/cs for example. they do a great job in putting al their effort into new content. and btw they have alrdy fixed the most gamebreaking things like duping, open doors, noclipping but hacks and cheats are a neverending story to deal with. find a good server with nice community and admins, so you wont have that problem.

If you think they're fully going to get rid of hacks, you're going to have a bad time.

NeatHedgehog admit it your orginal post is some sort of social research project? see how many internet users actually read the post properly before reacting? so hows the figures stacking up?

[QUOTE=IDY;43827144]NeatHedgehog admit it your orginal post is some sort of social research project? see how many internet users actually read the post properly before reacting? so hows the figures stacking up?[/QUOTE] hehe, well, not quite, but I do tend to write with copious amounts of sarcasm and irony. It tends to show you who is really paying attention, and the who aren't at least give you a good laugh. But the thought did occur to me. So far it looks like: 5 who clearly didn't read 10 who did [QUOTE=Maloof?;43826927]snippety snap, snippety snoo, i really should pay more attention to you[/QUOTE] lol Thanks (I think)

I like to drink bourbon. Anyone else?