Hey guys of Rust, please the people are sick of hacking in your servers, they are moving to modded ones because of this or just leaving the game. im writing this because some guys hacking me and raid my base some salty kids isnt the first time because starting this month they hack me so is the second time in 1 month, thats the reason i leave this game for a while if u didnt fix it sorry guys but your game will be dead in 1 year, stop make more stuff and work in the anticheat software that is the first thing u have to do in mind.
PD: Sorry for my bad english but im so piss off, thx for read me.
i really wanna play this game, but in this situation is imposible.
You're barking up the wrong tree. EAC is the one working on anti-cheating measures, Facepunch just takes care of game development. If you want to complain and tell them to work faster and better, here's their website: Easy Anti
you are absolutely wrong.
Facepunch hired (and therefore pays) anticheat provider called "EAC". They contracted them, and therefore they have a contractual relationship.
In case FP is not satisified with EAC's performance - they should seek alternative anti-cheat protection (company). This is not a monopoly. And failure to uphold to the terms of the contract from EAC side is grounds for breach of contract (i.e = poor performance, inability to adequately stop cheaters, etc...). All these nuances are described in the terms of the contract.
It is our job as the players to inform FP that the money they "invested" into one of the anticheat providers "EAC" is not a good investment, since EAC is clearly failing to perform. (seriously - do you need to look at the data?)
We can definitely inform EAC itself that we are not satisified with its service, but more importantly we are not satisfied with EAC being the anti-cheat choice that Facepunch picked. They need to look at alternatives.
Also contracts are usually signed on a yearly basis. That means that whenever renewal comes up - Facepunch has all the right to not renew and get rid of EAC in favor of a (hopefully) better alternative. Like Battleye for example. (just an example).
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/113309/81c89988-9374-4563-ba2f-f6beb19b9cc1/image.png
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/113309/9337261c-87ca-491a-9d51-19b3e7e37cff/image.png
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/113309/87985f51-855f-46ce-ac5f-f688b015b4a5/image.png
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/113309/5106aa87-c2e2-42de-ac2c-8f89657ce8fd/image.png
I guess our only option is to stay vigilant and keep hammering at the issue right? "Keep reporting via F7" they say...
Well, I'll keep reporting and I'll keep raising awareness as well...
Nothing you said proves me wrong. You're raising a different issue; whether EAC is doing a good job or not. By taking up this guy's complaint to EAC's website, you proved me right in saying that their issue is with Facepunch.
Also your message to EAC is not gonna be taken seriously with such blatant issues in spelling and grammar, I'm afraid. Also not sure what your point is; "cheaters are bad"? It's EAC's job, a paid job, to ban them efficiently. So you can count on the fact that they know what they're talking about.
You raise a valid point by saying Facepunch Studios might have to reconsider using this anti-cheat system. However, since anti-cheating measures are tailored to a game, that also means that no one else on Earth has better experience dealing with Rust hackers. So if you want Facepunch to hire someone else and start anew, ask yourself if you really want that, knowing that it might get much worse for a while, or even maybe forever.
The following is wrong: "EAC is the one working on anti-cheating measures, Facepunch just takes care of game development."
You're making it sound like EAC is a partner or a branch of Facepunch. Which they are not! They are a hired service provider (and a platform - a separate piece of software). "Facepunch just takes care of game development." is therefore also a false statement as Facepunch calls the shots and provides the money to buy anti-cheat protection. They do not only work on the game development. Aside from financing and looking out for anti-cheat platforms out there, they also market the game (so marketing development) and many other things. They also handle tickets/customer support. They could hire/contract a separate marketing or customer support platform (whether they do or don't I don't know, AFAIK they do it all in house, but that's besides the point).
That's exactly the issue, and its not "a different issue" - that the issue hundreds (if not thousands) of players have, and the issue the OP raises in the very top of this post. How is this any different?!? Its precisely on point!
Lol no, this is not how this works. By taking my complaint with EAC - I provide feedback (key word feedback) to them, that they are doing a poor job. But that does not mean that Facepunch is not responsible here for not being able to have a better anti-cheat platform. The two are not mutually exclusive! And its not "their" issue - cheaters are "our" issue. Us - as in players. We're all affected by this cancer.
You're really fishing for it, but please show me where my spelling errors are? Just because their feedback form underlined a bunch of stuff, (incorrectly? as far as I know everything is spelled correctly there), doesn't mean they can't listen to feedback. What kind of a biased individual are you? "Blatant"? Blatant baseless accusations from you maybe?
Uh... duuuuh!
I haven't seen any talk from EAC here... so Im not sure who these "they" that you keep bringing into the picture here are? Are you even reading/replying to the correct thread bud? And yes - its EAC's job to ban cheaters, and the feedback here is that they are doing a poor job. Im glad you're finally on the same page with us!
That is a baseless and pretty far fetched assumption. Like I've said - this is not a monopoly. There are plenty of other anti-cheat platforms out there, and the technology is growing and improving every day. There definitely would be some "ramp up" period for a new software to start working, but what might have taken EAC some months to get going 4-5 years ago, could only take couple of weeks in today's day and age.
Ultimately the choice would be again - for Facepunch to make the call based on their analysis of player feedback + other data, to see if its worth it for them to switch to another anti-cheat engine.
Personally - I don't even care if they get rid of EAC or EAC just works harder and really ramps up their efforts. Hence my plea to EAC to "escalate" this matter with utmost importance. (I assume you read my note, in order to have any authority to comment, correct?)
The following is wrong: "EAC is the one working on anti-cheating measures, Facepunch just takes care of game development."
You're making it sound like EAC is a partner or a branch of Facepunch. Which they are not! They are a hired service provider (and a platform - a separate piece of software). "Facepunch just takes care of game development." is therefore also a false statement as Facepunch calls the shots and provides the money to buy anti-cheat protection. They do not only work on the game development. Aside from financing and looking out for anti-cheat platforms out there, they also market the game (so marketing development) and many other things. They also handle tickets/customer support. They could hire/contract a separate marketing or customer support platform (whether they do or don't I don't know, AFAIK they do it all in house, but that's besides the point).
If I wanted to state that EAC is a branch of Facepunch, why would I keep saying that you should address EAC regarding bans and not Facepunch? Facepunch Studios outsourced enforcing anti-cheating measures to EAC. Facepunch doesn't want anything to do with ban-related issues, EAC takes care of that exactly so that Facepunch doesn't have to.
That's exactly the issue, and its not "a different issue" - that the issue hundreds (if not thousands) of players have, and the issue the OP raises in the very top of this post. How is this any different?!? Its precisely on point! It is the relevant issue at hand!
I'm struggling to understand how you fail to see the distinction between these two issues.
The OP is directed at Facepunch ("hey guys of Rust"), on Facepunch Forums. It's a typical complaint about "how hackers ruin this game, please fix it" despite the fact that Facepunch Studios doesn't work on countering hackers and cheaters. EAC does.
Your issue is that EAC does a terrible job and that Facepunch should hire someone else. That's something that should be actually directed at Facepunch Studios management. Except that they won't have any interest in this thread because it was mistakenly directed at FP, and because your whole point is "hire someone else", which they're not gonna tell you about even if they considered it.
Lol no, this is not how this works. By taking my complaint with EAC - I provide feedback (key word feedback) to EAC, that they are doing a poor job. But that does not mean that Facepunch is not responsible here for not being able to have a better anti-cheat platform. The two are not mutually exclusive! And its not "their" issue - cheaters are "our" issue. Us - as in players. We're all affected by this cancer. (Unless you're maybe playing on a 10 man modded forgotten server, that nobody cares to hack)
Your "feedback" offers them nothing useful except that it's a complaint about there being a lot of cheaters. They know that. There's no need to explain how Rust works, they know it fully well. Given that they also provide anti-cheat measures in many other popular games like Fortnite Battle Royale, you can trust that they know full well the extent of the problem and that they have all the incentive in the world to fix it.
You're really fishing for it, but please show me where my spelling errors are? Just because their feedback form underlined a bunch of stuff, (incorrectly? as far as I know everything is spelled correctly there), doesn't mean they can't listen to feedback. What kind of a biased individual are you? "Blatant"? Blatant baseless accusations from you maybe?
I'm not going to rewrite your whole mail just to prove you could do it much better. Unless you really insist, but it would be a waste of time since I assume you've sent it already. I know fully well that when you're addressing a company, you'll want to write it as professionally as possible, and for once that means no smileys, and using tact. I haven't even talked about the actual spelling and grammar issues, but there's a lot to be desired there. This has nothing to do with this discussion, so consider it actual feedback to you personally, regarding sending mails to a business company.
That is a baseless and pretty far fetched assumption. Like I've said - this is not a monopoly. There are plenty of other anti-cheat platforms out there, and the technology is growing and improving every day. There definitely would be some "ramp up" period for a new software to start working, but what might have taken EAC some months to get going 4-5 years ago, could only take couple of weeks in today's day and age.
Ultimately the choice would be again - for Facepunch to make the call based on their analysis of player feedback + other data, to see if its worth it for them to switch to another anti-cheat engine.
Personally - I don't even care if they get rid of EAC or EAC just works harder and really ramps up their efforts. Hence my plea to EAC to "escalate" this matter with utmost importance. (I assume you read my note, in order to have any authority to comment, correct?)
To address your final point: "knowing that it might get much worse for a while, or even maybe forever." - see the problem is (and maybe this is where the disconnect occurs between the player-base and the Developers/EAC?) is that it can't really get any much worse.
I've tried to explain countless times, that hackers destroy the very point of playing Rust. Whether there is 10 hackers or 100 hackers on the server - does not really matter. Because it doesn't matter whether you get to play for 5 min before getting "hacked off the server" or for 3 weeks, and then you get "hacked off the server". The 3 week issue might even hurt more - as you'd have much more "investment" to lose then in 5 minutes of just starting out fresh. Point is to survive "til next wipe" - and if you get hacked off by hackers before wipe happens... that's it. No point in playing.
In that regard shorter cycle wipe servers are actually (arguably) less prone to hackers, but that's more of a band-aid workaround, rather then a solution.
I think that what you fail to realize is there's always going to be hackers and cheaters. And Rust isn't necessarily worse off, or better off than other games. Hackers have also ruined the game for me before, but any game that becomes popular is always going to have hackers, and no anti-hacking system will ever be perfect as long as people will want to hack. Because anti-cheating programmers and hackers have a thing in common: they both strive to make the other one irrelevant through the same skills.
So I'm sorry if I may sound defeatist to you, but you obviously understand less about how game companies work than you think you do.
I was going to reply to your ridiculous wall of text, but decided not to bite the bait. So I'll just re-iterate one more time the obvious issues at hand (which you are either failing to hear/understand, or deliberately failing to hear/understand):
1) The amount of hackers in Rust is ridiculously high. (official servers)
2) Hacking/cheating is Rust is worse off then in most other games, due to the nature of this game. Its been explained numerous times why. Having a hacker in CSGO ruining 40min of match is nothing compared to weeks/months of ruined Rust gameplay or millions of dollars if "hypothetically" hackers were in Dota2 or in StarCraft2 (tournaments).
3) Currently contracted (hired) anti-cheat platform EAC is doing a poor job at handling these hackers (nobody is disputing that EAC is the one handling bans, stop bringing up this useless argument). The problem is not with who is handling the bans, but the efficiency. This efficiency was indirectly affected by Facepunch's decision to hire EAC. Only FP has the power to change/reverse that decision and only EAC can change/affect the efficiency of their own platform. Im addressing both. Do you finally comprehend?
4) Facepunch, the company (I don't care if its their "management", the "CEO" or the all-mighty King of all "FAcepunchedness" - the title is irrelevant here) is in charge of making financial decisions and corporate level decisions about which platform to use to fight hackers.
5) Therefore the feedback from the player-base goes to Facepunch (the company) in regards to the poor performance of their current anti-cheat platform. The message is very clear: "current anti-cheat platform is not coping with the amount of hackers." A suggestion is made to change the anti-cheat platform, or do other "corporate level magic" to make EAC work better or dedicate more resources to the task. (Im not going to go into details here, as those who are in charge, know what needs to be done, and I'm not going to write a book on how corporations work - go Google how they can lose or retain revenue)
Bonus: this same message is sent to the current anti-cheat platform as well, to show them the urgency of the matter and to display how concerned the player-base is. (according to your claims - they already know, but it never hurts to reinforce the issue... you know - in case a lawsuit arises, nobody should be caught by surprise)
That is it.
Oh and there is a huge difference between a "Partner" and a "partner". Im sad you don't know it.
Everybody these days (for marketing purposes) sticks the names of their contractors or even contractees on their website and calls them "a partner". It just sounds cool. But it does not put the 2 entities on equal terms. Thats what I meant. EAC is not a partner on equal terms, (i.e a branch or a subsidiary) of Facepunch. They are a hired contractor. That contract has a well defined (on paper) terms, SOW (statement of work) and outlines what can be a reason for a "breach of contract" and what is "poor performance".
The whole point of why I was bringing up the legal (contractual + financial) relationship between FP and EAC is to explain to you that FP is in "charge" here to make decisions, and thus they have the final say and should hear the feedback about any misconduct or failure of their contractor (EAC) in enforcing the terms upon which the latter was bound to.
I know that Rust has a hacker problem, and how you think EAC doesn't do a good enough job, you've said it a hundred times, thank you. You refuse to believe that your message matters less than I want you to believe, fine, that's your problem in the end. You bring up all kinds of legal vocabulary to try to sound like you know what you're saying, but your message to EAC had everything you should not say when addressing a business. Incidentally, I've worked in a game company for some time (in the administrative branch as it stands) so I know what you think you're talking about. Most of the legal stuff you mentioned applies everywhere, but be careful as laws and companies work and think a bit differently in Europe.
Anyway, I've said everything I could to make you understand. But if you truly believe Facepunch should hire someone else to do the job, you'd be better off sending a mail rather than posting on the Rust subforums. The Facepunch staff rarely spends time here, since the quality of posting is much inferior to the rest of the forums. If you want your mail to be half useful (or even read further than halfway through), don't forget to remain calm, to the point, and to propose alternatives to EAC. I know you want to state the "urgency" of the matter, but if you sound angry no one will want to read your mail among the dozens of hate mails they must get every day. Also you might want to say that Facepunch management should be the one proposing alternatives, not you (the players), and you'd be perfectly right. But at least then your mail would have something they don't hear every day. Good luck.
Thank you for the feedback. See - we can have a civil conversation and get somewhere, even if we have to spend a "couple of walls of text" to get there!
Its finally hitting home! And if you re-read my message (to EAC) you will see that I do admit that they are working hard, there is no question about it. But it just doesn't seem to "cull" the hackers. That's a perfectly sound feedback. I give credit where credit is due, but facts are facts...
Of course my message matters, I've seen far worse feedback messages in my line of work (and I have 8+ yrs working with customers in IT/Finance fields). And you know what? Its the worst message that always sticks and the management notices. In my experience - it works like that in the corporate world, in the small business world ("mom-and-pops" shops) and even in Mass-Media. We can argue about how that "trend" is maybe changing, but that would be a completely different discussion (and yes, I don't want to derail).
Again - I've seen far worse (not a good excuse, but still). And compared to probably 90% of posts here, mine is already filled with plenty of constructive feedback. Im not trying to praise my own self - my job is to make sure "the message hits home". Potentially I wrote it in that manner on purpose. That's for me to know and for you to find out ;) The fact that we're still having this discussion (and its still pretty civil) is a good indicator that its working. I haven't quite hit my target audience yet, but I sincerely hope they are reading as well:)
I've worked in IT/Finance support for quiet some time as well. I'd like to think that I know what Im talking about....otherwise all these years were wasted, right? (pun intended). And yes - I am glad you agree that the legal stuff applies, Im glad we're on the same page.
Not exactly sure what this means. Aside from privacy concerns (Europe is known for better/tighter privacy laws for example compared to US, again just an example), I don't see how a contractual relationship between a contractor and a contractee would be any different?
Aha! See another good point from this discussion. I certainly will. And again (I'm tempted to give you a "bad read book" comment again) - Im not adamant about FP hiring someone else. That was just a suggestion. A suggestion from an "uninformed", but a very passionate user (consumer?). Facepunch should really be making that final call - they have all the data and managerial ability/authority to make decisions of that caliber - as I've already stated, a hundred times.
Rust is a brilliant game, but totaly unplayble during hackers massive issue. I've got several friends stop playing rust only because of hackers, and i can understand them, few times i was on border line to leave game too, but still love it and waiting for mirracle...
@captainrussia Okay, so wait... What is your point in the end? What are you trying to achieve? Because I just keep missing that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
