After 820 logged and active hours of Rust, we have a problem Garry. - Rust

We have a hacker problem. That's something you've known for a long time Garry but you really need to do something about it now. I've logged 820 active hours into rust and I've seen every sort of hacker you can imagine. In legacy, I've seen the worse offenders dc and fall through your roof after auto killing everyone in a 1000 meter radius repeatedly up and destroy everything, no clip right out. If you weren't friends with at least one of the warring hacker factions you were screwed. The thing is, that didn't piss me off nor convince me to finally get on the forums and post something. You've already said you've given up on it- let the hackers who kill hackers club police themselves. I'm concerned about new Rust, the Rust that has so much potential and is so much fun to play. Please fix the no clipping, I don't need to see someone walk straight through my neighborhood and authorize himself on all the boxes and watch every single building in a 5 minutes running distance disappear. Its not even just that- I thought I would be smart and build my house out of floors for walls... that lasted until I see someone walk through the doorway and then fly up two blocks and find my tool cupboard. I got on this morning and nearly every single active player I knew about- and I know a lot, had their house wrecked. I've never seen this kind of devastation in the 4 hours I was gone. You've already swung balance of things so that it is much to easy for even the average player to raid. This game is hard enough- I like it hard and I like it brutal but competing with hackers who ultimately make you start over every single day makes this game unenjoyable. You are adding in lots of great stuff but I'm asking that you slow it down and invest some time in actually work on the cheating problem for a bit. You'll keep a lot more active players around, players that will say good things about rust, encourage others to buy it, and add to the community. I'd like to log my next 820 hours into Rust, I only hope its not plagued with cheaters to ruin it for me.

You are not alone with your feelings. I have given up on actually playing Rust currently, the last patch that came seemed to clear up so many issues and I was very excited... Until 30 mins in the first stranger (a person other than my friends in the server) that I saw appeared to be speed hacking. And this was on Rustafied main server :( And we both know the "Go away for a while until the games developed" comments will come... hopefully not. Regarding that, in my mind if the Dev team actually believes that the majority of feedback they are getting are just complaints, and actually WANTS the majority of us to "Go away" for a while, maybe they should make the game unavailable for purchase on Steam. Its bad business to collect money from customers, and then if they bring up (valid) complaints, tell them to come back later. Its like renting a car, paying for it, and then the Budget girl telling you there are no minivans available until next Fall. (my point being I hate Minivans and I am sure as hell not coming back in 6 months to drive one, paid for or not)

It's being actively addressed now -- I heard EAC was on it. As for the FP side, dealing with cheaters comes after nailing down core gameplay systems and mechanics, for the most part. We are getting some QoL stuff now, though, so things will be getting better. Just keep in mind that this is Early Access, and nothings going to be quite perfect yet. I know it sucks to lose work, but it's worth it.

Hacking is always going to be a problem. The only real solid way to solve it would be to have an onlive type system where the game isn't installed on your computer at all, and you basically play a streaming video service. And no-one wants that because it's terrible. That said, we are addressing it. It's always going to be a cat and mouse game - but EAC get a sliding scale based on the amount of players in Rust - so it's well in their interest to be the cat. It's also important to say that just because someone walked through a wall, just because someone wouldn't die, just because someone was moving fast - it doesn't mean they were hacking. It could just as easily be a bug, or an exploit in our code. When people are [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF_CI__LFSA"]hacking it's really obvious[/URL]. Long story short, we know it's important and are always actively fighting it - but don't be so quick to call everything a 'hack'.

[QUOTE=garry;47140879]...It's also important to say that just because someone walked through a wall, just because someone wouldn't die, just because someone was moving fast - it doesn't mean they were hacking. It could just as easily be a bug, or an exploit in our code...[/QUOTE] Thats what is compounding this problem for sure. As long as you guys understand how serious of a problem it is right now, and how it affects the community and new players, I personally have faith that you will try to address it as well as you guys can. Every time I play with a group its always up in the air when something wierd happens. Hacking/exploits/lag are sometimes very hard to differentiate. --Patiently standing by for now.

[QUOTE=CBaller420;47141016]Thats what is compounding this problem for sure. As long as you guys understand how serious of a problem it is right now, and how it affects the community and new players, I personally have faith that you will try to address it as well as you guys can. Every time I play with a group its always up in the air when something wierd happens. Hacking/exploits/lag are sometimes very hard to differentiate. --Patiently standing by for now.[/QUOTE] Obviously they understand the issue. How is your condescension necessary?

[QUOTE=Prov3rbial;47141094]Obviously they understand the issue. How is your condescension necessary?[/QUOTE] Maybe I'm just being obtuse here but I didn't catch his condescension. I certainly agree that most people are much too quick to call "hacks." I've seen bugs of all kinds, had buildings disappear on me even though everyone else could see me, sync issues where people climb on stuff that's not there anymore, went to combat with a raider where neither one of us could take damage and finally just politely let them out the front door, and a bunch of others that are not hacks. Too many things to call hacks all the time. There is usually a better explanation. Maybe I'm rushing it but the game is starting to feel really good and that's Garry's call on to how to balance what they work on next. I wasn't about to quit yet but Garry's response here is encouraging.

Welcome to the world of MMO gaming. Like many things, there are always cultures that live to be disruptive, whose primary objective is not to add to the enjoyment of the community but rather to exercise their right to antagonize. In fact the game itself is meant to thwart ease of use. As long as these environments exist the mice will play and spread the plague while the cat is away. Such is the way. Any correction is welcomed and appreciated. Perhaps that is why its called RUSt. Whoa, just fell off my soapbox... 

[QUOTE=garry;47140879]Hacking is always going to be a problem. The only real solid way to solve it would be to have an onlive type system where the game isn't installed on your computer at all, and you basically play a streaming video service. And no-one wants that because it's terrible. [/QUOTE] Could you please further define why "no-one wants that" and please explain why that would be terrible? I have played other online games before that processed its data on their server instead of being client side and there were so few of hackers that it was nearly nonexistent. The absolute number one problem this game has is the hackers. This is the absolute number one issue I believe needs to be addressed. I would pay 19.99$ a month to play on a server that was absolutely hacker free.

[QUOTE=youregunnadie;47142413]Could you please further define why "no-one wants that" and please explain why that would be terrible? I have played other online games before that processed its data on their server instead of being client side and there were so few of hackers that it was nearly nonexistent. The absolute number one problem this game has is the hackers. This is the absolute number one issue I believe needs to be addressed. I would pay 19.99$ a month to play on a server that was absolutely hacker free.[/QUOTE] I agree. If it were to have to come to this, I would rather pay a monthly fee for this game honestly. Now I probably wouldnt pay $20/month (thats outrageous), but I wouldnt be Opposed to $30-40 a year or under $5 a month possibly. It would definately help fund the Official servers. Get some real strong hardware and massive bandwidth for them. Just an idea.

[QUOTE=youregunnadie;47142413]Could you please further define why "no-one wants that" and please explain why that would be terrible? I have played other online games before that processed its data on their server instead of being client side and there were so few of hackers that it was nearly nonexistent. The absolute number one problem this game has is the hackers. This is the absolute number one issue I believe needs to be addressed. I would pay 19.99$ a month to play on a server that was absolutely hacker free.[/QUOTE] garry is saying that the client would do absolutely nothing except accept your inputs and stream you video of your game -- in effect, your computer is nothing more than a remote station for the screen and controller. And that's terrible for fast-paced games like shooters because of the latency. Imagine playing Rust via remote desktop from halfway across the continent. That's what garry is talking about. That's not the same as server-side validation. You have extremely high hopes for a game to be "hacker-free". Nothing will ever be hacker-free. The only way to make Rust hacker-free is to run a server that is not connected to the Internet, so that you're playing alone. There, unless you, yourself are cheating, it's hacker-free. Hackers have much more time and available hands than the dev team, and the dev team has to focus on actually making the game itself as well as making it hard to cheat in.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47142671]garry is saying that the client would do absolutely nothing except accept your inputs and stream you video of your game -- in effect, your computer is nothing more than a remote station for the screen and controller. And that's terrible for fast-paced games like shooters because of the latency. Imagine playing Rust via remote desktop from halfway across the continent. That's what garry is talking about. That's not the same as server-side validation. You have extremely high hopes for a game to be "hacker-free". Nothing will ever be hacker-free. The only way to make Rust hacker-free is to run a server that is not connected to the Internet, so that you're playing alone. There, unless you, yourself are cheating, it's hacker-free. Hackers have much more time and available hands than the dev team, and the dev team has to focus on actually making the game itself as well as making it hard to cheat in.[/QUOTE] WoW was what I would consider hacker free. And it wasn't any video streaming service. I think that's what CBaller and youegunnadie were alluding too; An MMO like World of Warcraft.

[QUOTE=EdSurly;47142989]WoW was what I would consider hacker free. And it wasn't any video streaming service. I think that's what CBaller and youegunnadie were alluding too; An MMO like World of Warcraft.[/QUOTE] WoW is an even better example. I had Dota 2 in mind (although it is free, they make good money from Arcana items and such, ie: This months Arcana is $35). And if anyone is going to argue that these games have larger communities, and having that player base is the only way it is feasible, please do not restrict your imagination that this game could reach any less than a million unique players per month (down the road, in a couple years of course)

WoW isn't an fps. It's a dice-rolling machine.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47143104]WoW isn't an fps. It's a dice-rolling machine.[/QUOTE] Does it matter? Honestly I don't know. Are the computations the server makes on a "dice-rolling machine", as you put it, significantly less than on a FPS? Besides, how much of the heavy lifting was the servers actually doing in WoW? Was the client PC not "rolling the dice" and sending that information to the server? Would physics computations consume much more client horsepower and bandwidth than a "dice-rolling machine"?

That video Garry put up is very educational... I never quite appreciated how powerful these 'hacks' can be... or what an utter, total dickless wonder you have to be to use them.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47143104]WoW isn't an fps. It's a dice-rolling machine.[/QUOTE] No but Planetside 2 is and you are running the game from their servers. No where does it have near as many hackers that Rust does. Not to mention the game isn't laggy at all. Well when you get a 400+ person battle theres a little bit of lag.

Are you people really comparing Rust to games who's anticheat teams, alone, are bigger than ALL OF FACEPUNCH? Way to go guys. *slow clap* Wow. Just...wow.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47142671]garry is saying that the client would do absolutely nothing except accept your inputs and stream you video of your game -- in effect, your computer is nothing more than a remote station for the screen and controller. And that's terrible for fast-paced games like shooters because of the latency. Imagine playing Rust via remote desktop from halfway across the continent. That's what garry is talking about. That's not the same as server-side validation. You have extremely high hopes for a game to be "hacker-free". Nothing will ever be hacker-free. The only way to make Rust hacker-free is to run a server that is not connected to the Internet, so that you're playing alone. There, unless you, yourself are cheating, it's hacker-free. Hackers have much more time and available hands than the dev team, and the dev team has to focus on actually making the game itself as well as making it hard to cheat in.[/QUOTE] I don't want to compare this game to others but I have had online fps games that did not have this issue with hacking. The reason it bothers me so much in rust is that it is not just a match or a round that is ruined by a cheater, dozens of hours of work is destroyed for no other reason than to grief. Hacking in Rust destroys the experience completely. Several days of progress is instantly deleted and therefore this issue should be addressed more thoroughly than other games. Sorry if it seems I am just complaining. I really want to see Rust be fully developed and I feel honored to be apart of the process. That being said please hear my plea that hacking truly is the largest threat to this game right now.

[QUOTE=Portdog31;47143277]No but Planetside 2 is and you are running the game from their servers. No where does it have near as many hackers that Rust does. Not to mention the game isn't laggy at all. Well when you get a 400+ person battle theres a little bit of lag.[/QUOTE] Planetside 2 has hacks available for it as well. There's lots of videos up and about. It's not streamed off their servers like you said. [editline]15th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=EdSurly;47143161]Would physics computations consume much more client horsepower and bandwidth than a "dice-rolling machine"?[/QUOTE] ...Yes? Is this really a question?

The thing about comparing Rust to a FPS is, well its not exactly a FPS. Modern FPS have rounds lasting under an hour. Call of Duty round are usually less than a half an hour. Sure there is a ranking system/unlocks, but they are similiar to our blueprints. If you get put up in game of Call of Duty or Counterstrike against a hacker, its usually just "oh well", report, quit game/finish like a man. Rinse and repeat. If I were to sign on to CoD or Counterstrike, and my rank and unlocks/skins were all gone, I would be furious. The penalty system in CS:go when a team mate is hacking is also brutal (you lose wins/ranks based on how many wins you had playing with each cheater). This is just one example how hard VAC is trying. Alot of people think VAC is also not doing enough. People are even going as far to pay monthly (ESEA for example) for more secure playing and better matchmaking than what Valve has to offer (they still have to pay for the game too dont forget) Rust is (from my undestanding) planned (for final release) to have servers and the game ability to have up to and over 1 month's time of server persistance (where server does not get wipe). There is no way that is going to happen if there are even A FEW hackers in the server, causing serious damage and not getting caught within a few moments. Please, this game has to set standards far higher than any FPS in terms of counter-hacking. This game is trying to combine FPS and Minecraft-style building. You need the security of these bigger games to have the features they have.

I had mentioned to my friend today that the price point may be a reason why it is so easy to hack- Yes, it is 20 on steam but go to g2a.com and you can pick up the steam key/gift copy for under 7 dollars today. Maybe its easy to say this because I already own Rust but it makes me wonder if a price point of 29.99 on Steam would actually (at least initially) reduce hacking, especially with the use of VAC-bans. Looking at prices of similar genre games, Rust is a great deal at 20 dollars, maybe unnecessarily so. Just a thought on this, I have no idea if price manipulation would actually change anything. In hind-site, I would have paid triple or more for Rust to be as good as it can be.

[QUOTE=Dagnabbit;47143360]Are you people really comparing Rust to games who's anticheat teams, alone, are bigger than ALL OF FACEPUNCH? Way to go guys. *slow clap* Wow. Just...wow.[/QUOTE] Are they not using a third party anticheat system so Facepunch devs can work on game development?