To all of you complaining about how ''Broken" rust it. - Rust

Ok, So you have obtained this game and been warned that it is an ALPHA, I don't think you quite grasp the concept of ''Early Access'' I see people on here crying all the time about their game crashing or hackers. People, it's an alpha release it's nowhere near a full release so stop treating it as if it was a full release. And yes, bugs are frustration I get it. But there are thousands of people breaking this game with exploits and bugs and only 1 team of Devs fixing it. Like I said it's an early access alpha release, you can't expect to much yet.

Maybe this game needs 20 millions for anti cheat measures, you are right we are all idiots To complain, we paid To test, not To have fun. You prob some fp loverboy.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/RKHrro1.png[/img]

[QUOTE=ruicunha;43511797]Maybe this game needs 20 millions for anti cheat measures, you are right we are all idiots To complain, we paid To test, not To have fun. You prob some fp loverboy.[/QUOTE] If you lack the comprehension to understand the content of a purchase agreement, you shouldn't do any shopping at all. This is an early access/alpha version to support the development of the game, NOT to entertain/please you.

[QUOTE=yttrium;43511848][img]http://i.imgur.com/RKHrro1.png[/img][/QUOTE] My post might come of as me being a total fanboy and the devs may have been able to test for online glitches alittle more before the release but this photo right here is point and case. I know the games buggy but all else aside I am having a lot of fun with this game [QUOTE=McBane;43511923]If you lack the comprehension to understand the content of a purchase agreement, you shouldn't do any shopping at all. This is an early access/alpha version to support the development of the game, NOT to entertain/please you.[/QUOTE] Thanks Im glad a few people understand and all things aside this game is pretty cool.

Tell me your server, Ill buy cheats just for you To test.

[QUOTE=ruicunha;43512046]Tell me your server, Ill buy cheats just for you To test.[/QUOTE] You're an idiot and admit to and will hack on the game when you, yourself are talking about adding 20 million anti hack measures and yes, you basically did pay to test the game hence. "Start playing; get involved with this game as it develops"

Being alpha isn't an excuse for allowing cheats. If anything it's completely opposite. Alpha is an active development phase. Retail isn't. If it's this bad now, it's going to be much much worse at retail.

[QUOTE=Scynix;43512144]Being alpha isn't an excuse for allowing cheats. If anything it's completely opposite. Alpha is an active development phase. Retail isn't. If it's this bad now, it's going to be much much worse at retail.[/QUOTE] But that's wrong.

There will be always people who don't understand ''Early Access''. The game is by far not finished yet. And things like cheats and bugs are totally normal for a game in this stage. Of course they could bring more effort to fight the cheaters, but the actual game is much more important now. The current bugs must be fixed, new features have to be added. You will have cheaters anyway. No matter in which state. People always will find a way to cheat, but of course this will be a lot harder in the future. tl;dr: Atm the only way to keep safe from cheaters is to search for a server with fine and active admins. Future stuff to fight cheaters will come (maybe eventlogging etc). But for an alpha the game works pretty well. :P

[QUOTE=yttrium;43512169]But that's wrong.[/QUOTE] Why is it wrong? Crysis 2 was utterly destroyed at retail by AA. Multiplayer became completely unplayable. Crytek freely admitted they were going to do nothing about it. They weren't going to spend resources post-development to combat cheating. Cheating is an ongoing battle. You can't just slap a bandaid on it and call it good. You have to be willing to fight against it. If they aren't willing to fight it in *alpha*, what makes you think they'll put any resources into it in retail?

[QUOTE=Scynix;43512228]Why is it wrong? Crysis 2 was utterly destroyed at retail by AA. Multiplayer became completely unplayable. Crytek freely admitted they were going to do nothing about it. They weren't going to spend resources post-development to combat cheating. Cheating is an ongoing battle. You can't just slap a bandaid on it and call it good. You have to be willing to fight against it. If they aren't willing to fight it in *alpha*, what makes you think they'll put any resources into it in retail?[/QUOTE] Crysis 2 was utterly destroyed because the developers simply didn't care. They didn't make it hacker-proof during the closed beta and they gave up soon after release. An Alpha being full of hackers doesn't mean the retail version will be. Alpha versions are always going to be buggy messes, it's in their nature. The fact that it's an open Alpha that got really popular means that bugginess will be exploited. As long as the team is devoted to eliminating hacker threats, the retail release will NOT be full of hackers.

You can't make something hacker-proof.

[QUOTE=Scynix;43512292]You can't make something hacker-proof.[/QUOTE] This is true, but you can make it hacker resilient. I never said there won't be any at release, I said it won't be full of them. There will be drastically less than there are now.

[QUOTE=Scynix;43512292]You can't make something hacker-proof.[/QUOTE] You can. But the ways to manage that are impossible. Like 24/7 monitoring of the server.

[QUOTE=Wyvyrias;43512316]You can. But the ways to manage that are impossible. Like 24/7 monitoring of the server.[/QUOTE] Allow me to amend my previous statement of "this is true" with "it's not practical".

[QUOTE=yttrium;43512331]Allow me to amend my previous statement of "this is true" with "it's not practical".[/QUOTE] Thats the point.

[QUOTE=Wyvyrias;43512358]Thats the point.[/QUOTE] No, I agree, I'm not the guy you replied to.

Well actually it is practical. The solution is to move everything you can hack to the server so client's don't do it (or, if they do, it's only as a best-guess "prediction" of what the server is also doing). Of course it takes time to do (I think hit detection is already serverside, but movement clearly isn't since people can noclip and teleport) - I know what's involved in doing so (I even wrote about it in a book) and it's by no means "easy", but still HUGE leaps and bounds more practical than constant 24/7 surveillance.

[QUOTE=yttrium;43512388]No, I agree, I'm not the guy you replied to.[/QUOTE] Haha sorry I misunderstood you. ^^

[QUOTE=yttrium;43511848][img]http://i.imgur.com/RKHrro1.png[/img][/QUOTE] I can't believe you numbskulls actually debate this. It's literally in black and white. If I sound annoyed it's because I am frustrated from dealing with you whiners incapable of heeding a very clear warning everywhere I go.

[QUOTE=Deadagain;43512428]I can't believe you numbskulls actually debate this. It's literally in black and white. If I sound annoyed it's because I am frustrated from dealing with you whiners incapable of heeding a very clear warning everywhere I go.[/QUOTE] Welcome to Steam and it's community. :) The worst problem is that a not so little part of people are maybe under 14 years old. You should see what I have seen in the Rust chat... ;) But thats the way we have to go. Just let the devs to this thing and everything goes well.

[QUOTE=KillaMaaki;43512414]Well actually it is practical. The solution is to move everything you can hack to the server so client's don't do it (or, if they do, it's only as a best-guess "prediction" of what the server is also doing). Of course it takes time to do (I think hit detection is already serverside, but movement clearly isn't since people can noclip and teleport) - I know what's involved in doing so (I even wrote about it in a book) and it's by no means "easy", but still HUGE leaps and bounds more practical than constant 24/7 surveillance.[/QUOTE] This isn't actually practical because: 1. This will overload servers. They're supposed to account for hundreds of players, having to calculate both their actions AND their movement will absolutely kill them. 2. This will cause input delay that will make you want to stop playing [B]immediately[/B]. If someone doesn't get instant feedback from pressing a button and moving, the game is considered laggy when it's really just bad ideology for programming. The "rubber banding" effects we've been seeing are what happens when clients calculate their own movement, and the server then verifies every 10 or so seconds whether or not the movement during that period of time is valid. If the server approves, nothing happens. If the client doesn't receive a reply from the server, a stock client will reset itself back to its original position (the rubber band effect).

[QUOTE=yttrium;43512467]This isn't actually practical because: 1. This will overload servers. They're supposed to account for hundreds of players, having to calculate both their actions AND their movement will absolutely kill them. 2. This will cause input delay that will make you want to stop playing [B]immediately[/B]. If someone doesn't get instant feedback from pressing a button and moving, the game is considered laggy when it's really just bad ideology for programming.[/QUOTE] 1.) Not necessarily true. For example, here's an interactive demo simulating [I]thousands[/I] of AI agents. These agents use physics, rendering, pathfinding, and crowd dynamics - the latter two are by far the most resource intensive of those. 2.) If you use naive server-authoritative physics, yes it would lag like a sumbitch. Luckily this doesn't have to be the case. Actually there are plenty of techniques that are used to mask lag and they're not exactly new by any means. The solution is just to have the client predict the server locally. Like so: Client gathers input. Moves player. Sends input and current position to server. Server simulates one frame of input. Compares real position to position sent by client. If they're too far off, send real position to client. Client corrects position (with accounting for latency - advances "real position" from server forward some number of frames based on how long it took to arrive) if necessary. EDIT: woops forgot to post link for #1 [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfyneib5UQE[/url]

There already is an anti-hacker mechanism in the game. It's private servers with active admins. They are free to Ban people as they see fit. After you wade through enough shit servers to find a quality one, it's a pretty fair assumption that they protect their communities by dealing with hackers swiftly; and if proven wrong, they are able to unban the individuals as well. I'm going out on a limb here to say that this mechanism will still function post-release, so the ability to deal with hackers will still be present, regardless of how they learn to evolve.

[QUOTE=KillaMaaki;43512550]EDIT: woops forgot to post link for #1 [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfyneib5UQE[/url][/QUOTE] That has strictly nothing to do with his point.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43512599]That has strictly nothing to do with his point.[/QUOTE] Doesn't it though? His first point was that having to calculate the physics of a hundred or so players would be way too taxing on the server. My response is an interactive real-time demo of [I]thousands [/I]of agents, my point being that it's not entirely out of the question for even consumer-level hardware to be simulating physics for a hundred or so players. EDIT: Just for testing, I crafted up a simple demo in Unity. 200 AI agents. Each of them uses the CharacterController component for physics, and every 5 seconds picks a random point to wander to. So I'm calculating the physics for 200 agents every frame, which gives me a solid 60 FPS (actually if I disable vsync and set the camera to render nothing it never goes below 160 FPS). EDIT 2: Forgot to mention that I was performing physics in Update, which is not quite ideal. After moving physics to FixedUpdate (which executes at a constant 50 times per second by default regardless of actual framerate), my FPS shot right up to hovering between 600-700 FPS.

the game is fine for an alpha just wish they would of put a liiiittle more stuff to make before pushing it out

[QUOTE=zeroxzzz;43514682]the game is fine for an alpha just wish they would of put a liiiittle more stuff to make before pushing it out[/QUOTE] You didn't get what Alpha means, right?

[QUOTE=Scynix;43512144]Being alpha isn't an excuse for allowing cheats. If anything it's completely opposite. Alpha is an active development phase. Retail isn't. If it's this bad now, it's going to be much much worse at retail.[/QUOTE] that is the most hilariously broken logic i've seen in a while. the game is in alpha, meaning developing mechanics and content is the #1 priority. performance optimization, debugging, and cheat prevention occurs in late beta. if you stopped and tried to fix every single cheat/hack during early development of the game, you'd never finish the game. [quote=KillaMaaki;43512644]Doesn't it though? His first point was that having to calculate the physics of a hundred or so players would be way too taxing on the server. My response is an interactive real-time demo of thousands of agents, my point being that it's not entirely out of the question for even consumer-level hardware to be simulating physics for a hundred or so players.[/quote] no, his point was in regards to network traffic: communication between the server and the clients. your point in regards to how CPU/GPU intensive calculating the physics of many characters would be has nothing to do with that.