No clipping - Rust - Facepunch Forum

[QUOTE=DrABK;42667773]I already knew this was the solution but it ends up costing the server too much to operate on the scale this game is going to run[/QUOTE] One semi well known game using this method is Second Life. It operates on a significantly larger scale, but they include a full-blown server side physics simulation. I'm confident if they wanted, Facepunch could afford servers capable of handling the load.

[QUOTE=KillaMaaki;42667901]One semi well known game using this method is Second Life. It operates on a significantly larger scale, but they include a full-blown server side physics simulation. I'm confident if they wanted, Facepunch could afford servers capable of handling the load.[/QUOTE] Second life operates as an MMO, using a centralized server model selling the game through micro-transactions. Rust isn't going to be a sub or microtransaction game, having only a single sale instance per player. This means they wouldn't be able to operate as a centralized server because the model required for continuous operation would be a pyramid scheme which is unsustainable anyway. In other words, Rust can't operate as an MMO because each user pays a one time fee and MMO's need a certain amount of revenue per user per month to stay in operation. This is why Garry said he would release the server code so the community could run its own servers.

[QUOTE=DrABK;42667978]Second life operates as an MMO, using a centralized server model selling the game through micro-transactions. Rust isn't going to be a sub or microtransaction game, having only a single sale instance per player. This means they wouldn't be able to operate as a centralized server because the model required for continuous operation would be a pyramid scheme which is unsustainable anyway. In other words, Rust can't operate as an MMO because each user pays a one time fee and MMO's need a certain amount of revenue per user per month to stay in operation. This is why Garry said he would release the server code so the community could run its own servers.[/QUOTE] Guild Wars operates under the exact same model. Centralized server run by the company, single sale per player.

[QUOTE=DrABK;42667978]Second life operates as an MMO, using a centralized server model selling the game through micro-transactions. Rust isn't going to be a sub or microtransaction game, having only a single sale instance per player. This means they wouldn't be able to operate as a centralized server because the model required for continuous operation would be a pyramid scheme which is unsustainable anyway. In other words, Rust can't operate as an MMO because each user pays a one time fee and MMO's need a certain amount of revenue per user per month to stay in operation. This is why Garry said he would release the server code so the community could run its own servers.[/QUOTE] microtransactions for bigger penises

[QUOTE=KillaMaaki;42668104]Guild Wars operates under the exact same model. Centralized server run by the company, single sale per player.[/QUOTE] They sell expansion packs every year or so. So in reality it's not a "single sale".

[QUOTE=DrABK;42668464]They sell expansion packs every year or so. So in reality it's not a "single sale".[/QUOTE] I imagine a large number of their sales comes from the initial sale, however. It's a bit of a stretch to think that what essentially amounts to DLC is the only reason they could keep their servers running.

[QUOTE=KillaMaaki;42668529]I imagine a large number of their sales comes from the initial sale, however. It's a bit of a stretch to think that what essentially amounts to DLC is the only reason they could keep their servers running.[/QUOTE] [url]https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/game/gw2/How-does-Guild-Wars-2-make-money[/url] That studio also has a higher price on the game and RPG games work differently. They don't have to have information persist the same way Garry's game is going to. Overall, the scale they work on is different. I means their overhead will be different and things like server costs are probably a lot lower for that company than a small fry like Garry. It was also posted on this forum that someone was offering servers for 500 for like $150/month. That would amount to $10.80/person for 3 years if that cost could be obtained for a server. If Garry COULD sell this game for $25/copy (after Steam takes its cut), then it would mean his server costs (assuming the game ran for ONLY 3 years) would run around 40% of his revenues. That leaves almost nothing after he pays his people and the rest of his overhead as well as taxes.

[QUOTE=KillaMaaki;42666990]Not really, no. VAC is purely clientside. Almost by definition, that makes it insecure. I've also heard that it is very easy to circumvent. In order to really have security, it has to be on the server. That's the only machine which can be trusted.[/QUOTE] Will VAC be able to detect people using cheat engine?

[QUOTE=UltraMankill;42668669]Will VAC be able to detect people using cheat engine?[/QUOTE] .... are you okay? I ask this because just a few posts ago you plainly stated that it wouldn't (sounded quite confident). And now you're asking me if it does or doesn't. Just seemed a bit odd.

[QUOTE=KillaMaaki;42668694].... are you okay? I ask this because just a few posts ago you plainly stated that it wouldn't (sounded quite confident). And now you're asking me if it does or doesn't. Just seemed a bit odd.[/QUOTE] Lol sorry about that I can understand your confusion. It was meant to say: It can't even stop Cheat engine? Because that is what people are using.

[QUOTE=UltraMankill;42668707]Lol sorry about that I can understand your confusion. It was meant to say: It can't even stop Cheat engine? Because that is what people are using.[/QUOTE] Ah, OK. That makes more sense. I don't know. But the very fact that it's located on the client makes it insecure. The server is the only machine in the network that can be completely trusted, and that's where cheat prevention must be in order to be the most secure.

addicting game, i played from 1 am to 11 am before falling asleep logging out in my base, after mass gathering and trying to make it safe with metal doors...so proud, I was even ok with finding my base blown up when i woke up (now)... I find myself respawned somewhere, but knowing my surroundings based on a sound (the environment plays a sound statically linked to the ground in 1 or two locations, knowing which ear the sound is in, allows me to find my way back home.) I was READY to see it blown up... I was incredibly pissed however, to find all the good resources stolen and the building completely intact. I get that its alpha but seriously HOW CAN A SIMPLE PROGRAM A 12 YEAR OLD CAN USE HACK YOUR GAME WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES! I should know because Ived dabbled in that stuff when I was a boy, and I can tell you in 3 short steps exactly how they can do it... literally, 3 single sentences... Thats how unbelievably simple you can "location hack" All you need is a simple anti-cheat method implemented, and 90% of them will be stopped... I say this because after you implement that, private hacks will likely be featured which requires them to pay money, and most lil kids will not do that... So please tell me when you move this over to steam, it will have vac? Or some kind of protection.

[QUOTE=Manuel123456;42657774]THIS MUST STOP... we bought this game with the attention that it was fun although i realize it is in alpha still we payed good money for it. we dont need a new map we need the real issues solved before the game becomes known for having as many hackers as warz. everyone make an effort to try and figure out the names of hackers and post them in the thread for hacker reports put name and what they did the devs need to realize this is an issue[/QUOTE] Alpha man.

I was playing earlier and me my friend were getting pretty well set, and Bacon noclipped into both of our houses and killed us. I've given up on the game until there's some form of anti-hack. You'd think with the $400k+ they've made so far on Alpha Keys alone you'd think they'd shell out a bit to make the game playable without some jerkoff noclipping into well-protected houses and ruining the game for others.

[QUOTE=TroyTroy;42669387]Alpha man.[/QUOTE] I'm sick of retards who say this. Yes it's alpha people are supposed to be able to play and test it. When people are hacking how are you suppose to play properly? Go take that dumb answer somewhere else.

So 'Almighty God' on Aussy 2 just hacked, over and over we watched him appear and dispaear, moving through doors in our house.. and the house next to us. When you shoot him he dis-apears then re-apears and kills you.

[QUOTE=TroyTroy;42669387]Alpha man.[/QUOTE] it is alpha and we are just testing it but i cant even leave my base without some a hacker named ankleteeth (who we cleary caught on video no clipping) getting into our base and stealing resources

[QUOTE=UltraMankill;42669402]I'm sick of retards who say this. Yes it's alpha people are supposed to be able to play and test it. When people are hacking how are you suppose to play properly? Go take that dumb answer somewhere else.[/QUOTE] The hackers kinda help. Without them the devs wouldn't be able to figure out how to patch those hacks as fast. Also, calling someone a "retard" is very uncalled for.

[QUOTE=TroyTroy;42670697]The hackers kinda help. Without them the devs wouldn't be able to figure out how to patch those hacks as fast. Also, calling someone a "retard" is very uncalled for.[/QUOTE] When they say hackers are not a priority it doesn't help at all...

So far known hackers on the us central by playrust.EU are: ANKLETEETH, BATMAN, and ]]]] at least 2 if not all of these hackers have shear video evidence against them so beware if you come face to face with any of them. they don't have any skill but they will jump and shoot u in mid air so be carful guys :p

As stated before on Aussy 2 Almighty God was just doing outright. Didnt attempt to hide it at all. Someone also noclip looted my house the previous night, i dont know if that was the same person or not.

[QUOTE=DrABK;42667978]Second life operates as an MMO, using a centralized server model selling the game through micro-transactions. Rust isn't going to be a sub or microtransaction game, having only a single sale instance per player. This means they wouldn't be able to operate as a centralized server because the model required for continuous operation would be a pyramid scheme which is unsustainable anyway. In other words, Rust can't operate as an MMO because each user pays a one time fee and MMO's need a certain amount of revenue per user per month to stay in operation. This is why Garry said he would release the server code so the community could run its own servers.[/QUOTE] I don't know if KillaMaaki was implying that it had to be one single server. Either way, the server needs to do the heavy lifting to detect client side abuse of physics. It has nothing to do with being an MMO or having a centralized server. It just means that the server that players are connected to, regardless of which server where, does the physics evaluations. In other words, you can't trust the client to tell the server where the player is. We had this discussion in another thread -- it's not a special thing about Rust, basically any client-server game that allows end users to install the bits on their machines needs to account for the client potentially 'lying' to the server.

Almighty God on United Kingdom server is noclipping into peoples houses and being a huge racist and shit talker. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ocAr1eI.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=StryfeKhaos;42676948]I don't know if KillaMaaki was implying that it had to be one single server. Either way, the server needs to do the heavy lifting to detect client side abuse of physics. It has nothing to do with being an MMO or having a centralized server. It just means that the server that players are connected to, regardless of which server where, does the physics evaluations. In other words, you can't trust the client to tell the server where the player is. We had this discussion in another thread -- it's not a special thing about Rust, basically any client-server game that allows end users to install the bits on their machines needs to account for the client potentially 'lying' to the server.[/QUOTE] Server side lifting eliminates most of the problems of hacking. We were discussing the practical logistics of the server doing all the lifting vs client side. From a computer science standpoint, it's quite possible. From a business standpoint, it's MUCH cheaper to allow the clients to do most of the work. The only way you viably do server side where the servers could be funded would be to use centralized servers (meaning no private servers) and the game company pays for the servers directly (because it can optimize to get the best cost per player). Centralized game server, however, have to be paid for on a continuous basis by the game company. This game is being sold once per player and therefore the company could only fund the servers for a finite period of time before they would have to shut the game down entirely. Normally that amount of time is in the time span of a few years at the LONGEST. Non-centralized server games can be run for years if not decades (there are still UT servers that have been running for almost 15 years even though UT stopped getting support over 10 years ago).

Can't play PvP or PvE. No point in any multiplayer game that requires fortified houses, to wake up and have had some idiot noclipping into your house. Game is no good until there anti-cheat. Just my opinion, amazing game otherwise.

[QUOTE=DrABK;42677101]Server side lifting eliminates most of the problems of hacking. We were discussing the practical logistics of the server doing all the lifting vs client side. From a computer science standpoint, it's quite possible. From a business standpoint, it's MUCH cheaper to allow the clients to do most of the work. The only way you viably do server side where the servers could be funded would be to use centralized servers (meaning no private servers) and the game company pays for the servers directly (because it can optimize to get the best cost per player). Centralized game server, however, have to be paid for on a continuous basis by the game company. This game is being sold once per player and therefore the company could only fund the servers for a finite period of time before they would have to shut the game down entirely. Normally that amount of time is in the time span of a few years at the LONGEST. Non-centralized server games can be run for years if not decades (there are still UT servers that have been running for almost 15 years even though UT stopped getting support over 10 years ago).[/QUOTE] They are doing centralized servers right now, but that has no bearing on physics. Even if they quit hosting those right now and distributed server standalone to players, it's still quite feasible to implement server side physics and would STILL eliminate a good deal of hackers. Sure, the server operator has the potential power to hack, but hey operating a server basically makes them an admin anyway. And if nobody likes it? Stop playing on the server. Problem solved.

[QUOTE=KillaMaaki;42677246]They are doing centralized servers right now, but that has no bearing on physics. Even if they quit hosting those right now and distributed server standalone to players, it's still quite feasible to implement server side physics and would STILL eliminate a good deal of hackers. Sure, the server operator has the potential power to hack, but hey operating a server basically makes them an admin anyway. And if nobody likes it? Stop playing on the server. Problem solved.[/QUOTE] I know they're doing central servers now but it's not because of the server/client model they're using but rather because Garry isn't giving out the server code just yet since it's very early on. I would definitely agree Garry could offload more client work onto the servers to clear up some of the simple cheating going on. The question is more of how much does data traffic increase per user and how much more work per user does the server have to do? I honestly don't know that answer for Rust but in most situations, that increases server costs by a notable amount.

[QUOTE=KillaMaaki;42677246]They are doing centralized servers right now, but that has no bearing on physics. Even if they quit hosting those right now and distributed server standalone to players, it's still quite feasible to implement server side physics and would STILL eliminate a good deal of hackers. Sure, the server operator has the potential power to hack, but hey operating a server basically makes them an admin anyway. And if nobody likes it? Stop playing on the server. Problem solved.[/QUOTE] Agreed, that was the point I was trying to make (but not as well). You don't even have to do all the physics server side, even some post-processed physics analysis to check if people were flying or just walked through a wall would eliminate a lot of the hacking. [editline]28th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DrABK;42677366]I know they're doing central servers now but it's not because of the server/client model they're using but rather because Garry isn't giving out the server code just yet since it's very early on. I would definitely agree Garry could offload more client work onto the servers to clear up some of the simple cheating going on. The question is more of how much does data traffic increase per user and how much more work per user does the server have to do? I honestly don't know that answer for Rust but in most situations, that increases server costs by a notable amount.[/QUOTE] Maybe an option to disable server side cheat detection if you are hosting your own at home and trust everybody? But do you see that being the dominant model versus some dedicated hosting sites? With the world needing persistence and a fairly large number of users (IMO) for a good experience, I don't see 'LAN party' hosting as being the dominant model. I have a hard time seeing right now what the long term end game is, but whatever it is, I think 'LAN party' style hosting is too much of a casual thing for it to be the 'more fun' and dominant model.

[QUOTE=StryfeKhaos;42677370][editline]28th October 2013[/editline] Maybe an option to disable server side cheat detection if you are hosting your own at home and trust everybody? But do you see that being the dominant model versus some dedicated hosting sites? With the world needing persistence and a fairly large number of users (IMO) for a good experience, I don't see 'LAN party' hosting as being the dominant model. I have a hard time seeing right now what the long term end game is, but whatever it is, I think 'LAN party' style hosting is too much of a casual thing for it to be the 'more fun' and dominant model.[/QUOTE] I am don't know enough about game coding to be sure about this but what I know from comms server/client coding, you can't just have an "option to disable" because the ENTIRE server/client model design is made based on assumptions of who is doing what work. To allow for a more dynamic workload shift, it would mean having to code BOTH sides with a lot of the same work, meaning it would require more drive space for everyone as well as a lot more work for the dev's and could open the door to new exploits that can't be easily fixed.

[QUOTE=DrABK;42677604]I am don't know enough about game coding to be sure about this but what I know from comms server/client coding, you can't just have an "option to disable" because the ENTIRE server/client model design is made based on assumptions of who is doing what work. To allow for a more dynamic workload shift, it would mean having to code BOTH sides with a lot of the same work, meaning it would require more drive space for everyone as well as a lot more work for the dev's and could open the door to new exploits that can't be easily fixed.[/QUOTE] I don't think this even needs a switch. Just let the server handle all of the work! I think any player would immediately understand that more players means higher server workload. And for LAN games, the workload is negligible as there are usually only a few friends playing together.