[Pindrought]

Hey, does anybody know how I can send a message to Garry's development team that wouldn't be viewable by the public?

I have a theory for a relatively easy and performance efficient way of detecting speedhackers (at least as far as melee speedhacks go, not for movement speedhacks), and i'd really like to get it out to the team, but I don't want it public, because i'd prefer the people working on hacks to not be able to see it.

If anyone knows and could post or PM me a way to contact them, i'd really appreciate it! Thanks :)

[Thor-axe]

You might be able to PM Garry's account if you find one of his posts somewhere, but I'd be pretty amazed if he actually read that shit.

[Pindrought]

Thor-axe posted:

You might be able to PM Garry's account if you find one of his posts somewhere, but I'd be pretty amazed if he actually read that shit.

Thanks, i'll try this and cross my fingers.

[UrLaStWiSh]

garrynewman@gmail.com saw it somewhere posted by garry on a forum

[Warm]

The people making the hacks are probably smarter than you.

[Pindrought]

Warm posted:

The people making the hacks are probably smarter than you.

I'm a programmer and used to make hacks and I make servers/clients. It doesn't matter how smart they are by doing simple server side checking it removes the possibility for melee speedhacks.

You shouldn't assume things.

UrLaStWiSh posted:

garrynewman@gmail.com saw it somewhere posted by garry on a forum

Thanks, i'll try this also.

[elixwhitetail]

Have you considered that server-side validation isn't being rigorously processed due to efficiency and performance reasons?

It slows down iteration, and the server's performance is already a concern. Validating everything server-side is a great way to introduce more bugs and slow the pace down.

This was the case in legacy, as well. It's not that they don't know how, it's that there are other priorities first, because it'll get a lot more complex once they start aggressively defending Rust from hackers.

[Pindrought]

elixwhitetail posted:

Have you considered that server-side validation isn't being rigorously processed due to efficiency and performance reasons?

It slows down iteration, and the server's performance is already a concern. Validating everything server-side is a great way to introduce more bugs and slow the pace down.

This was the case in legacy, as well. It's not that they don't know how, it's that there are other priorities first, because it'll get a lot more complex once they start aggressively defending Rust from hackers.

There are efficient ways and inefficient ways to check for speedhacks. Do you really think I didn't think this through? Do you not see where I mention that I make servers/client applications? I'm not some random idiot. Like I said this method will only fix melee speedhacks. It wont have any difference on the speed that the servers run that you would notice.

Edit: Anyways, thanks for the help everybody. I got what I needed.

[theeggman]

I can say, the best way to contact Facepunch Studios privately is via their contact [at] facepunchstudios [dot] com email addresses. Depending on the matter, you may or may not get a timely response. I do not suggest PMing Garry here on the forums, I don't think he checks these.

[StryfeKhaos]

elixwhitetail posted:

Have you considered that server-side validation isn't being rigorously processed due to efficiency and performance reasons?

It slows down iteration, and the server's performance is already a concern. Validating everything server-side is a great way to introduce more bugs and slow the pace down.

This was the case in legacy, as well. It's not that they don't know how, it's that there are other priorities first, because it'll get a lot more complex once they start aggressively defending Rust from hackers.

Do you have some quote or post from Facepunch that backs this up, or is this pure conjecture on your part in which case you might qualify it with 'I am guessing that' so we can give it the measure it's due?

The guy might legitimately have an idea that is worthy of FP hearing. In any event, FP is more qualified to do that evaluation than the 'dominator'.

[elixwhitetail]

I can dig up developer quotes on this fact from legacy. There've been no explanations given in experimental so far that I'm aware of. I'm assuming it's the same policy because otherwise there'd be server-side validation that'd be making itself obvious.

[mrknifey]

pindrought, the other option would be to contact "eac knubbe" via pm. he's the more actively present EAC rep on the forums, and probably more likely to discuss it with you. also, he probably has a more direct method of contacting garry and the team.

[Pindrought]

mrknifey posted:

pindrought, the other option would be to contact "eac knubbe" via pm. he's the more actively present EAC rep on the forums, and probably more likely to discuss it with you. also, he probably has a more direct method of contacting garry and the team.

Thanks mrknifey. I've already PM'd garry the message as well as e-mailed it to his gmail and to contact @ facepunch, so i'll also PM it to Eac Knubbe.

Edit: EAC Knubbe's account is set to not receive Private Messages. :/ Thanks anyways.

[klondike]

Just send a DM on twitter.

[utilitron]

Or drive to his house and leave a message with his wife.

[Pindrought]

klondike posted:

Just send a DM on twitter.

I don't have a twitter. XD
I'm not into social media.

And I think the message would be too long for twitter.