oxygen
oxygen
About
- Username
- oxygen
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,170
- Last Active
Comments
-
That is weird, there probably shouldn't be an option for that. It's pretty common practice to not even allow appeals for anything that can be called some sort of short temporary ban / suspension in the first place, appeals are for permabans and temporary but longer ones (like ones lasting months)
-
I honestly feel the game pretty much need some sort of replay/demo system. At the very least on the side of the devs so reports have demo-like files attached to them (think of a "movie script" representing every little thing that happened during a match tick by tick, that the game engine can process to replay it down to the smallest detail). Preferably replays/demos that players can keep and share around as well of course, but even the former would be great if possible.
Cheaters do get banned, but I have no doubt in my mind a lot of people quite simply can't be bothered to remember to report in game, record evidence, upload said evidence and then make a ticket for it.
You're never gonna stop cheating, any measure like various kinds of user ID (IP, account, HWID) just make it slightly more complex to circumvent and spoof their way around it if they really want to continue cheating. But quite simply inconveniencing cheaters as much as possible by banning them quickly and often actually makes a lot of cheaters decide they've had their fun and they can't be bothered to continue doing it anymore.
-
Pettiness is completely irrelevant when the reaction to what might be percieved as such is to straight up break the rules. Reminds me of the person I saw defending themselves after hurling slurs around because they were "baited" into doing so... by someone tbagging them 🤣. Not saying taking the game hostage is as gross as that, but similar energy. If whoever pissed someone off didn't actually break any rules, and then they do break rules in response... they're objectively the "bad guy".
-
- Actually straight up cheating. As in actual traditional ESP/speedhack/whatever cheating.
- Taking the game hostage.
- Saying all kinds of gross garbage in post game chat, like slurs, threats and self harm encouragement.
In no particular order.
EDIT: Okay, slightly particular order. People being disgusting in post game chat is #1 and overrides all others. I don't care if someone has been tbagged/camped/whatever for 10 games in a row, I don't care how tilted someone is or how "justified" their anger is - the moment they go for stuff like slurs and other vile garbage in chat, they deserve nothing besides a swift ban. If they absolutely need to cry in chat, just be a more normal person and call people bad at the game or something.
That's it, as long as stuff like that exists I'm not gonna devalue the value of words like juvenile or pathetic by implying ultimately pointless in-match actions is anywhere close to actual rule-breaking and/or disgusting behavior.
-
The many times where someone in the same post defends "vent games" where you take your frustration out on completely unrelated players... yet never consider that whoever made them frustrated in the first place might simply have been using their seemingly God Given Right to do a vent game too, or that their actions might inspire others to go for a vent game. Really curious that one 🤔
-
If there's one thing I absolutely believe they should keep doing, it's the mutually beneficial nature of the unlock process itself. Survivors need to take hits in snowmen, killers need to hit occupied snowmen - both sides benefit from the same interaction. That's wonderful base design for an event like this, and while there's still edge cases where people can go out of their way to deny the other side (survivors just straight up refusing to enter them ever, killers refusing to hit them even if they throw by doing so) it's way better and much more rare as far as I've seen than the equivalents from earlier events (like saboing event hooks way back, or the good old hard/face camp survivors with glowy particles in particular because they need to escape).
I can't say I've really seen the often "feared" downside of not making survivors escape or otherwise supply "proof of work" for their unlocks either - them just getting their thing (in this case getting their snowman smacked) and then immediately suiciding on hook / afking.
-
For now just do it after grade reset, as you have an easier time getting Merciless at ash grade than higher ones. Pretty sure at ash you need 14/16 emblem points? Which is way more forgiving than you might think compared harsher requirements.
I don't understand why there's still increasing emblem requirements under the grade system anyway though. Honestly doesn't make that much sense as it's in no way rank anymore.
-
I just do whatever seems like it might end the game as soon as possible, so in your situation I'd just keep opening the gate. Either the killer lets you go, or they down you and kill you once you've opened it, and once the gate is open you can just crawl for the exit if they decide to let you crawl around to "force" them to pick you up sooner if they want to kill you.
I'm honestly equally fine with being allowed to leave and being killed, as both end the match faster than bleeding out for 4 minutes. If they let me go I'll nod at them in the goofiest way I can and leave them my item if I have one though, that stuff amuses me 😄
-
@xili84 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2680869#Comment_2680869
Yes, but it was a separate mode that only got merged with standard play much later. As in it only affected killers that chose to play against SWF. It was only patch 3.x.x where SWF is the way it is now.
And I say again, the game was never intended to have this mode at all. It was only implemented due to popular request.
The option to opt in/opt out of going vs SWF has never existed. The patch you linked was the one that improved the functionality by adding the in-game friends list and making parties consistent instead of needing re-inviting between every game, that's all it did (as well as combining the SWF "game mode" into the "play as survivor" game mode by just having an invite button instead of a seperate button on the main menu). They were never actually seperate modes with seperate matchmaking pools.
Here's an example of a Steam Discussions thread from mid 2017 that makes it pretty obvious the ability to opt out of going against SWF was not a thing even then: https://steamcommunity.com/app/381210/discussions/0/1458455461494504566/
And that's just one example, the first one that caught my eye when googling for an example.
No matter if it was intended, I find it very hard to believe there's any realistic chain of events that wouldn't lead to it being introduced shortly after launch. Simply because DBD is a multiplayer game released in 2016. It was gonna come and it was gonna stay, and when the devs have made it clear anything that splits the playerbase like seperate queues is out of the question the only real option is to balance around its existence (which I 100% agree they haven't done a particularly excellent job of doing).
-
@xili84 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2679233#Comment_2679233
Exactly this. No argument. One would have to be oblivious to state otherwise.
I will elaborate further tho. Yes it is more stressful, but that stress is coming from survivors having a massive advantage on their side. Nobody is telling survivors how they should play, we are just angry at BHVR completely favoring one side cause they bring in the money.
What ruins a killers game is usually voice communication. Imagine the killer having the entity whisper in his ear all the time "Survivor is doing this gen", "survivor is cleansing your ruin", "Survivor is hiding in this locker". That would be a massive gamechanger, as I as killer can now drop some aura perks in favor of chase or slowdown perks.
And that is what you see SWF doing, they are stacked with 2nd chance perks, that if played properly, will give the killer 0 chance of getting any kills. Any competent 4man team can give a killer 0k if they choose to do so. Luckily many of them are still 'gamers', but also many of them are just gen rushers and there is nothing you can do about that as killer. (the average high MMR game has all gens pop in 4-5mins even with slowdown perks). Even if you have someone on hook when that last gen pops, they will swarm the hook and protect that person to the gate. Again nothing a killer can do against that.
Now imagine any decent killer, he will reach high MMR. High MMR is where the vast majority of SWFs play. So the vast majority of killer matches will be versus SWFs. That is just a statistical fact. Ofcourse many killers are then burning out when they get 10 such matches in a row, before they get bumped back down to a solo lobby.
DISCLAIMER: It is not the SWF fault for playing the way they do, it is BHVRs fault. The game was not designed nor balanced to have SWF teams. Many latecomers don't realize that the ability to play with friends only came much later. The game was not released with it. Again it is not the players fault for using it, it is BHVR that allows it.
Much later? SWF was added in a patch less than a month after the game officially released.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe the game should be rebalanced around a higher assumed level of coordination (with all the changes that involves, from updating perks that are countered by comms to giving base survivors more info and balancing killers around that) but it was only for a very small post-release time window SWF wasn't a part of the game.
-
It should just be a classic blacklist of words. If you see a blanked message, you should know they said something that's straight up reportable. Then make filter dodging a bannable offense (of course this can't be 100% automated, don't want spanish speaking people to get banned for talking about their black jacket cosmetics or something...)
Having a system that tries to be more clever than that just leads to exactly that. If I see the exact message you used as an example, I have no idea if that's the system being wacky or if they actually typed 2 slurs that could get them banned if reported.
-
More often than not that would just lead to wasted time, unless someone built 100% around it with deliverance/ds/unbreakable/soul guard or something.
Get an unhook to activate it then look for an opportunity to take a chase with the killer earlier in the match, being the last person alive with all your hook states intact already implies the player should have taken one for the team earlier if possible if you ask me.
If there's any change that should be done to the perk, it should inform all survivors that the guy that just got hooked has Deliverance activated. SWF already knows and knows no one has to go for the save, if you're solo you often try to find the balance between not jumping off before the killer even has a chance to go away, and not waiting so long that several people start coming to save you before you use it.
-
As much as badly implemented old school word blacklist systems can lead to weird situations (like "assassin" and "knight" being censored in games that feature assassins and knights because of substrings in the words), I'd rather have that to be honest.
Make the list curated in such a way that if you see **** in chat, you know immediately that they said something that's reportable. And then make filter evasion a bannable offense in itself. Now someone can get their whole sentence blurred out and you have no idea if they said a single word the filter "bot" considered kinda bad, or if they actually typed 12 slurs.
-
Considering I'm pretty sure it doesn't activate on stuff like becoming injured from plague infection and the like I'd say that's not how it's intended to work and is a bug that should be fixed, indeed. But I guess the description is inaccurate and doesn't actually check if you became injured in the first place, but rather if you got the on-hit speed boost.
At the very least the description should be 100% clear about what's the trigger for the perk to activate.
-
Most discussion about the topic tends to almost inevitably head towards discussion about how to actually try to rebalance the game around it, usually through increasing the info-sharing tools available for base survivors. Call it "buff solos and killers", call it "balance around comms" - the goal is ultimately the same.
And I guess that makes sense too, as eventually people realize it's probably the only attempt at a "solution" that even has a microscopic chance of ever being considered by the devs. How to do it is of course tricky and there's disagreement there, personally I think even something as simple as a ping system + preset messages would go a long way, while others swear by voice chat. Could also combine the two, who knows what's the best option (emphasis on best: a perfect solution quite simply does not exist)
Most (as in vast majority) people won't demand stuff like the removal of swf or restrictive voice chat interference, because even if they'd really like it eventually they realize that's like getting mad at the sky when it's raining. A complete waste of brain activity.
-
Saying gross stuff in post-game chat or cheating. I honestly don't care about anything else.
-
I'd say it's actually vanishingly rare to see complaints about the perk that aren't specifically focused on people using it to bodyblock for the person that saved them as opposed to using it to get away themselves.
Sure, sometimes that makes people propose the bad idea of making the endurance not proc if the hit is a protection hit (which would make a perk intended to help against tunneling and camping... hard countered by camping enough for you to hit the savior on the way to the save, and then hitting the saved person right off the hook as it'd be a protection hit 100% of the time, lol) but the more common idea for that is to just disable collission while endurance is active.
-
If you didn't do anything wrong, it doesn't really matter if they reported you. They're just crybabies.
No idea if it is a thing or not, but I'd love if false reporting itself was a bannable offense if it isn't already (might be in extreme cases, who knows). But I'm certain there would be a lot of confused threads on here from people that got banned for reporting people for camping, tbagging, calling them bad at the game and other things that aren't against the rules in any way whatsoever.
But that would be a good thing. Maybe the clowns that say stuff like "Okay it isn't bannable, but it SHOULD be so I'll report anyway!" would finally learn, or continue and get laughed at like they deserve.
-
Can't really blame people as it's not too uncommon in my personal experience that a yes makes them act like it's a license to be an ass, and a no is completely irrelevant as they've already made up their mind no matter what.
This is of course not always the case, as I just answer honestly (even though in my case the answer will always be solo or duo nowadays) and "Oh ok just wondered. gg" is also a common response. But if people have had bad experiences I guess it makes sense.
-
Considering they've made sure to fix similar spots in the past, I'm certain this will get fixed. Camping is one thing, but it's very clear the devs don't want it to be completely and utterly impossible to even reach the unhook prompt in the first place.
-
I haven't experienced a survivor queue that made me go "huh, this is taking a while" for a long time though?
Seems like I'm not alone in that either, but clearly we must all be lying 🙃
-
The whole reason they disabled Bloodlust is because there's no other way to possibly get even a crumb of data on matches with no bloodlust in them, as it's an universal killer basekit mechanic.
Dead Hard is a perk, if they wanted data on matches without it they can just filter out the matches that has anyone running it.
-
@RoaderFrost said:
Dead Hard is so broken that it actually punishes killers who use VPN to play dead by daylight!
Yep, Dead Hard works against VPN. I'm not joking.
With VPN off - I can have some "network issues" but ping is 40+
With VPN on - Not a single DC during 60 bloodhunt trials, but ping goes up to 120+
And with ping over 100 I get short end of the stick during hit validation.
That's just insanely broken and overpowered.
That's the hit validation working as intended though? With 120ms it's more likely there will be mismatches between what you see and what the server "sees" than with 40ms.
-
@Tostapane said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2662427#Comment_2662427
There is and it's quite simple but it will never happen cause this will probably "kill the game" as people claim... Allows to create parties ONLY in kill your friends mode
Well yeah, even if that didn't kill the game (I simply think it would deal a significant blow to it + severely hamper the player acqusition ability of the game) it's not something the developers of a modern multiplayer game will even consider.
Which is why a lot of discussion focuses on ways to lessen the swf solo gap to then balance around a higher assumed level of efficiency/coordination. Because it's honestly the only approach with even a miniscule but non-zero probability of ever happening.
-
@Tostapane said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/296695/now-i-understand
Skins are the last issues of this game... Another issue is the easy mode that you mentioned (swf). This game should be played without communications and balancing around that, period
Do you mean "or be balanced around that"? Because there's absolutely no method in existence that would actually manage to stop people from using voice chat in one way or another, for a variety of reasons ranging from breaking the developer terms of service of certain consoles to being unacceptably intrusive.
-
I'll believe it when I see it. And trust me, I'm a veteran of "This game will totally kill <game>!", as I've played TF2 for well over a decade 😂
Don't get me wrong, I hope VHS does well because it seems interesting in its own way and more good games is an objectively good thing if you ask me, but it has very blatant differences that means it won't be a direct replacement, just like Overwatch is a fun game in its own right but not a replacement for TF2.
For starters, DBD is sorta unique in the way it doesn't allow "survivors" (whatever they're called in the given game) to fight back in the kinda way we've seen in F13 and Last Year.
It just seems far more likely it might be a game someone plays alongside DBD, as another game in the same general genre but one that scratches a slightly different itch.
-
No, it was another completely pointless waste of time like standing on someone until they bleed out, hiding indefinitely (even though that's actually against the rules) or waiting until the last second of EGC to leave (even though then the killer at least has the option to chase them out in that case).
-
I'd be worried if I had any at all as my entire profile is friends only.
-
I don't care what it's about, the thread you're talking about tried to shame people into not doing something that is 100% allowed.
No matter if that's about using voice chat, using certain strategies, perks, killers or whatever else that's non-constructive garbage at absolute best. Pathetic scrub behavior blaming players for what's at "best" grievances with the game itself.
-
Because I find it fun just like I always have, not any deeper than that.
-
I personally don't get it at all, but then again I've been saying gg after multiplayer matches for what, nearly 2 decades or something now?
I've just started saying gg when I win after someone that lost says it first. And that happens way more often than not, whoever's still there at the end tend to say gg in my experience. I honestly don't really care if they mean it or not, an "empty" gg is still lightyears ahead of rageposting in chat.
-
It's the same community (or well, on here is a minority subset of the general community), but the rules are stricter here than in game so people either keep their clown act in the circus where it belongs or they get banned.
-
I haven't noticed any difference, in other words survivor is instant-30 seconds earlier on while killer is a bit longer, and later on both are a few minutes at most with killer slightly faster. Unless we count the time my body thought it would be epic to suddenly become 100% awake at 4:40am and I got the bright idea of playing a DBD match once I realized I couldn't fall asleep again😄
-
@Adjatha said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2649954#Comment_2649954
I mean, they barely have a DC penalty, the report system is vestigial, and they can't even stop straight-up hackers. What makes you think thei game could manage all the hazards that come with full voice chat?
That's why you don't even need actual voice chat, even a message system would do wonders to close the gap.
SWF can already say "Killer nearby" or "I'm going for the save", put that ability into survivor basekit with a communication menu. Then you know that all survivor teams have this information available no matter their perks, which lets them act more coordinated and efficient, and as a result you can balance around it without widening the gap in the same way. Sure people can spam it or give fake info to troll but avoids the harassment issues of full voice chat, and bypasses any potential language barriers at the same time.
I firmly believe the alternatives are something like this, or no change at all. It's not a perfect solution (no perfect solution exists), but unlike ones that might increase queue times, split the playerbase or make even one person think "hm, this game seems like it's punishing me for playing with friends" it might actually have a non-zero probability of ever being considered by the devs.
-
Grind, or at least a considerable chunk of it.
-
It just means someone who primarily plays killer, prefers playing killer or even simply consider themselves a killer main. The moment additional "requirements" are attached it very quickly gets into ridiculous territory like questioning someone's legitimacy based on their opinions, or attaching stereotypes to any sort of main (be it killer/survivor or more specific like billy or even a specific survivor for that matter).
-
The first two I'd be fine with as it's the player with DS equipped that has to make the conscious decision to bless a totem or touch the gate.
The hooking one I disagree with because that's not in the player's control at all. Little they can do if some megamind does an awful save that leaves both downed, then the killer just hooks the "savior" and returns to pick up the player that would have DS without that change.
Because that's the core design of current DS, you get a minute or until you perform an action that tells the game "Okay, I choose to let DS deactivate now". I'm pretty much against all potential changes that go against this, but I 100% agree blessing totems should disable it as that is an user decision, and gates would be okay too.
Boon totems have some sort of identity crisis anyway, they don't disable DS unlike all other totem interactions, but at the same time they give Undying aura reading even though they're clearly not dull totems. That seems more like an issue with the "classification" of boons than DS.
-
It has been tried in different games and the result is pretty much always the same unless it's a game with a gigantic playerbase and very open matchmaking (not "constrained" by MMR or anything) - players get blocked simply for being good, sometimes by so many people that they have trouble finding a match.
Yes there's ways to make this less of a problem and to encourage people to use it for genuinely unpleasant people, like making blocks expire after a while and having a limited amount of slots on the blocklist. But that only reduces the issues, doesn't eliminate them. You'd presumably only need one person in a potential lobby to have you blocked to prevent matching with that whole lobby as well, so if 1/4 survivors has you blocked you can't match with the other 3 that would be more than happy to go against you as killer, and the killer only needs to have 1/4 survivors in a lobby blocked for the same result in reverse too.
If it was a perfect world where people only used their blocks on cheaters, exploiters, people blatantly "playing for salt" or dancing right up against the line between just being a dick and saying straight up bannable stuff in post-game chat that would be one thing. But that's simply not how it works.
-
Bodyblocking that results in someone dying to EGC can be bannable if it's done too early in the match, but your situation is not an example of that. That only applies if you start blocking someone before EGC has even started, and is obviously mostly focused on people that decide to just keep someone in a corner with several gens left.
If you didn't do anything that's against the rules, you won't get banned. And I doubt that megamind's idea of straight up forging evidence against you will work either, especially when you have them "on record" saying they're gonna do exactly that.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2633024#Comment_2633024
Doxxing- they can trace your address and other information from your IP address alone. It doesn't hack into your computer, but your router.
Swatting- you can still have police called who will arrive potentially with weapons. Definitely the case here in the UK, anyway.
An IP address alone is not inherently going to identify you as a person, it's gonna tell whoever's tracing it where your local ISP datacenter is located. Depending on the details this can get as detailed as what city you live in, or more vague like general area. Certainly your country though, which might be uncomfortable but doesn't really narrow it down that bad.
Most (vast majority, I'd argue) doxing happens because of traversable information trails from anonymous aliases to IRL identities. Re-used usernames or other details (publically visible emails and other contact details can be particularly nasty) that let people go on a Google Detective journey from a gamertag to a forgotten forum post in 2008 where you shared your facebook, to use an example that might be a near-"best case scenario" from a doxer's perspective.
Of course I'm by no means saying it's okay to willy-nilly give away the IP addresses of players, both because it can be a piece of the doxing info-gathering puzzle and because you don't need to actually know who someone is to attempt DDoS. There's a lot of reasons why that kinda info should be obfuscated whenever possible.
-
As long as it's specifically focused on eliminating wasted time, sure. So if the game is at the point where outside of edge cases it's without a doubt over, let it happen. Or better yet, just let the survivor teleport themselves onto a basement hook where they get "rush sacrificed" like if you get hooked for the first time as the last survivor alive - no attempt to escape or anything, as this is purely a "gg, lets move on" mechanic. Not entirely sure how this should work as I don't want it to be easy to "circumvent" for a killer that actively wants to be a jerk, but I don't want it to be abused as a ragequit mechanism either - but hopefully my intention is clear at least.
At the same time give the killer a lever in the basement or something that immediately makes all living survivors escape after some condition is met (it's gonna be endgame/near endgame). This includes slugged and hooked survivors because again, it's to end a match and nothing else.
I personally don't care about being bled out or survivors waiting until 0.000052 seconds remain of EGC to leave as I just go get a drink or something. But both situations are a waste of time in a match that in the vast majority of cases is already decided, so a way to skip to the more or less inevitable would be nice.
-
This is the closest to what I think, so I'm picking that.
I don't particularly mind if names are visible once the match starts, but no one should see them before. Not survivors, not killers - no one.
EDIT: Oh, votes not shown on posts. I picked "Yes, even survivors won't recognize each other (unless they are in team)"
-
Because it's halfway towards the way it should be, no names should be visible before a match starts.
-
@VikingDragonXii said:
What worries me is that if they are just focusing on survivors because they make them the most money then DbD will fail them because all the Killer players will leave and the wait times fir survivors will get longer and longer and longer.
I'll believe it when I see it, there has been so many "this will totally cause a mass exodus and kill the game in Just Two More Weeks guys, just watch!" that turned out to be as successful predictions as the vintage "in 2000 we'll all have flying cars and robot housekeepers!" predictions.
-
@Nos37 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2619551#Comment_2619551
That is, until the survivors decide to not finish the last gen and take the game hostage
True, which is part of the reason why I honestly want more failsafes for edge cases like that or when someone is blocked in a way that leaves no way out except disconnecting. Ones that can't be abused as ragequitting options, ones like "After X amounts of minutes have passed, survivors can do a forfeit vote and killers can hit a switch to immediately open the gates no matter how many gens are left"
Of course both blocking someone in a way that gives them no way out besides DCing and perpetually hiding with no intent to do the objective are against the rules. But it would at least lower the time you have to waste before you can move on + report if desired from "as long as the guilty player(s) are willing to keep it up" to "until the failsafe is available".
-
Maybe if the developers didn't implement EGC exclusively to be a failsafe against games being held hostage at the end with some fancy visuals and audio on top. Because that's what it is, and that's why the killer has the option of opening a gate - so both sides can start EGC and put a hard cap on the time the match can continue for.
-
Sadly it's impossible to know what random teammates do, the only real way to make absolutely sure that sorta thing doesn't happen is probably to never play outside of a 4man swf where none of you are ragequitters again because you never know when someone decides to quit for whatever reason.
In situations like that I honestly don't care how the match ends, I just want it to end as it's a complete waste of time to remain in it at that point. Either getting killed or getting hatch is preferable as both are quite fast, honestly don't care which happens.
-
I'd actually like it if they took a look at most statistics with a lot of sources of modifiers. There's quite a few sources of slowdown, quite a few sources of healing speed increase and some other stats. I honestly think it'd be a good thing especially in the long run if the perks that do things like that are turned into better stand-alone picks, while enforcing a lack of synergy. Hard cap how much things can be sped up/slow down no matter how much stacking you throw at it.
It honestly already holds the devs back when it comes to making new perks, as a perk that would be perfectly fine, interesting and good on its own might have to be tuned down because they worry people will stack or even indirectly interact with 3+ other modifiers to the same statistic. They saw it with healing speed when they made CoH boons not stack (healing speed can get pretty insane even without that though), and "forever freddy" stacking gen slowdowns was also clearly deemed undesirable even though the individual modifiers per source were small.
If they knew for a fact perks that reduce action speeds or perks that increase healing speed won't be mega-stacked past the point they want, they could make the individual perks stronger picks if they wanted to. Make it more of a choice about how you achieve the slowdown/speedup you're looking for with your build as opposed to stacking, more perks will fit better with certain killers or in certain survivor builds than others and that sounds pretty neat.
-
@youhartyd1 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2617713#Comment_2617713
is using a vpn banable?
Pretty sure it isn't, nothing about it in the rules or EULA of the game at least.
As long as your goal isn't to VPN to regions where you'll have very high latency (like if you VPN'd from NZ to EU or something) no one is gonna notice anyway. So if you used it to matchmake in Australia or something I doubt anyone would even notice, and you'll probably matchmake with different players as a result.