oxygen
oxygen
About
- Username
- oxygen
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,170
- Last Active
Comments
-
Darn, was gonna laugh at you while I posted in your forbidden thread but instead I'm the one that ended up getting scrönched 😫
-
It's just a thing that people can do, which can be used both tactically and for pure "griefing".
Without getting into what counts as "toxic", lets compare it to flashlights. People can be spammed and clickyclicked which some find annoying and toxic, but they can also be used for their "intended" purpose which is to blind the killer in one situation or another. Just like slugging can be used to pressure more survivors or save time, but it can also be used to down someone and follow them around while nodding for 4 minutes for no real tactical reason.
Unless your'e talking about straight up exploits and stuff like that, things aren't usually inherently toxic. It's about how they're used. Of course, some people think any slugging is toxic and any use of flashlights is toxic, but they're just kinda... wrong if you ask me. Scrub mentality and all that.
-
When there's so many moving parts you don't want to change too much at once. Just think of something as simple as increasing gen times for example, that's just changing a number somewhere but it has all sorts of effects. You don't just throw everything out there, you make incremental changes and see how it changes feedback and statistics and then move on from there if needed.
And you're right, you can't "fix voice chat". And no sane developer would try to touch it in particular as it's such an established expected feature of multiplayer games that can only be balanced around and not directly. Only exception I can even think of that's remotely recent is some Call of Duty games that forced in-game voice chat and restricted party chat, and that's an anomaly.
-
No.
Some will probably think so though, because they'll assume "flashlight" means "purple flashlight with green battery + filament and a click spam macro", and they think clicking the SWF button instantly makes you toxic. Someone out there will find you toxic for one thing or another unless you just let them win, so don't worry about it in the first place to be honest 😄
-
No game should punish people for it unless it's combined with other offenses like harassment or cheating if you ask me. There's no real way to prove that it took place outside of a confession no matter how "fishy" it might look.
Just look at controversies like the ones in PUBG and Fortnite. When it's an inherently punishable offense on its own it can also be "weaponized" by streamers that want to do so because again, there's not really any way to conclusively prove that it took place.
At the same time I do think the game should have a "streamer mode" like many others have, where a player can activate it and it replaces everyone's names with stuff like "Meg 1, Meg 2, Dwight 1" and so on. Both makes it harder to stream snipe and protects the people the streamer gets matched with, as even if the streamer discourages it there might be galaxy brains in their chat that find people in matches and harass them for silly reasons.
-
If they get in your way especially while you're after someone else best you can do is probably just put them on the ground and continue what you're doing unless you're fine with eating the DS. I've seen killers get screwed over by both trying to ignore them and get past their bodyblocking when it makes them lose whoever they're really chasing AND by instantly downing them, picking them up and getting DSd.
When it comes to clicking, tbagging and such they're not actually preventing you from doing whatever you're doing in any way, if anything it's just nice of them to be your cheerleader as they follow you around as they're not doing anything useful 😄
-
Only in the obvious cases like being locked somewhere by a bug, IRL situations and so on. Yesterday I ran into the "infinite slug" bug where upon hooking someone it froze, and eventually they disappeared and became a slug forever stuck in the "being carried" state... aka immortal and unable to bleed out or even die to EGC.
I don't think it's some evil act and that DC penalties should be 2 hours first offense or anything though. I'm more worried about serial offenders than occasional disconnects.
But it's like with many other things, to some people it's never their fault or their side's fault. They disconnect because someone else did something bad, just like people go into threads about someone doing something obnoxious and "toxic" just to accuse the thread creator of being toxic first with absolutely no evidence implying it 🙃
-
There's ways to change them other than making them available on death hook though.
I know opinions are very varied and some seem to have an issue with them existing in the first place, but at least for me the only thing I'd want to see changed is mori tunneling in particular. I'd just make it so you can't mori someone that just got off the hook unless you hooked any other survivor inbetween, so if you hook survivor A they can't be mori'd until you've hooked survivor B, C or D.
Still allows for early-ish moris, but the killer has to hook another survivor which they probably won't be able to do if they just stick near the hook planning to instantly hunt down the unhooked again. Yes, the killer can zoom over to another survivor and manage to hook them and then return to patrol and insta-tunnel, but at least they had to interact with someone else that could've given survivor A time to get unhooked and try to slip away.
There's also the somewhat more restrictive "hook everyone once" suggestion as well, which I also personally like more than the death-hook suggestion but I'm sure some find that too restrictive/weak, my idea is more of a compromise I guess.
-
@Aneurysm said:
Some of these comments justifying DCing are great, the "playing plague is toxic" is my personal favourite so far but I'm optimistic about the possibility of reading something even more idiotic.
I don't like slugging for 4k but you generally have to get all 4 as plague if you want anything more than a black pip, so there's that.
I don't get it either, it's like when people assume any killer that did something considered toxic is in the right because "clearly the survivor(s) started it", but on the other end of the assumption spectrum. Some people are just dicks, sore losers and so on.
-
Generators might be boring to do but they're still the objective that actually lets the killer find survivors more often, and perhaps more importantly gives both sides something that both worry about at the same time. Survivors want to finish them, killers want to prevent them from being finished and therefore they tend to run into eachother around generators quite a lot 😄
Without generators the best tactic available for survivors would be to just full stealth until the timer ran out. And not the potentially exciting, oh-man-he-almost-found-me stealth someone might experience while actually being put in risky positions by trying to complete generators. I mean locker hopping, sit in a corner and spam the point emote to prevent afk crows for 15 minutes stealth.
Not to mention that IF the killer finds someone and hooks them they'd have far less reason to leave the hook. And the survivors would have less of a reason to even bother saving them, as it's not like they need the incapacitated pair of hands on the hook on generators or anything. So there's be less reason to actually interact with eachother.
-
Bond and Iron Will for survivor. I like to do little mini-jukes to make distance that iron will allows me to do, and actually being able to be somewhat sneaky if I have to even while injured is nice too. And Bond just gives so much information.
No single perk I have on every single killer but I run Whispers on a lot of them, and on many killers that rely on smacking people with m1 I really like Save The Best For Last.
-
@EvilJoshy said:
What if a survivor is hacking? How do we report them? If its a known hacker you should have the right to refuse to play with them.
I'd assume most ideas like the one proposed in this thread would still make survivors identifiable in-match, even if their more persistent usernames on whatever platform they're playing on were hidden. So you'd have Claudette 1, Dwight 1, Meg 1 and Meg 2 or something like that as anonymous names that still allow players to keep track of what's happening to who during the match and such.
EDIT: Of course that means the whole reporting system would basically have to be changed, as you can't exactly do the "report in game AND submit a ticket" thing.
-
As long as it's only when action is actually taken, and even then it might lead to more waste-of-space reports. This is a game where no matter how many times the devs say otherwise, people still manage to convince themselves camping or voice comms is cheating.
I'd much rather just have a popup on login saying the usual "Action has been taken against a player you reported, thanks <3" message if that's even possible for DBD. It lets people feel like legitimate reports actually do something, and miiiight teach people that their bs reports are a waste of time if they report 30 people for camping and never get the popup 😄
-
@snozer said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1219524#Comment_1219524
Tell this to survivors using discord to gain unfair advantages.
But what they said applies perfectly to that as well though.
Someone can use the tool of voice comms for griefing, but it's not inherently griefing. And if you believe it is and/or insist it's cheating or something despite being explicitly allowed and endorsed (the official DBD discord has voice chat rooms for SWF parties, doesn't it?) then your mindset is inherently incompatible with the mindset of the developers themselves.
-
@CLAUDETTEINABUSH said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1219557#Comment_1219557
Nah don't worry I'm cool. I also believe that the survivors can do whatever they want, but I advice them to help their teammates, that's all. I see teabagging as phycological war between the survivor and the killer, so that the killer can focus them instead of the survivor's team. Is my mindset "healthy"? XD
Sounds perfectly fine to me, you actually have the mindset you're talking about in which case you can clearly both dish it out and take it 👍️
-
As long as someone that goes with this mindset doesn't complain if their opponent(s) do stuff that they don't like to them as well, there's no issue.
But far too often that's not how it works. People find all sorts of straight up ascended ways to convince themselves that approach only applies to "their side", while on the other side all sorts of "toxic" or "sweaty" things that break no rules whatsoever shouldn't be allowed or justifies all sorts of cringy vigilante justice.
-
@GhostofYharnam said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1218411#Comment_1218411
I agree anytime i've face iri head huntress shes loaded to the brim. Noed, bbq, devour hope, corrupt or ruin and ebony mori. Tends to proxy camp and tunnel the person on hook. Had one try that and the person jumped in a locker ds the huntress and 2 gens popped and the huntress rq.
Actually yeah, that sort of build is strangely common. Builds with as many instadowns as possible, even ones that don't really make that much sense on Huntress normally (haunted grounds for example). At which point I guess it might just be some themed instadown build more than anything 😄
-
Killer: BBQ
Survivor: Bond
-
I just find it kinda boring, just like most items/addons that boil down to "you just do the thing better". Toolboxes are boring because they just make a bar fill up faster, charge speed addons are boring because they just make you charge something faster. Say what you want about stuff like flashlights and a lot of Doc and Hag addons, they either make unique mechanics available or allow you to specialize your power in some direction instead.
Besides I feel at least some of the hatred is related to an association with an entire loadout or playstyle. Most Leatherface players I run into nowadays either run standard m1 builds or PWYF/Nemesis, but he still has that association with insidious camping. As anecdotal as it is, when I do run into iri heads it's disproportionately common that they're combined with an ebony mori and a playstyle that would be commonly considered unfun to face like hardcore mori tunneling and a general "playing for salt" feel to it - a sorta "I'm mad and taking it out on you guys" loadout and mindset.
Make it not stack with infantry belt and give it an innate reload speed bonus or something. A more serious "high risk high reward" design like that would at least be kinda interesting, and it would be hilarious to see lightspeed reload with that + deerskin gloves + iron maiden 😄
-
Same as I said in the "fun killer" thread, don't play with making someone else mad as your primary objective.
And I'd also like to add the good old "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" to my previous statement, as that's like.. the least any player can do to avoid being an enormous hypocrite.
-
Team Fortress 2, Paladins and Escape from Tarkov for the most part.
Overwatch, Call of Duty Warzone, CS:GO and Left 4 Dead 1/2 whenever friends propose it and I feel like it.
And if you count them even though they're not exclusively online games but they are fun in multiplayer, plenty of strategy games. Like Civ 5/6, various Paradox titles like Europa Universalis 4 and Crusader Kings 2 and so on.
-
@elvangulley said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1216820#Comment_1216820
Killers Payed for the game just like everybody else they deserve to have a fun fair game to comms take all the fun out of the game because are so powerful they cancel out killers powers strategies perks and addons the game wasn't meant for them and isn't balanced for them an entire part of the player base shouldn't have to suffer so some streamer can make money off of them and they aren't sharing any of it why cant they stream in solo where thry aren't cheating besides most streamers are toxic and bullies anyway so no their job isn't that important to me if it means rampant cheating in happening sorry not sorry
Yeah, killers paid for a multiplayer game that has an element of team play.
In a game like that there will be people playing and communicating with eachother no matter the game or its genre, it's really that simple. If you disagree with that there's no nicer way to put it than tell you to stick to symmetrical games or singleplayer/co-op games where it has less balance implications.
-
Just make moris require a different survivor to be hooked before the first survivor hooked can be mori'd. So if you hook survivor A, you gotta hook survivor B, C or D before you can mori A after they get unhooked. Not as "restrictive" as requiring everyone to be hooked or death hook, but directly attacks mori tunneling as the killer at least has to interact with another survivor first.
Keys I'm not too sure, the hatch-opening will remain as there's achievements related to them. Switch skeleton key and dull key roles, but dull key can't open the hatch and instead has a lot of "charges" for the aura addons. Opening the hatch isn't instant so it can't be used mid-chase or anything.
Don't see how NOED is related to the two above to be honest. Just add a global sound when a dull totem is broken, still have to pay some attention unlike an on-screen totem counter but makes it easier to avoid the annoying "I broke 4 dulls and don't know if the last one is just really hidden or broken!" situation.
-
No matter if it'd be balanced mechanical debuffs like action speed decrease would feel like punishment and disincentivization of party play, and that's in direct conflict with the firmly established expectation of being able to play and talk to other people without such handicaps in multiplayer gaming in general. In other words don't think a change like this has any chance of ever being implemented.
Stuff like SWF indicators before/after games, BP/XP bonuses or whatever and base game changes (this is where the "buff solos and killers" approach lies) at least have a non-zero probability of even being considered by the devs.
-
There's an established expectation of being able to play with and talk to people without anything that even feels like mechanical "punishment" or disincentivization in modern multiplayer games involving any form of team play. An expectation as established as that isn't something many devs would want to mess with, for a very good and understandable reason.
There's a reason it's very rare to see any approach to balancing party play that doesn't come down to one or a combination of:
- Seperate queues (usually solo queue and "mixed" queue)
- Party size restrictions between ranked/casual modes or even specific rank (brackets)
- Just putting voice chat in the game to begin with so everyone has the option
- Acknowledging an advantage by trying to match parties vs parties whenever possible even in the "mixed" queues
And that's because most other approaches go against that expectation. Just because a game is an assymetrical one doesn't allow it to escape that expectation.
Doesn't mean nothing can be done, but it yeets many things straight off the table and into the nearest trashcan. Things like removing the option of party play or trying to interfere with VOIP.
-
Hatch is here to stay and it's just a disconnect in a specific situation working like any other disconnect.
It's better and actually has a non-zero chance of ever being done to change how DCs themselves work. They should work as if the survivor died on a hook in all ways, including the hatch not opening instantly but instead being delayed by as long as it takes for someone to go through the sacrifice animation.
I personally like the idea of people that DC simply being teleported to a basement hook and the sacrifice animation starting, honestly 😄
-
Don't explicitly "play for salt" and... yeah, that's pretty much it. I'm not very demanding 😄
That's directed at players in general and not just killers of course.
-
@coppersly said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1215742#Comment_1215742
Yo, actually, that is a pretty solid idea. Still almost as strong and it's like BBQ that rewards you for going after someone else (well in this case won't let you do it until you get someone else lol), while also preventing the toxic instant rescue->mori problem.
My only concern is it's kind of convoluted and isn't exactly the easiest thing to put for instructions in a game like this. Other than that though that's actually the first good idea for a Mori nerf I've seen in a very very long time.
Yeah not too sure how to describe it in a quick and easy way that would fit an in-game description, but I still think it's at least an attempt at a "compromise". I think mori-tunneling is a genuinely problematic thing and it's my #1 problem with moris as whole, but I don't have some sort of problem with moris existing in the first place or anything like that.
-
@coppersly said:
I would love for you to come up with a way to nerf current Moris and have them still be useful.
The most requested change for them I see is to only work on last hook, but that literally defeats the purpose of the Mori which is to quickly kill a survivor instead of going through 3 hook phases. So you're gonna have to make them more useful than that to be useable after.
My more "conservative" idea is to require any other survivor to be hooked before the last person that got hooked can be mori'd. So if survivor A gets hooked, no matter what happens they can't be killed until survivor B, C or D has been hooked once. The only purpose of this idea is to prevent the hook -> stay sorta near hook -> tunnel -> mori situation that a lot of people hate - the killer has to go hook someone else first if they want to mori someone off their first hook.
Would you consider that still useful? Still faster than 3 hooks but I feel it would just "feel" at least a little bit less unfun and demotivating.
-
Funniest escape was probably a killer that followed me and nodded at me while near the hatch.. then I got up with unbreakable and managed to get out before they could react. Judging by how they said straight up bannable stuff ALL CAPS in post-game chat I don't think letting me escape was their plan.
Funniest down/kill will forever be that time where I had one hatchet left as Huntress, and just for the hell of it I threw it completely randomly. Over a rock and out of LOS, and bam - there was an injured Meg there. I'd really love to see their reaction to that one, and I really wish I had something like shadowplay installed at the time.
-
I agree... but specifically and only for the speed limiter addon because why not 😄
-
I play pretty much all of them depending on what I feel like, but my top 3 favorites will probably always be Huntress, Trapper and... 3rd slot is sort of on rotation actually, at the moment it's Hag and sometimes it's Doctor, Wraith or Nurse.
No particular reason, I've always played them all and I've just figured out they're the ones I enjoy the most 👍️
-
There's no such thing as a robbed kill, or robbed escape for that matter. Until you've killed a survivor or they've escaped it's not "your kill" or their escape respectively, unless something isn't working as intended. And DS is working as its implementation describes for better or for worse, whether it sticks to its intended purpose is a seperate discussion where many agree it could use some sort of smartly designed deactivation conditions.
How exactly would you implement a way to tell who has DS and who doesn't? Depending on how such a system worked it could paint a big "tunnel me!" sign on a specific survivor from the start of the match, something I doubt the devs have any interest in implementing considering old Dying Light was changed from a state with the same issue.
I just really don't think that's the way to go, and the often discussed path of trying to prevent it from being used more "aggressively" while active is a better solution.
-
I guess my usual playstyle leans more towards points and indirectly emblems than anything else, as I just want to interact with survivors while playing killer.
I want to chase, I want to outplay and get outplayed, that's my primary goal. It manifests in some clear ways as for example even at endgame I'll fish for hook trades over just camping someone to death for 1 kill, I'd much rather get 2 more hooks in and more gameplay even if they all escape in the end. Does it make me lose sometimes? Sure, but I enjoy the game more that way and feel like I improve.
Not sure what to call it, but I mostly play the game to have interesting chases.
-
It's clear that they don't want to make too many changes at once as there's so many things that are connected in all sorts of ways, so when it comes to changes to base design or balance I doubt we'll ever see an attempt at a big hail mary patch with all sorts of changes. Unexpected and undesirable effects might suddenly be discovered, and they can't always be caught on the PTB and tweaked to a better state in time.
Totally agree with stuff like accessibility settings, rank/devotion rewards, prestige and so on. Especially accessibility settings, even if colourblind mode or something ends up technically giving even those without colourblindness some sort of advantage it'll give the players with colourblindness way more for example.
-
"New" rank reset (if you're rank 4 you get reset to rank 5 for example, you just go down one rank colour) + the usual matchmaking issues means that it doesn't really do that much. You're likely to get very similar matches as before reset, with maybe a very slight difference in frequency.
-
Yeah, you can't really tell people to just stop complaining as that's not how it works at all.
And depending on what you mean by doing something about SWF you might never ever see it happen. There's an expectation in modern multiplayer games of being able to talk to the people you play with if you want with no restrictions or "punishment", and this expectation is so firmly entrenched that it's quite simply gonna override balance concerns.
Maybe if the game chased a more esports-like competitive identity we'd see stuff like seperate queues or a max party size of 2 in certain ranks, but with its current identity I'd be extremely surprised if anything "beyond" SWF indicators or progression bonuses for the killers in games vs SWF was implemented. I can't see anything that even feels like punishment or disincentivization ever getting implemented.
-
Of course not, it's ridiculous to begin with to call an outfit "toxic".
-
@johnmwarner said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1208751#Comment_1208751
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1209250#Comment_1209250
Fair point, I have a “code,” I follow but it’s entirely self imposed and if it screws me over because the other side is “toxic,” then I’m still okay with it.
As killer I won’t tunnel, because when I play survivor I know that getting like 30 seconds of actual play time before being tunneled off hook and modi’s stinks.
As survivor I don’t sit at exit gates when it’s clearly over, because as killer I hate those few wasted moments of people forcing me to walk to the gate so I can see them leave and teabag.
Oh yeah in general there's nothing wrong with having rules for yourself at all. I'm the same, I'd much rather go for more hits and hooks than camp out a kill, and I'll happily die to make someone else escape.
The issue is when people try to force their personal rules on others afterall.
-
I'd imagine if there was another way to see if there was SWF people wouldn't mind profiled being hidden. I personally don't care even about that but a lot of people do.
Yes, some people go further than that and try to figure out if someone's going to be "too good" from their profiles or make cringy out-of-match rivalries (having eachother on "mori lists" and "bm lists") but I'd imagine the vast majority of people mostly care about the SWF thing. Even though that's not even reliable as it's way more common than it used to to have an entirely or partially private profile for all sorts of people.
-
I honestly just go by the good old "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
People can play however they want, but if they play in an "unfun" or "toxic" way and then cry when their opponent(s) do the same they're not getting even the tiniest bit of sympathy from me. The one thing I would like to ask is for people to avoid playing with "make others mad" as an actual primary motivation, call it griefing or "playing for salt" you know exactly what I mean.
But I'm not ever actually going to say anything like that to another player, because all of this stuff is subjective. I probably have a very restrictive use of words like "toxic" and "griefing" and meanwhile there's people that seem to think staying near a hook when there's 3 survivors swarming it or having the conscious thought of clicking the SWF button on the main menu is inherently toxic and "playing for salt" so... 😂
-
If anything the potential differences in mechanical "ability" you're talking about wouldn't be too much of an issue in DBD, as it's assymetrical. It's not like a FPS where someone playing a hitscan headshotty character/weapon with keyboard + mouse goes against someone using the same loadout but on a controller.
Potential performance issues could very much be a problem though.
-
I assume you can just follow the instructions on how you did it in the first place, but put in a "normal" resolution with a "normal" aspect ratio instead like 1920x1080 or whatever you want.
This goes for any game, but always make sure to make backups of stuff like .ini files before changing them, just in case something breaks or to more easily revert to "vanilla" settings if you do more complex changes to the files.
-
With changes to the addons to actually make them make sense as they'd no longer be part of a rarity-based balancing philosophy? Sure.
No changes at all and instead free access to buy add-ons that might only be allowed to exist because they're "rare" (even though that's a flawed concept when talking about experienced players, but that's a completely different discussion)? No thanks.
And for me it'd probably be mostly gel dressings for my medkits, oak hafts for my huntress (if I somehow used up my stash, it's just my favorite addon "family" in the game) and windstorms for Wraith if no changes were made to the addons themselves.
-
It's possible, and depending on a lot of factors it can be tricky for automated anticheat systems to detect as well. It's a neverending arms race between cheat developers and anticheat developers.
But unless it's actually detected DBD is a game where it's sort of impossible to be sure that someone cheats in the more "subtle" ways ("wallhacks"/ESP cheats for example). It could be perks, it could be their settings making someone stick out like a sore thumb in a hiding place they thought they were invisible, or it could quite simply be dumb luck.
-
Seemingly "random" camping certainly does exist and it can be for a variety of reasons. Might be a killer that doesn't know it can make them lose because they come from lower ranks, someone genuinely "playing for salt" or some sort of personal grudge against the player or other reasons for that matter. Just because it can be punished and countered doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it doesn't seem like that's what you're talking about.
I do agree that people throw a lot of terms around when they don't make any sense though.
-
@BloodyBunny said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1205728#Comment_1205728
Arent people claiming fortnite is dying now though besides dead by Daylight is a more niche genre than fortnite and fortnite is free as well so you dont have to pay anything to start playing
Yeah, because for some bizarre reason it always works. It always makes people defensive and angry no matter how absurd of a claim it might be for the game in question.
It's honestly an "issue" exacerbated by the reliance on matchmaking systems in every game nowadays, at least on PC. With a server browser even games with like 600-800 global players can be easily playable as the players in each region can just concentrate into a handful of servers.
-
You can't do that though, for reasons already explained.
It might be a bitter pill to swallow to some, but the expectation of being able to talk to people while playing with them without restriction is so firmly established in gaming that it will completely override any balance concerns it might bring up. Trying to interfere with it would not only be extremely unpopular and considered an invasive thing to do by many players, it's also impossible to actually enforce as it can be circumvented, and I'm sorta doubtful that Steam, Microsoft, Sony or any others would be too keen on even letting a dev block their own built-in chat functions in the first place nowadays.
There's a reason that outside of rare and sorta experimental cases like the aforementioned Search and Destroy example in some COD games messing with voice chat is not the way games go. Assymetrical games are a special challenge for sure, but even in their case that firmly established expectation isn't going to budge in the name of balance, ever.
-
But any game with less players than Fortnite is clearly dead 🙃
-
Do keep in mind the lag part might very well be sheer ignorance, as on their end it probably looked perfectly normal besides you guys acting strangely and seemingly having poor connection times. They might think you're someone that just goes "guuuuh dedicated!" after getting hit through a vault spot in a normal way.
But I have certainly seen players I have no idea how I get matched with unless they VPN. I'm in EU and their steam profile says China, Brazil or something like that, all their friends and groups are in the language of the region they claim to be from and yet I get matched with them and it's obvious they play over half a second (or more) in the past/future.