Why do you risk our safety and not have dedicated servers?
Answers
-
@akbays35 Too many pronouns/acronyms, lol. Which game are you referring to that has a player base that's twice more than... StarCraft 2? Which game has a stable player base? DbD?
If that's what you're trying to say, my point was that it would very quickly not have a stable player base if half the world couldn't actually play the game anymore without getting unplayable levels of lag.
1 -
@Fibijean said:
Short answer: it costs time and money they don't have, because they're prioritising other things. At the end of the day, it's your choice to play the game and put yourself at risk. Legally, the devs aren't responsible for anything that happens to you because of a P2P connection while playing their game. Whether they're ethically responsible, however, is a whole other argument, but people who run businesses tend to give ethics a backseat if there aren't legal ramifications.To be fair, I don't think the devs are heartless monsters. I imagine from their perspective it goes something like "this is a risk to our players, but fixing it requires a lot of time and resources. We need to prioritise making money, because a) if the company goes bankrupt then there's no game at all anymore, and b) we need lots of money to fix this issue".
Yeah, they definetely have money issues...
0 -
@Kilmeran said:
@Jed said:
Ok I have a question for the people here acting like dedicated servers are worse. Why does the newest call of duty game have dedicated servers. Why would a big very popular and competitive online game like that have dedicated servers if they are worse?Not only that, and I like Peanits, but that just smacked of some political double speak.Especially the part on how dedicated servers can be Ddos attacked, but then it takes the game down for everyone.
Yes, it does. But that also means they are attacking the server, itself, not our individual connections. It's an overall inconvenience for being able to play as a whole during an attack, but the player base is also a lot more secure in their personal connections. I repeat: The server is being attacked, not our individual connections or personal networks.
How in the hell someone from BHVR can try to equate one with the other is beyond me.
Dedicated servers are, period, far and above a P2P connection.
No competitive game would even consider a P2P connection, and for good reason.
Every figthing game ever would like to have a word with you. for small scale games (and by that i mean 1v1 i am not sure until which XvX its viable i would say should be ok for 2v2 but above that you are asking for trouble... just ask For Honor)
2 -
Basically you are right, but don't forget that you will have better latency to a server than to another random player in the p2p systemShowMeUrBirb said:@Kilmeran said:
@Peanits said:
Dedicated servers are not such a clear cut best option. Just a couple, for example:1: More lag for killers. Right now, everything is handled on your end. When you should get a hit, you get a hit. With a dedicated server, there's going to be a delay on everything you do. If someone vaults a window and you hit them them, you might not get a hit because by the time that command gets to the server, they're out of range and safe. It's important that the killer is able to consistently get hits, and missing a single one due to lag can buy the survivor a significant amount of time.
I will call this one out. If you're going to run 30-tick servers, then yes. This is why you run 60-tick servers, which is why they are run in FPS games. It's to take that lag to an absolute minimum.
It's also why you run region based servers, otherwise, you run into the other issue you mentioned, which is exactly why Paladins is such a trash game if you're not U.S. based.
I've looked at BHVR as a company at their website. They certainly don't seem to be a small company. It just seems like they'd prefer not to make the necessary investment for servers in DBD.
Ticks work only on server-side. If you're having 200 ping, tick-rate doesn't matter. We already have players with 200-ish ping on P2P connection. Servers would crank this up for them by next 20-50ms.
I'm not an IT tho, I might be wrong.
0 -
@nssBoB said:
@Kilmeran said:
@Jed said:
Ok I have a question for the people here acting like dedicated servers are worse. Why does the newest call of duty game have dedicated servers. Why would a big very popular and competitive online game like that have dedicated servers if they are worse?Not only that, and I like Peanits, but that just smacked of some political double speak.Especially the part on how dedicated servers can be Ddos attacked, but then it takes the game down for everyone.
Yes, it does. But that also means they are attacking the server, itself, not our individual connections. It's an overall inconvenience for being able to play as a whole during an attack, but the player base is also a lot more secure in their personal connections. I repeat: The server is being attacked, not our individual connections or personal networks.
How in the hell someone from BHVR can try to equate one with the other is beyond me.
Dedicated servers are, period, far and above a P2P connection.
No competitive game would even consider a P2P connection, and for good reason.
Every figthing game ever would like to have a word with you. for small scale games (and by that i mean 1v1 i am not sure until which XvX its viable i would say should be ok for 2v2 but above that you are asking for trouble... just ask For Honor)
Yeah, I've heard that on here regarding fighting games. But I'll be honest, I haven't touched a fighting game in 20 years or more, back when I was in my 20s and you went to as video arcade to play them because home versions on Sega or PS1 sucked.
When I think competitive games, I look at MOBAs, shooters, or, hell, even WoW PvP Arenas.
Fighting games aren't even on my radar. My kid plays them. I wasn't even aware they had any sort of comp-scene.
But I understand your point, and will stand corrected in regards to it.
I'm a hero-shooter, MOBA, and MMO player outside of putzing around with DBD. Just from the forums, I'm realizing that my preferred games seem to be different from a lot of others here on the forums. My previous games of the past 6 years or so were MMOs like DCUO, SWTOR, and WoW, Heroes of the Storm for MOBA, and Overwatch and Paladins for hero-shooters, with a little Diablo 3 tossed in for AARPG play.
DBD is my first time trying an asymmetrical game. Not yet sure if I'm sold on the genre.
0 -
@Chrona said:
@Jed said:
@Chrona said:
AppyB said:It doesn't cost that much in relation to what they make to have demdicated servers. Even Friday the 13th has them and that game is dying. It's more than just an ethical responsibility to have them. Otherwise you just end up with a toxic community that goes around ddosing each other. That's not good for the game or the reputation of the company. It's pretty bad that I can no longer play this game with my friends because someone in our group is ddosing me who I have no way of proving and he claims he's being ddosd by me and I highly suspect he will do it to some of my other friends. It's not only fair that they protect the player base, it's a necessity
You do realize that EVERY first party game for every console, as an example, has been peer to peer? Most games are p2p. End of story, really. Only major games made by giant developers have dedicated servers really: unless, for example, its friday the 13th who are lefally prevented from creating ANYTHING else for the game. I mean, if you have literally nothing else you're legally allowed to do...
Also, run a VPN.
Jed said:Ok I have a question for the people here acting like dedicated servers are worse. Why does the newest call of duty game have dedicated servers. Why would a big very popular and competitive online game like that have dedicated servers if they are worse?
First, look at the size of the developer and publishers. Big difference. In order to have decent dedicated servers, they need servers (and enough of them) on, at minimum, every continent. Second, look at players per march. Dbd? 5. CoD? Up to 88?
Also, if dedicated servers are always better no matter what, why do fighting games, for example, actively avoid them?
Yeah I know the COD games have more money backing them and make way more money then DBD.
You say "In order to have decent dedicated servers, they need servers (and enough of them) on, at minimum, every continent."
Um ok.
COD games haven't always had up to 88 players and comparing it or DBD to fighting games is just apples to oranges. Fighting games are mostly 1vs1 and 2d anyways.
But again the main reason (like everyone pretty much keeps saying) is money. Peanits respone seemed to suggest dedicated servers are worse. I on the other hand never said dedicated servers are better. I only question why would any company spend big money to buy and maintain servers if they are worse. The Friday the 13th game added dedicated servers a while back for console players. Why would the makers of F13 spend the money on those servers if it makes the game worse? If a dying game like it (around 500 players or less daily on steam) can afford servers then why not DBD?
For one, again, match size. Even in the "good ol' days" of CoD, the match sizes were typically 8-12 players. That's a good amount more than DbD. Ignoring that, think about function, if every player swapped during a match in CoD, it wouldn't matter. If the killer disconnects, the match ends, period. Why not have the one player the match is pinned on be the host? Plus as far as latency, it wouldn't change much. They need to look at their netcode more than shopping for hundreds or thousands of servers. Laggy people will sstill alag exactly as they are now.
So companies like the ones that make the call of duty games are wasting money using dedicated servers because they are worse? Again....F13th added dedicated servers...a dead or dying game with no future for new content. Why did they add servers for that game if they are worse? Why didnt they just keep it the same way and save money?
0 -
The skill the dbd devs have, they probably would make the server render the game and then complain about cpu usage.
1 -
@Jed said:
@Chrona said:
@Jed said:
@Chrona said:
AppyB said:It doesn't cost that much in relation to what they make to have demdicated servers. Even Friday the 13th has them and that game is dying. It's more than just an ethical responsibility to have them. Otherwise you just end up with a toxic community that goes around ddosing each other. That's not good for the game or the reputation of the company. It's pretty bad that I can no longer play this game with my friends because someone in our group is ddosing me who I have no way of proving and he claims he's being ddosd by me and I highly suspect he will do it to some of my other friends. It's not only fair that they protect the player base, it's a necessity
You do realize that EVERY first party game for every console, as an example, has been peer to peer? Most games are p2p. End of story, really. Only major games made by giant developers have dedicated servers really: unless, for example, its friday the 13th who are lefally prevented from creating ANYTHING else for the game. I mean, if you have literally nothing else you're legally allowed to do...
Also, run a VPN.
Jed said:Ok I have a question for the people here acting like dedicated servers are worse. Why does the newest call of duty game have dedicated servers. Why would a big very popular and competitive online game like that have dedicated servers if they are worse?
First, look at the size of the developer and publishers. Big difference. In order to have decent dedicated servers, they need servers (and enough of them) on, at minimum, every continent. Second, look at players per march. Dbd? 5. CoD? Up to 88?
Also, if dedicated servers are always better no matter what, why do fighting games, for example, actively avoid them?
Yeah I know the COD games have more money backing them and make way more money then DBD.
You say "In order to have decent dedicated servers, they need servers (and enough of them) on, at minimum, every continent."
Um ok.
COD games haven't always had up to 88 players and comparing it or DBD to fighting games is just apples to oranges. Fighting games are mostly 1vs1 and 2d anyways.
But again the main reason (like everyone pretty much keeps saying) is money. Peanits respone seemed to suggest dedicated servers are worse. I on the other hand never said dedicated servers are better. I only question why would any company spend big money to buy and maintain servers if they are worse. The Friday the 13th game added dedicated servers a while back for console players. Why would the makers of F13 spend the money on those servers if it makes the game worse? If a dying game like it (around 500 players or less daily on steam) can afford servers then why not DBD?
For one, again, match size. Even in the "good ol' days" of CoD, the match sizes were typically 8-12 players. That's a good amount more than DbD. Ignoring that, think about function, if every player swapped during a match in CoD, it wouldn't matter. If the killer disconnects, the match ends, period. Why not have the one player the match is pinned on be the host? Plus as far as latency, it wouldn't change much. They need to look at their netcode more than shopping for hundreds or thousands of servers. Laggy people will sstill alag exactly as they are now.
So companies like the ones that make the call of duty games are wasting money using dedicated servers because they are worse? Again....F13th added dedicated servers...a dead or dying game with no future for new content. Why did they add servers for that game if they are worse? Why didnt they just keep it the same way and save money?
AGAIN, I will mention how match size is one of the biggest components. The fewer players there are playing a game, the less connections there are overall, and the less that a dedicated server is truly needed. CoD games have twice as many up to more than ten times as many players in a match than dead by daylight does: they need dedicated servers because so many people are playing. Also, P2P has no distinct benefit for them, because each player is exactly the same, no one has a special role. Again, games that specifically have very few players, 1v1, 2v2, etc, specifically don't use dedicated servers because it would increase latency more often than not for so few players.
The Friday the 13th game has 8 players in a match. 3 more than dead by daylight, and that does justify the need of dedicated servers. Beyond that they did P2P in a very dumb way: one of the councilors was the host, not jason. Meaning if THEY quit, the match would end, period. So dedicated servers is two birds, one stone for them. It puts the responsibility of being the host off of one of the less important players, and the server can better handle the larger number of connections. 3 may not sound like a large increase, but connections are exponential, remember.
And yes, in some ways, dedicated servers could be worse. For one, let's say that they only build the servers in america. Oh, you aren't in america? Sucks for you, you now have 400+ ping for every single match. And, again, it isn't the "cure-all" that everyone thinks it will be. Laggy people will still lag. They'll still rubber band and teleport. In fact, I would say nothing would change. Plus in his post, he mentioned it may have been a deliberate choice by the developers, using it to enforce the "favor the shooter" type of logic. The logic is that it's worse for someone to feel like something should have hit, but latency/etc says it didn't than for someone to get hit by something that they feel shouldn't have hit. Overwatch was built on that. Specifically, games like the older CoD games and such had a "favor the dodger" logic. Meaning you could pump a dozen rounds into them, but the game could flat out tell you no.
What you want is for them to improve the netcode, not get dedicated servers.
1 -
@Fibijean said:
@akbays35 Too many pronouns/acronyms, lol. Which game are you referring to that has a player base that's twice more than... StarCraft 2? Which game has a stable player base? DbD?If that's what you're trying to say, my point was that it would very quickly not have a stable player base if half the world couldn't actually play the game anymore without getting unplayable levels of lag.
maybe, but considering the ops post, they definitely need better and more secured connections .
0 -
If you have safety concerns you're most likely somebody who has important data on his PC, in other words CEO/High position in a company in which case I say tough luck, nobody will sympathize with you.
1 -
@Chrona said:
@Jed said:
@Chrona said:
@Jed said:
@Chrona said:
AppyB said:It doesn't cost that much in relation to what they make to have demdicated servers. Even Friday the 13th has them and that game is dying. It's more than just an ethical responsibility to have them. Otherwise you just end up with a toxic community that goes around ddosing each other. That's not good for the game or the reputation of the company. It's pretty bad that I can no longer play this game with my friends because someone in our group is ddosing me who I have no way of proving and he claims he's being ddosd by me and I highly suspect he will do it to some of my other friends. It's not only fair that they protect the player base, it's a necessity
You do realize that EVERY first party game for every console, as an example, has been peer to peer? Most games are p2p. End of story, really. Only major games made by giant developers have dedicated servers really: unless, for example, its friday the 13th who are lefally prevented from creating ANYTHING else for the game. I mean, if you have literally nothing else you're legally allowed to do...
Also, run a VPN.
Jed said:Ok I have a question for the people here acting like dedicated servers are worse. Why does the newest call of duty game have dedicated servers. Why would a big very popular and competitive online game like that have dedicated servers if they are worse?
First, look at the size of the developer and publishers. Big difference. In order to have decent dedicated servers, they need servers (and enough of them) on, at minimum, every continent. Second, look at players per march. Dbd? 5. CoD? Up to 88?
Also, if dedicated servers are always better no matter what, why do fighting games, for example, actively avoid them?
Yeah I know the COD games have more money backing them and make way more money then DBD.
You say "In order to have decent dedicated servers, they need servers (and enough of them) on, at minimum, every continent."
Um ok.
COD games haven't always had up to 88 players and comparing it or DBD to fighting games is just apples to oranges. Fighting games are mostly 1vs1 and 2d anyways.
But again the main reason (like everyone pretty much keeps saying) is money. Peanits respone seemed to suggest dedicated servers are worse. I on the other hand never said dedicated servers are better. I only question why would any company spend big money to buy and maintain servers if they are worse. The Friday the 13th game added dedicated servers a while back for console players. Why would the makers of F13 spend the money on those servers if it makes the game worse? If a dying game like it (around 500 players or less daily on steam) can afford servers then why not DBD?
For one, again, match size. Even in the "good ol' days" of CoD, the match sizes were typically 8-12 players. That's a good amount more than DbD. Ignoring that, think about function, if every player swapped during a match in CoD, it wouldn't matter. If the killer disconnects, the match ends, period. Why not have the one player the match is pinned on be the host? Plus as far as latency, it wouldn't change much. They need to look at their netcode more than shopping for hundreds or thousands of servers. Laggy people will sstill alag exactly as they are now.
So companies like the ones that make the call of duty games are wasting money using dedicated servers because they are worse? Again....F13th added dedicated servers...a dead or dying game with no future for new content. Why did they add servers for that game if they are worse? Why didnt they just keep it the same way and save money?
AGAIN, I will mention how match size is one of the biggest components. The fewer players there are playing a game, the less connections there are overall, and the less that a dedicated server is truly needed. CoD games have twice as many up to more than ten times as many players in a match than dead by daylight does: they need dedicated servers because so many people are playing. Also, P2P has no distinct benefit for them, because each player is exactly the same, no one has a special role. Again, games that specifically have very few players, 1v1, 2v2, etc, specifically don't use dedicated servers because it would increase latency more often than not for so few players.
The Friday the 13th game has 8 players in a match. 3 more than dead by daylight, and that does justify the need of dedicated servers. Beyond that they did P2P in a very dumb way: one of the councilors was the host, not jason. Meaning if THEY quit, the match would end, period. So dedicated servers is two birds, one stone for them. It puts the responsibility of being the host off of one of the less important players, and the server can better handle the larger number of connections. 3 may not sound like a large increase, but connections are exponential, remember.
And yes, in some ways, dedicated servers could be worse. For one, let's say that they only build the servers in america. Oh, you aren't in america? Sucks for you, you now have 400+ ping for every single match. And, again, it isn't the "cure-all" that everyone thinks it will be. Laggy people will still lag. They'll still rubber band and teleport. In fact, I would say nothing would change. Plus in his post, he mentioned it may have been a deliberate choice by the developers, using it to enforce the "favor the shooter" type of logic. The logic is that it's worse for someone to feel like something should have hit, but latency/etc says it didn't than for someone to get hit by something that they feel shouldn't have hit. Overwatch was built on that. Specifically, games like the older CoD games and such had a "favor the dodger" logic. Meaning you could pump a dozen rounds into them, but the game could flat out tell you no.
What you want is for them to improve the netcode, not get dedicated servers.
Ok so you ARE saying dedicated servers are worse hehe....gotcha.
Oh and apparently if its 5 players and under then p2p is better....how convenient for your argument hehe.
0 -
@Peanits said:
Dedicated servers are not such a clear cut best option. Just a couple, for example:1: More lag for killers. Right now, everything is handled on your end. When you should get a hit, you get a hit. With a dedicated server, there's going to be a delay on everything you do. If someone vaults a window and you hit them them, you might not get a hit because by the time that command gets to the server, they're out of range and safe. It's important that the killer is able to consistently get hits, and missing a single one due to lag can buy the survivor a significant amount of time.
2: Depending on where you live, more lag in general. Dedicated servers are not everywhere, they're a physical thing. If you like in a far off corner of the world with only a few hundred other players, there's probably not going to be a server there. You'd have a significantly higher ping because of it.
3: DDOS attacks in general. They don't go away, the difference is now when people do it, it knocks the game offline for everyone.
4: It's not as simple as just changing some variables, you'd need to rewrite loads of code to add dedicated servers. That means less content for a while, and probably a huge amount of issues with lag that weren't there before.
That's not to say that they're all bad, but is it worth all the problems that come with it? Probably not. About DDOS attacks though: If someone threatens you with one, please report them in-game. We take stuff like that very seriously, and they will likely receive a permanent ban for doing so. It's a game, there's no reason to threaten people like that. Same goes for any other real life/DOX threats. Just make absolutely sure that you report them in-game, as this will save the chat log for us to review.
(If I’m wrong on one of these, darn) 1) Killer lag should be minimal, and it’s reduce stupid hits on the 4 survivors, I’ve teleported across the map before. That’d never happen again. 2) As long as the servers aren’t butt tier, it won’t be worse than what it is now. 3) Unless their poor servers, they should be able to withstand it. 4) EVen without a new server they need to revise the game. It’s messed up not to, with all the spaghetti code and everything breaking constantly
1 -
@Dudddd said:
A fanboy White knight has appeared, hello fanboy may i eavesdrop into your ridiculous idea to play on a vpn . Why should the customer go through all the hassle to protect their information ? Its like paying for insurance that doesn’t cover you. I understand all logic diminishes when your fanboy senses kicks in you cant control the idiot thoughts spewing from your braincells.Why you ask?... Cause there currently is no dedicated servers. So... What else are you going to do, if you want to play this game? Come on here and say you won't play anymore cause there is no dedicated servers?
No prob. Don't play.
So... If you think someone is doing something malicious to you because your IP is exposed... Play through a VPN.
You can argue and debate it all you want. Come on here and chat it out all you want. However the reality is... There is no dedicated servers.... And from the looks of it... None coming in the near future.
So... What sort of logic is diminishing?... That there is no dedicated servers so fear mongering about not having them... About rarely ever seeing anything about anyone getting DDOS'd... Use VPN if it concerns you so much, or out right not playing the game?... What logic is diminished?... Oh the one where I'm supposed to pretend there is dedicated servers or that the Devs are actually moving forwarded and putting those in place.
If someone is that concerned about having their IP exposed because of the video game...... Then they should get a VPN... Cause almost everything you are doing on the internet is exposing you.
One more point....
OP is worried about their "friend" DDOS'ing themselves and/or their other friends and blaming it on the OP.
So... How is this friend getting the OP's IP address. Please tell me that? Seems kind of weird.... I change my IP address... But my so called "friend" can keep getting it?.... HOW?... So who are their other so called friends? Are they giving the bad actor the OPs IP address?... Seems pretty fishy... and makes the whole post suspect.
But you keep climbing up the dedicated server tree. You never know.. The Devs did change their stance on it once they bought the rights from the publisher and also put in the store. Their firm NO stance changed to a POSSIBILITY stance.
0 -
Jed said:
No, I'm saying that dedicated servers are a tool. And like how hammers are very useful, they can be inappropriate for the job at hand. Sometimes you need a screwdriver. And no, it isn't "convenient" that I think that p2p is likely the better choice in games that have 6 or less players per match, or more, if the matches are particularly short (see splatoon 2).@Chronaservers are always better no matter what, why do fighting games, for examplah I know the COD games have more money backing them and make way more money then DBD.
You say "In order to have decent dedicated servers, they need servers (and enough of them) on, at minimum, every continent."
Um ok.
COD games haven't always had up to 88 players and comparing it or DBD to fighting games is just apples to oranges. Fighting games are mostly 1vs1 and 2d anyways.
But again the main reason (like everyone pretty much keeps saying) is money. Peanits respone seemed to suggest dedicated servers are worse. I on the other hand never said dedicated servers are better. I only question why would any company spend big money to buy and maintain servers if they are worse. The Friday the 13th game added dedicated servers a while back for console players. Why would the makers of F13 spend the money on those servers if it makes the game worse? If a dying game like it (around 500 players or less daily on steam) can afford servers then why not DBD?
For one, again, match size. Even in the "good ol' days" of CoD, the match sizes were typically 8-12 players. That's a good amount more than DbD. Ignoring that, think about function, if every player swapped during a match in CoD, it wouldn't matter. If the killer disconnects, the match ends, period. Why not have the one player the match is pinned on be the host? Plus as far as latency, it wouldn't change much. They need to look at their netcode more than shopping for hundreds or thousands of servers. Laggy people will sstill alag exactly as they are now.
So companies like the ones that make the call of duty games are wasting money using dedicated servers because they are worse? Again....F13th added dedicated servers...a dead or dying game with no future for new content. Why did they add servers for that game if they are worse? Why didnt they just keep it the same way and save money?
AGAIN, I will mention how match size is one of the biggest components. The fewer players there are playing a game, the less connections there are overall, and the less that a dedicated server is truly needed. CoD games have twice as many up to more than ten times as many players in a match than dead by daylight does: they need dedicated servers because so many people are playing. Also, P2P has no distinct benefit for them, because each player is exactly the same, no one has a special role. Again, games that specifically have very few players, 1v1, 2v2, etc, specifically don't use dedicated servers because it would increase latency more often than not for so few players.
The Friday the 13th game has 8 players in a match. 3 more than dead by daylight, and that does justify the need of dedicated servers. Beyond that they did P2P in a very dumb way: one of the councilors was the host, not jason. Meaning if THEY quit, the match would end, period. So dedicated servers is two birds, one stone for them. It puts the responsibility of being the host off of one of the less important players, and the server can better handle the larger number of connections. 3 may not sound like a large increase, but connections are exponential, remember.
And yes, in some ways, dedicated servers could be worse. For one, let's say that they only build the servers in america. Oh, you aren't in america? Sucks for you, you now have 400+ ping for every single match. And, again, it isn't the "cure-all" that everyone thinks it will be. Laggy people will still lag. They'll still rubber band and teleport. In fact, I would say nothing would change. Plus in his post, he mentioned it may have been a deliberate choice by the developers, using it to enforce the "favor the shooter" type of logic. The logic is that it's worse for someone to feel like something should have hit, but latency/etc says it didn't than for someone to get hit by something that they feel shouldn't have hit. Overwatch was built on that. Specifically, games like the older CoD games and such had a "favor the dodger" logic. Meaning you could pump a dozen rounds into them, but the game could flat out tell you no.
What you want is for them to improve the netcode, not get dedicated servers.
Ok so you ARE saying dedicated servers are worse hehe....gotcha.
Oh and apparently if its 5 players and under then p2p is better....how convenient for your argument hehe.
0
