Why I agree that kills are the biggest indicator of skill
A really hot topic I see right now is about MMR and that it's not working or that basing it off of just kills is a bad idea. Well I actually agree with the devs in that kills are the biggest indicator of skill. Not the only indicator, but the biggest.
So a big argument I see against this is that hooks actually matter more than kills. Well do they really? I totally get that 8 hooks with 0 kills doesn't mean you're terrible at the game but if you can't actually get the kills, you can't get the kills. At some point you have to decide a hard win condition. Is this the goal of the game to get X amount of hooks or X amount of kills? Well I think basing it around X amount of hooks is not a good idea. The reason for this is because you are a killer trying to KILL people, not just hook them a couple times and then have them escape in your face. I saw a streamer say that 8 hooks with 0 kills should be considered a tie. Really? 4 survivors walking through the exit gates is a tie? You were a very bad killer in this killing horror game if you can tie while letting 4 people escape.
Let's take other competitive games as examples like fighting games. In Street Fighter or Tekken if you get your opponent to 10% health but die it's not a tie, you died. There has to be a a hard win condition, it's not based around how much health you've taken off. You can still be a good player while getting 8 hooks but if you can't secure the win well there is an issue there.
Another argument I've seen is how could a Bubba that got 3 kills by camping and tunneling be better than a Nurse who got 9 hooks but only 2 kills. This goes back to the first part of what I was talking about. If you're a Nurse and can't out kill the average Bubba well I'm sorry you just aren't a good Nurse. If you can secure the same amount of hooks but less kills it's because you didn't play as smart, that's it. I don't understand how people can totally agree with something like Otzdarva's 50 wins condition which is based on kills, not hooks, but then disagree with kills being used as the main metric for SBMM. It's a logical leap that doesn't make any sense to me.
The last thing I want to say is that MMR is totally working. There are so many logical fallacies about this and I just really want to clear it up. Even on these forums I see people all day say that MMR doesn't actually work right next to posts about how the game is so much more challenging now (mostly as killers). So which is it? Is MMR not working or are your games much harder than the old ranking system? You can't have it both ways. Even Otzdarva said that he couldn't get 50 wins in a row anymore, it's just too hard. The SBMM system is definitely inconsistent but it is definitely working, I know basically everybody is having a harder time as killer and if you aren't, well you're just a god player I guess because even Otz is having a harder time. Long post, I know.
Comments
-
So someone isn't good with Nurse because they get 2 kills with 9 hooks in one game? That's not a good argument.
30 -
You admit yourself that it's not the only indicator of skill, yet it is what the system is based on, That's what I and many others have issues with.
Also, I sincerely hope the backfill fix is going to do something, 'cause getting matched with <20h players consistently is getting real tiring. That alone makes me unable to say "sbmm is working".
6 -
Anyone with a pulse can take lethal pursuer on bubba, down a guy in 30 seconds, camp him out and still have time to NOED slap somebody on the way out. 2 hooks 2 kills, gg ez get gud do bones etc.
This system exists precisely because BHVR cant develop a system that has nuance or understands context.
26 -
No, the fact that they can't out kill a Bubba is why they'd be a bad Nurse.
1 -
Ok, if you're downing a survivor in 30 seconds with Bubba you are going against terrible survivors.
0 -
i can literally go and facecamp one guy to death, run Corrupt Intervention + Deadlock + No Way Out + NOED and get at least one more guaranteed kill that way.
am i a skilled player now?
am i better than that Hillbilly who hit sick curves around loops, only killed one person but had everyone else on deathhook?
17 -
So your problem should be with face camping being too powerful. If it's easy to be better than a Hillbilly who didn't camp then we should do something about face camping cuz I agree with that.
3 -
... so you are saying that because facecamping is so strong and easy to do, kills are not a good indicator for skill currently?
9 -
Just touching on that last part there with the MMR system totally working thing.
Didn't the lead game designer also say that currently the system will match players together EVEN if it knows (or predicts) that the killer will lose that match, because of backfill issues and prioritizing queue times over fair MM.
5 -
Yes and they're fixing that. I did say that it was inconsistent because it totally is. Sometimes I destroy survivors when I probably wasn't supposed to.
0 -
No I'm saying that face camping is too strong and needs to be mitigated somehow (possibly with a basekit BT?).
0 -
So tunneling and camping are skillful? After all, a killer that tunnels one survivor the entire match and gets only 3 hooks on said survivor is way better than one who got 8 hooks and not a single kill because he wanted to play in a more enjoyable way according to you.
5 -
It shouldn't be but in the current meta it is. In tournaments the best strategy is to camp and tunnel. It is the most skillful play you can make sometimes but it shouldn't be cuz it's lame.
0 -
alright listen, you're gonna have to pick your poison here.
A: facecamping is too simple and easy to do, therefore kills alone dont actually say anything about an individuals skill level
B: kills are a great factor at determining an individuals skill level and therefore playing in the way i described above is actually very skillfull.
you cant have it both ways.
11 -
So why do you believe kills are a good measure of skill then? If killers are "doing terrible" by 2 hooking everyone before killing, then should every killer just aim to tunnel survivors out of the game to be skillful?
7 -
Face camping is too simple and easy to do but kills are more important than hooks. In my ideal balance scenario camping would be punished harder than it currently is, it's just a problem with the game but in general kills are worth more than hooks.
0 -
In the current balance and meta yes you should aim to kill survivors in any way you can, be it camping, tunneling, or not at all. However you achieve it is valid.
0 -
I think the issue here is calling it 'skillful', it's very efficient, but I wouldn't call that the most skillful thing you can do in this game.
If you look at the survivor equivalent of repairing gens as fast as the game allows it and avoiding the killer at all costs, I wouldn't call that very skillful either, but very efficient and smart.
7 -
No, the hillbilly is clearly better.
That said, despite them calling it skill based matchmaking (horrible name) it is first and foremost a matchmaking tool.
Should the 2hook 2 k facecamper face weaker survivors? Or should they face stronger ones?
3 -
I guess in the same way as completely styling on your opponent in Tekken but still losing while your opponent sits and does the most boring strats of all time. At the end of the day a win is a win and if it's too easy to "win" in dbd then there are loads of other issues.
Your problem is that face camping and tunneling is too easy of a strategy that gives undeserved kills. I agree with that, it should be based less around camping and tunneling.
0 -
I definitely agree with you.
0 -
A Bubba will get at least 1 Kill guaranteed. Possibly a 2K with NOED. If a Killer gets 8 Hooks but 0 Kills, they are worse than a Bubba who just facecamped?
3 -
Well, comparing an asymmetrical cat and mouse game to a 1vs1 fighting game designed with competitiveness in mind is just wrong, but what you can compare is facecamping which almost doesn't require any button inputs vs actually playing the game.
2 -
well, in theroy a 2 / 2 outcome is considered a draw and therefore their opponents shouldnt get any weaker or stronger.
but nontheless, yes i do think someone that plays like that should have their game counted as a loss for them and move down in their matchmaking rating.
but due to how MMR works, that is literally not a punishment, because you dont get anything for actually getting a high rating, so in return there is also nothing you'd miss out on when you dont get it, which makes you not want to level up in the first place - which is another glaring design flaw i think this system has.
4 -
My solution to this is to make face camping as Bubba less rewarding. I think everyone can agree with that. Because at this point yes, you can "win" too easily using some strats.
1 -
Killing is not skillful. Hooking is not skillful. Doing Generators is not skillful. There's almost nothing "skillful" about the winning conditions of this game, the only way you can showcase skill in this game is during a chase, and chasing isn't even that hard
1 -
Yeah I can agree with that, and they did say they want camping to be less appealing for killers, but as almost everything else they say, it's coming soon™.
2 -
You can tunnel and camp and get more kills with one or two hooks than a killer that gets 8 hooks.
So, yes, hooks are higher skill than kills because it's the one vs. one that counts and kills are totally controlled by the killer.
Plus kills over hooks promotes the aforementioned camping and tunneling which is not fair on whichever survivor is unlucky enough to be first.
3 -
I can get behind this. At the end of the day a lot about "winning" isn't totally about skill but that's just a huge problem with the design of the game itself.
0 -
Well true, it does suck for the survivor that is being camped and tunneled but that's due to the design of the game itself, currently camping is too rewarding for killer and should be changed.
0 -
Well that's a very subjective opinion, but being as we have to deal with this 'skill based' match making system, it should at least be based around the most skillful thing there is and not something that rudimentary in my opinion.
0 -
Camping isn't that rewarding by itself. It's the altruism of the Survivors that rewards camping
0 -
Kills without context are meaningless to the point that it was abandoned once already.
One of the first ranked systems was almost entirely kill/escape based and it was reworked because the devs themselves admitted that kills don't indicate skill.
So I fully expect this system to get trashed here sooner or later just like it was before.
I am not mad at the current MMR more disappointed that the developers learned nothing from trying this before.
3 -
It takes nearly no gaming prowess to camp a hook as Bubba, and if he kills 4 inexperienced players in a basement insidious play, whilst a similar level of players take on each other with Trapper as killer and he gets 3k, are we going to be saying the insidious Bubba is a better player? The Trapper made more effort, whilst Bubba basically had the DBD equivalent of a fishing trip.
It's a specific pair of scenarios , but I can't see how in that case a Bubba can be seen as more skillful. And in that case there are other areas where kills vs hooks isn't clear-cut.
3 -
I've said this a couple times in previous replies but I think that camping as Bubba should not be as rewarding as it currently is. Also if survivors are falling for Insidious Bubba then you are going against bad survivors.
0 -
That's why I think people are saying what's skill and what isn't.
Basing MMR on kills instead of hooks, would only promote more face camping and tunneling, getting more and more boring matches and eventually making players on both sides leave.
If all killers camp and tunnel to level up, they'll get to a point where they only find those survivors that are never caught and great at chases, leading to frustration from the killer (and leaving behind a good amount of pissed off survivors because they were the chosen ones over and over again and couldn't actually play) , I don't know, I'm tired.
But I don't think is a good idea overall.
I'd hate to hear the typical "get good" from either side, but we are not DBD gods out there and some would like to have a chance at playing than dying on first hook.
2 -
Well yes and no. If you just down someone in a somewhat timely manner, face camp them to death, and then squeeze out another camped kill with NOED after the gens finish you could theoretically tie even with 0 survivor altruism.
0 -
Anyone can camp and tunnel and get kills, that does NOT mean you are good or have any skill. Anyone can just do gens or hide around the map and escape. That's not skill
0 -
In a perfect balancing scenario we would have the game be based around kills but make camping (at least with Bubba) less rewarding for the killer. Then we would have a healthier game. It's too limiting to base the game around hooks but keep face camping as rewarding as it is. We should move forward with the balance, not keep it the way it is.
2 -
It does mean "bad" survivors, which is why I gave the example of both scenarios from a new player perspective. But I do feel slugging and face-camping are easier tactics to use. I admit, as killer, I've experimented earlier on with slugging and camping, and it's easier than playing fairly. This is why I cannot agree with the claim that more kills = better skill.
0 -
When I play Tombstone Myers, I like to keep the worse survivors alive and mori the people who make my life hard
Sometimes the ones who live are the ones who dont deserve it. But they get to escape due to killers psychology and mental state. A Feng who hops with her cute lil hoodie will always tame me meanwhile a Steve will always be crushed.
Surviving isnt a good indication of skill in a game like this.
1 -
I fail to see how 8-hooking the survivor team at 5 gens and then deciding to mercy them because they're obviously babies, or looping the killer for 6 minutes and then dying to a facecamp while your teammates mill around scared, or getting 1 hook all game but copping 3 kills with NOED due to altruism, or playing well and then intentionally getting yourself killed in endgame collapse in order to get another teammate out the gate, show accurate renditions of skill with the kill/escape method.
Most of the cases where kills accurately reflect skill, the hook count/survival time/match time/things done in the match also follows up on that data. Yeah, if I kill everyone on first hook 1 minute and a half in, I clearly outskilled the other team, but you don't need to only look at 4 kills to know that. You can supplement that data with the speed of my chases. The amount of hooks I got versus the amount of time I spent chasing was super high. Meanwhile, let's say I have a game where 4 survivors escape and I got 6 hooks. If the game lasted 5 minutes, then I didn't really have enough time to catch survivors and my time-per-hook ratio's still looking pretty fair. If the game lasted 15 minutes, then I didn't perform well and I should lose more MMR than I would in the first scenario. Same as if I play survivor and die in three minutes after going down 10 seconds into each of my chases, versus if I die after having several 1-2 minute chases. Survivor in particular needs to look at match proficiency more closely because living or dying is so dependent on your teammates' performance, not just yours; it's very easy to end up in unwinnable situations through no fault of your own.
Meanwhile, I would argue that yes, the 3-hook 3-kill Bubba is much less skilled than the Nurse who gets 2 kills and 9 hooks. Partly because Bubba is way easier to play effectively than Nurse, but mainly because he's using a cheesy strategy that takes extremely little effort or know-how and the Nurse is essentially hard-moding herself by hooking evenly. Certainly the Nurse has won more chases (and avoided more potential saves, if applicable) than the Bubba has.
SBMM currently enforces that people should play cutthroat as hell (camp, tunnel, let your teammates die to save yourself), and that that's what equates to being good at the game. That's not a good thing for player enjoyment.
4 -
Well then you're purposely limiting yourself and that's not a good indication of actual skill or balance, if you were playing normally where you actually care about winning then you wouldn't keep certain survivors alive.
1 -
MMR isn't just about your own skill but also the skill of your opponents. If the killer tunnels and camps to get kills they should verse survivors who are better able to counter those strategies. In addition to that, Bubba specifically needs a mechanic overhaul to fix the fact that he can use low effort plays for him that are very difficult to counter for survivors to overcome.
2 -
Alright, Nurse is on Mother’s Dwelling while camping Bubba is on Wretched Shop. Disregard the maps, Nurse has to get more kills or they’re automatically bad. I really just don’t understand your logic.
3 -
Kills by themselves don't mean much
Hooks by themselves don't mean much
But if they put them together.... then who knows
0 -
You can whack off a 4k with ONE singular hook if you are lucky enough. That has NO skill to do if you can accomplish it.
4 kills, 5 hooks, all gens completed is worth more than 2 kills, 10 hooks, 1 gen completed by the 'Kills Matter Most' logic.
Kills are not and never will be an indication of skill. An indication of skill would be in how many non-consecutive hooks you can perform (I.E. not tunneling) while still getting 8+ hooks in a match.
0 -
I have to disagree. Hooks matter. For both killer and survivor.
For example, you WANT to pair up survivors who get hooked the least amount of times with killers who get the most hooks. Why? Because those survivors are amazing at either running or hiding, possibly both, and that killer is amazing at chasing and catching. That's how the system gets balanced out. Kills don't balance anything because some survivors suck at running/hiding, sorry but it's true, and some killers just camp and tunnel right off the hook, which takes no skill. Sorry but it's also true.
Having a system that goes off hooking would probably fix this game. The strongest survivors (best runners/hiders) would actually be paired up with the strongest killers (best chasers/catchers). Getting hooked the least in a game or getting the most hooks means you're really freaking good at the game. It's at least worth trying. It can't be any worse than it feels now.
Edit: I had to add that kills also can't be counted because it's too easy for games to be thrown. Survivors can just give up and let killers kill them, giving them a free pass up the ranks, and Killers can just camp/tunnel one or two people allowing the other survivors to escape, giving them the same free pass even if it wasn't earned. Hooks matter (getting or avoiding them). If anything kills should just add a bonus to hook points.
2 -
For survivor skill in game is not measured at all by how well you escape. Survivor skill is a measure of how well you pressure generators while not being chased and how well you waste the killer's time while being chased.
In what world is one player who runs a killer for 3-4 generators a "bad" player because they got face camped by a killer who didn't like being run around for multiple generators? DBD says they are a bad player because they died. It's archaic, simplistic and honestly quite stupid.
Kills likewise does not represent player skill well. If you get 2 hooks that lead to 2 kills you are not as skillful as someone who has 9 hooks and 2 kills.
3 -
I am so glad that Patrick explained MMR that you can cut out middle of man to figure how good someone is. His description of hooks in DBD being like goals is good analogy. For the killer MMR works as intended.
For survivor, it almost works as intended. the only problem with survivor is that survivor is team game so it needs some team grading. I think if they just made it that if 3 out of 4 survivor escape, the survivor who died to the killer camping the survivor in EGC should get a draw instead of loss.
0
