Why I agree that kills are the biggest indicator of skill
Comments
-
I'm almost convinced that you were paid to make this post with how bad your arguments are. Fist off, did you really try to compare DBD to Street Fighter? Not only are those games completely different mechanically, the win conditions are also completely different. It's literally 2 people fighting each other to knock the other one out. It's not one person trying to knock the other person out while the second person spends the entire game trying to dodge and block every attack without hitting back.
As for the Otz argument, you realize he set his own win conditions, right? It wasn't the community agreeing that kills are what determine wins, it was Otz saying he has to get 50 4Ks in a row and people simply accepted that as his win condition.
Nothing you said makes any logical sense. Hell, even your argument that you should be getting kills because you're a Killer doesn't make sense. In DBD the entity feeds off hope, a dead person can't have hope but a person that's hooked can. That's why before Mori's were changed, if you mori'd each survivor after only 1 hook you would get Entity Displeased, because you failed to do your objective properly.
2 -
I find patricks mmr explanation quite wrongly.
MMR should be calculated depending on ur effort in the game. Chases, hooks, gens, healing, chase escapes, flashlight/pallet saves, etc…
So you either have to hook a guy 3 times to gain some.
Or you can stay in a locker until exit gates are opened.
A good killer is so called punished for multiple hooks and effort and hiding survivor is rewarded for literally being useless whole match. And someguy sweating all gens and chases to die at the end is punished aswell.
As they said, it would be an endless paradox that way, where everybody would be high mmr at the end. I doubt it. There it would be balanced out.
tldr; Patrick clearly said, if you play the game for mmr. As killer try to tunnel out and play dirty. As survivor sweat gens asap and escape.
2 -
If MMR doesn't represent skill why are killer mains so upset about it? Because it means you get lobbies with survivors of different skills (considering your logic - bad "stealthy" players rank up, meanwhile godlike players loopers stuck in mmr hell at low-mid ranks), isn't it what you are asking for - unranked dbd
2 -
Killing/surviving objectively are great indicators for skill, and any argument I've ever seen against it was based on some type of misunderstanding or flaw in thought. Abridged version: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2559015/#Comment_2559015
First of all, let's get one thing out of the way: In a matchmaking system based on skill, we are not concerned with selecting for the most difficult gameplay, but the most effective gameplay. How could we possibly select for the most difficult gameplay, let alone base matchmaking on it? Sure, getting 12 hooks is more difficult than getting less than 12 hooks, but it's also more difficult to... fast-vault an Autohaven gym window from the backside 5 times in a row, or to lunge across the hole in the preschool building on Badham 5 times in a row. Should the skill rating be based on people being capable of pulling off fancy, difficult stuff like that, since it objectively requires skill and is mechanically difficult enough for most people not to be able to do so? Of course not, because selecting for difficult stuff just for the sake of difficulty makes no sense in a game where people play against each other to try and achieve victories. Rather, in a matchmaking system based on skill, we want to select for the things that are most effective at achieving a victory in the game (which in DbD means to kill or to survive). And every single thing people usually bring up that the system would not account for, does contribute to achieving a victory.
An easy example: You are good at leading killers on long chases? That will give your teammates time to repair generators, thereby making it more likely generators get finished, exit gates powered, and for you to escape. Are there rounds where you will die even after having led a killer on a 5-minute chase? Sure, but they will be the exception to the rule. The rule absolutely is that if you are good at chases, you will survive more often than if you were worse at chases. Over large enough sample sizes, your rating being based on survival accounts for your skills in chases.
You are good at catching survivors quickly in chases? That will lead to you downing and hooking survivors frequently, which in turn reduces their hook lives and prevents them from repairing generators, ultimately increasing your chances to kill them. Are there rounds where you will not kill 2 or more survivors despite getting many hooks due to ending chases quickly? Sure, but they too will be the exception, with the rule being that your fast chases translate to increased chances to kill. You would have to go out of your way to never hook anyone that has already been hooked, and if you want to win you will of course do precisely the opposite.
Furthermore, if someone manages to achieve a victory with 4 hooks rather than 12, that merely means they played efficiently. Efficiency in achieving a victory is still absolutely a skill. Sure it may not be the skill you personally think is the most important, and that camping, tunnelling and slugging are not "good" skills, but it objectively is a skill to be able to consistently achieve victories in efficient fashion, particularly since in an MMR system it has to be done against tougher and tougher opposition that themselves are trying to achieve victories against you in efficient fashion.
Beyond that, selecting for killing and surviving also yields the fairest matchups and yields the best player satisfaction levels, simply because most people in this game care about killing and surviving above all. The system trying to match people such that they have equal shots at these things results in creating the fairest matches that yield the least frustrations and most satisfaction overall.
MMR is about winning, not about winning in the fanciest ways. Sure it's more difficult to kill 4 survivors with 12 hooks than it is to do so with less (although killing 4 survivors with 4 hooks is arguably much more difficult), but for the matchmaking system we only care about whether someone is actually winning, them doing so by using simple gameplay merely makes them efficient. In professional sports or even chess we do not rate victories based on fancy play either, on the contrary, top-level play in these things is often rather boring and unspectacular because it is optimized with winning in mind. The top-level/high-MMR realm is not supposed to be the fanciest, most desirable, most fun gameplay, it's supposed to be the most competitive gameplay, where players roam that care about winning the most and are the best at winning, and doing so efficiently and against ever-tougher opposition is absolutely tied to skill. If it were not requiring skill to be able to consistently win, why would so many people complain that it is so difficult for them to win?
That doesn't mean camping, tunnelling and slugging cannot or should not be rebalanced, nor that the win conditions could not be reworked, but as the game is, killing and surviving by any means possible is the only logical thing MMR can select for, otherwise you get completely lopsided matchups where people that consider it to be the most difficult and desireable gameplay (and therefore "winning") to... cleanse all dull totems or get as many flashlight saves as possible, face off against others that actually try to kill them and more often than not of course then easily would. Not only that, you would create a system where both sides can win, which over time leads to everyone ending up at the same MMR levels, rendering MMR useless. And again, most people absolutely care most about killing and surviving - I guarantee that most players don't feel bad if they snowball 1 hook into a 4k, nor if they escape after having had terrible chases or only sat on gens. On the contrary, people are much more likely to feel bad if they die after having had long chases or put in a lot of gen work, or if they end up getting 0 kills despite having had short chases and many hooks. Selecting for killing and surviving is what players at large truly want the game experience to be like.
...And for the players that do not care about killing and surviving so much, but have other things they care about more and consider to be more worthwhile, MMR selecting for killing and surviving is beneficial too, since they will play in ways that less consistently result in killing and surviving and therefore be put against more like-minded players that also play in ways that do not consistently result in killing and surviving, and they will have more fun that way since the matches in those realms where people care less about killing and surviving will give them an easier time to achieve the things they want to achieve. You care more about getting many hooks than about kills? You will less often get kills, your MMR won't climb, you will get paired against lower-MMR survivors that are surviving less often due to not being filthy genrushers, which you will be able to get more hooks against; You care more about cleansing totems, looting chests or trying to get many flashlight saves in a round than about surviving? You will less often survive, your MMR won't climb, you will get paired against lower-MMR killers that are killing less often due to not being filthy camper-tunneler-sluggers, which you will have more time and opportunities to cleanse, loot and flashlight-save against.
It would be possible to make hooks the win condition for MMR, and I agree that it would reward "good" skills more, since it would revolve primarily around chase skills, as opposed to camping/tunnelling/slugging. But not only do the latter still involve various skills, but tying MMR to hooks would have to go along with an entire rework of the game. First of all, the survivor MMR would also have to be based on hooks, otherwise you again create scenarios in which both sides can win, defeating the purpose of MMR. Then, you create the issue that survivors could in theory win by never unhooking each other, due to dying after 4 hooks and as such not giving the killer an opportunity to get more. So you would have to get rid of hook timers altogether, and then also deal with scenarios where every survivor is hooked or slugged, allowing them to unhook themselves or pick themselves back up.
I'm not saying changes that aim to make the game revolve more around chasing rather than camping/tunnelling/slugging are bad - I think those strategies are not strictly undesirable and they play an important role in the game, but I do agree that they currently play too big a role when compared to the negative type of gameplay and experience they can yield, and that rebalancing is in order. What I am saying is that MMR as the game currently is cannot be tied to anything without accounting for the existence of these strategies. If you were to just make the system look at "how many hooks?", you would create a huge low MMR realm where people camp, tunnel and slug hard and get 4 kills all the time, since they consistently lose MMR and go against worse and worse opponents against which it is even easier to get kills playing that way.
I do think the rating system itself could be improved a bit still, for one thing by looking at the survival rate of the entire group rather than that of individual survivors, and for another by making the rating adjustments harsher and/or removing the rating cap. However, I do believe that the system is already good enough to yield much more fair matchups on average with regards to player performance levels (skill, experience, "tryhardiness") than the old system; over large enough sample sizes, individual 1V1-based kill and survival rates will still correlate very closely with performance levels, infinitely more so than emblems/ranks did. You will get much more even matchups with much more like and like-minded players in terms of levels of skill, experience, "sweat", and you will get them much more consistently. Where I think the issue most of all lies is the matchmaking system, and it caring more about keeping queue times low than rating levels close. I for one would not mind waiting a couple of minutes longer in order to actually get matched with other player from within my rating brackets more consistently.
I also feel like the matchmaker tries to pair high-rated and low-rated survivor players to face off against high-rated killer players, and while this may lead to balanced 2-kill matches in a vaccuum, if those killer players abuse the weak links in those groups, they are much more likely to end in one-sided 4-kill stomps. Whenever I play in duos, it is very apparent how often we get paired with low-hour and blatantly bad randoms, against high-hour, competent killer players. So much so that I have to believe it to be systemic. So if that is the case, I would implore BHVR to reconsider, if nothing else at least insofar that the lower-rated survivors in those lobbies should be above a certain rating threshold, or above whatever the current threshold is if there is one already in place.
4 -
That it's not a punishment is the problem.
If those players go down in mmr then you suddenly have a mmr bracket where it's full of those players who are going against newer players.
Nobody would want to learn the game if that was the case.
These cheese strats need to count as wins too so those players start facing opponents who can deal with it.
For example in starcraft a zerg rush also isn't the epitome of skill but if you won with it you still went up in rank
0 -
Apples and oranges. Just like the dev's comparing it to team sports. Based on the sports analogy, James Edwards was as skilled as Michael Jordan on the 96 Bulls. (He averaged 3 pts a game...)
Based on kills as a barometer, a facecamping Bubba with 3 hooks and 3 kills (Thanks to NOED and BW) is more talented than a Trapper who got 10 hooks and 2 kills vs an SWF.
Sorry, does not add up.
1 -
This👆
0 -
So you think a Nurse who is as good as the average face camping Bubba is a good killer?
0 -
They don't indicate skill, chases won do. The argument they made about 8 hooks no kills is dumb. If you got 8 hooks you clearly played at least decently. A point system that combined kills and hooks would be a much bigger indicator of skill.
1 -
Exactly, if I win with 3 hooks (rancor, baby!) I am literally so much better than that dog trash Nurse who only got eight hooks and was twerked on at the rave near the exit gate. We both get called bad after the game, only my survivors were delusional and dead. The ones telling the Nurse gg ez earned their w because they weren't afraid to win the game like that timid widdle Nurse role-player was.
2 -
Problem is the other way round: people who play well, but don't get the specific limited win condition being checked for drop down in MMR.
Which means new players get stomped by people who aren't just relying on a specific tactic that can be worked around (like spamming a move in a fighting game that has a tricky but consistent counter), but people who vastly outclass them in all regards, they just weren't playing for the "right" goal in higher brackets.
0 -
The question is: Do you want a system where that Bubba faces less skilled survivors?
The strange thing about MMR and it being based on kills and escapes is that it punishes certain playstyles. Camping Bubbas will go up the ladder especially if they use NoeD until they face more competent survivors who laugh at them and tbag at the exit gate because Bubby never got his down to camp somebody.
The Nurse who hinders herself by going for hooks will only get such opponents when she can archive the same results even with her limitations. Should this Nurse go against the mythical SWF bully squad or should she get more chilled opponents?
Same for survivors. Do you really want that urban evading, locker hiding weak-link of your team to go against even easier Killers who can not punish this? Or do you want that person to face the Bubba?
For me MMR works out because of those scenarios pretty well. Sweaty players get more sweaty opponents, chill player and people who do not use meta perks go against more chilled or less skilled opponents.
The fallacy is that they call it "skill based". It is not skill based at all. But it does not need to be to archive this result.
Honestly I do not see how they get "stomped". If 4k lobby after lobby your points will go up again and you will be stomping less and less. You will need to goof around a lot to drop your MMR to get to stomping grounds again...
Now where is the problem?
If I play, say, Ghostface without perks and derank until I hit the potato bottom of the survivor base who just started the game. Do I really stomp them when they escape as 3 people on 9 hooks? Or did they have a close match and escape while having fun facing a Killer with no regression and finally getting something done...
2 -
That's basically what happens. Someone's going to drop until they have an easy time of it, then bob back up to the limits of the sweatfest, then get knocked back down.
Good players that aren't using meta (and aren't absurdly good) are going to drop down until they're playing people they outmatch in every interaction, but could lose a game just because perks are that strong. It's still a case of one side being in a game they're actually losing the whole time.
0 -
While i do agree that it is a flaw in the system that someone can go for 9 hooks completly outclassing the survivors but just letting 3 go goes down in mmr and starts facing even weaker survivors, it is not that big of a problem.
In the case of the camper who gets 2k-3k with single hooks if they drop in mmr you have a bracket in mmr where people's game is over when they lose a single chase.
In the case of the 9 hooks but 1 kill player they might face survivors that they outclass but in order to keep that they need to play in the most fair way possible and give survivors every chance they can get.
I think it's pretty clear which one is the lesser of the two evils
0 -
I think it signals that your MMR needs to consider more than one factor when making adjustments.
And probably work on a team basis for Survivors (rather than encouraging selfishness/punishing altruism).
0 -
Why do you think they are losing the whole time?
If I can only archive a "high MMR" with a Killers by using NoeD, Ruin and other fun stuff. Maybe I am just not that good at playing Killer and those perks are what kept me in the "high MMR". Now without that stuff I go down and face survivors who are at my level without my training wheels.
Sounds fair to me.
If survivors use strong perks to go up the MMR-ladder then...where is the problem? They escape more often if they use the meta and face Killers who can deal with that. Would be pretty unfair to let the Dead Hard-gamer face off against a baby Hillbilly all the time just because he only gets away with Dead Hard...
1 -
I mean it does concider more then one factor.
People like to throw the phrase "mmr only looks at kills and escapes" but that's not what they said. That's just what people chose to remember.
They also mentioned that how long a match was and how many survivors have been killed before plays a role.
For example a killer who camps and gets genrushed in 4 minutes getting 1 kill is going to lose a hell of a lot more mmr then a killer who got 9 hooks with 1 kill in a 15 minute game
0 -
But why use game time as a bizarre proxy? You could just... use hooks directly. Everyone got out but it was an 8-hook game? Well, make small adjustments, if any. 2k 2 hooks? Well, neither team should probably budge a ton from their current MMR. And "who died first" is just a symptom of inexplicably making it a series of 1v1's rather than just treating Survivors as a team for the purposes of MMR adjustment.
If everyone dies, someone has to die first, and it doesn't necessarily mean that that person did worst and the last person to die did best. And if three people get out but the one person didn't, it doesn't mean that the one person did anything wrong except be randomly targeted--and overall, they still won.
Post edited by RainehDaze on0 -
I actually agree that kills is better than hooks.
I think the problem with the hook argument is that a good killer would identify that someone is on death hook and should be removed from the game as soon as possible. Yes getting everyone 2 hooked is skillful but if that killer didn't identify someone to kill earlier in the game, then they made a mistake.
I also think people are forgetting the killers who can get kills without getting any hooks. Pig, Myers, PH etc. Is a Pig not skillful by knowing exactly how to pressure boxes enough so a survivor cannot remove a box?
I understand the Bubba argument but if the best strategy to get kills is camp then he's smart camping. Some killers require more effort than others to get kills. This doesn't mean a Legion who has a high MMR is a more skilled killer than a Blight at high MMR. A high MMR PH uses to cages to tunnel survivors easily, doesn't mean he isn't a good killer.
I think getting multiple hooks shows your a really good player, but if you can't close out kills then your not the smartest killer.
1 -
Because aside from a very, very small pool, everyone at the highest overall MMR bracket is going to be using meta stuff. That's why it's meta.
Then you get a bracket of not-so-good players using meta stuff, and the good players using whatever. Until they decide they want to do meta for a while or something and whoops turns out they definitely shouldn't have been down here.
Then bad players using meta and people who can't/aren't using it but are just plain average.
And then everyone left.
0 -
Hooks should not be counted in mmr. The killer makes kills through hooks. That is, the goal is to kill the survivors. And if the killer made 8 hooks but not a single kill, then he is clearly not so strong.
About hooks. 12 hooks is something mythical))
0 -
Wait, what?
A monkey can get a 2k while facecamping. Zero skill required, especially with a Bubba. That is why kills alone are a bad way to measure skill.
0 -
yes thats why i said a MMR system should encourage players to want to be in high levels, which our current one entirely fails to do (not just that, it actively encourages people to want to do the opposite, because high MMR games just arent fun and you dont get anything for your troubles).
also, we're kinda drifting off into a different discussion here - OP is about determining a players skill, not the accuracy of a matchmaking system. if we were to discuss the matchmaking system in itself, i'd bring up the argument that a game like DbD doesnt need an MMR system in the first place and instead should work with a much more vague system that is mainly focussed on seperating new players from experienced ones.
we simply do not need a very accurate matchmaking system that puts players of equal skill against each other - that may sound neat in theory, but would actually be harmful to a game like DbD, at least in its current state where skill is outshined rather significantly by RNG.
besides, its pretty pointless to try and discuss how accurate MMR is or how we could improve the system, given that the Devs literally just admitted in yesterdays stream that it doesnt matter, due to the system not being taken into account a whole lot when determining your opponents - due to a rather significant gap in their playerbase, meaning one side would literally have to wait hours before they'd be able to get into a match (that therefore would be balanced).
so they prioritize queue times over accuracy - which is definitely the smart thing to do in a scenario like this. its the lesser of two evils.
and in return that means that they'd need to fix the issues that cause one side to not want to play anymore before they would even be able to think about making an accurate matchmaking system.
and honestly, i highly doubt that is ever going to happen in this games lifetime. the issue that causes the issue that makes people quit is imbedded so deeply into this game that i dont ever see it being fixed without them releasing a Dead by Daylight 2 where they fundamentally rework some key aspects of the current game and improve them significantly. (in case you're curious: they'd have to fundamentally rework the Survivors primary objective (so essentially delete gens and add something completely new) and then completely rebalance everything around that (perks, abilities, maps, ...), which is, simply put, not going to happen)
1 -
When you use "one game" as an argument, you have already lost.
0 -
Kills doesn't mean skills. Smart devs, smart.
0 -
Considering the skill gate for the average Nurse? Yes.
That being said, I have an even more unpopular opinion: SBMM literally doesn't matter.
The face-camping bubba won't get all that high in matchmaking, because he'll end up facing better players who know how to counter him and how he plays. Players who hide all match will eventually find themselves against killers who can and do find them. In both cases, their SBMM reading will balance out eventually.
And on top of that, who the [BAD WORD] wants to be at high MMR anyway? It's literally pointless. I don't feel the need to sweat in this game, and neither should you. To be honest, it's kind of like buying an NFT: you're working hard, being miserable, all in order to get an artificial rating that you can't even see. Pointless.
0 -
Can we also consider that killers 2 hooking everyone yet getting no kills is the ideal scenario for farming? Should a killer trying to derank be able to do that? They obviously have skill to me, but chose not to hook anyone on death hook. I don't think they should derank and go against easier opponents for that.
(Also if this comment is posted multiple times, blame my internet).
1
