How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV)
Comments
-
Based on anything a developer wants, there are many aspects to determining skill factors. Acting like it can only a single element is simply amisconception on your end to suit your narrative.
The tutorial is a manual and lessons on how you should play. Nowhere is anyone claiming the entire team has to escape to call it a win? It is not a must, yet it is one of the options. You realize that there can be multiple ways to account for a win, one on an individual level and one on a match wide level. This is also supported by the fact that Patrick indicates they track team results? Stating it is irrelevant to the the game works? Yet team results are part of the game, the discussion is that they should include it in the parameters. Nobody is claiming that it is, they are stating it should and we point out the developers stated it as an option.
The tutorial does indicate you are part of a team. Which you claim survivors are not part of a team? In other words disproven. It states that you are to use the tools available to you, sometimes for the greater good. Once again an indication that it isn't just about you. The tutorial states that before you escape, you should consider the option to head back into the danger to save others? Why would they include these things if it wasn't relevant.
1 -
*Based on anything a developer wants, there are many aspects to determining skill factors. Acting like it can only a single element is simply amisconception on your end to suit your narrative.
Oops, you were so close, and yet you are still so far away. Please continue to go educate yourself on what MMR is, and come back to me with the proper answer. Or perhaps you actually do know the answer, but don't want to say it. Hm.
*The tutorial is a manual and lessons on how you should play. Nowhere is anyone claiming the entire team has to escape to call it a win? It is not a must, yet it is one of the options.
Good, so your definition of "team" is that it's a group of survivors working together until they become unnecessary to fulfill the win condition of escaping. That it is simply an "option" and not a "requirement" to play as a team during each match, and that players are free to NOT work together, and NOT escape together - basically that it's irrelevant to the wincon of the game. Great, then we are fully in agreement. If that is how you want to define the term "team", you should have said so from the beginning. I would personally would have just used the term "alliance" but it looks like it was just a terminology miscommunication. Glad we understand each other now.
*You realize that there can be multiple ways to account for a win, one on an individual level and one on a match wide level.
No, there is only one win condition for the survivor - to escape. If you believe that there is another win condition as the game currently stands, feel free to provide official references that indicate it to be so. Or perhaps you are confused and can't differentiate between the game's actual win condition, and personal goals that individual players set for themselves in the game.
*This is also supported by the fact that Patrick indicates they track team results? Stating it is irrelevant to the the game works? Yet team results are part of the game, the discussion is that they should include it in the parameters. Nobody is claiming that it is, they are stating it should and we point out the developers stated it as an option.
What did I just say about Patrick's quote? Until your "team results" actually becomes implemented in the game, they are just unsubstantiated theories and conjectures with no substance, and meaningless to the discussion of what the game is in its current state.
0 -
correct.
I don't have much to say, other than that you're right.
BTW, where do you work? I'd be interested in seeing some of your projects.
1 -
I dont think the current MMR reflects the skill of a player,like many said,you can loop the killer for 5 gens and die,while the other 3 escape while doing nothing but gens.
Also what's that about many ways to skin a cat,is english not your first language because that's a weird example.
1 -
Well, you are aiming at win and that is fine. The developers are the ones that determine a win and as pointed out they stated it isn't clear cut and a gradient. Which is inline with the criteria of the emblem system. Therefore the emblems used for the MMR was them standing by what they stated and it not just being lip service as you claim.
You claim there is only one final result for survivors and yet Patrick stated there are team results. That is an official statement, you discard it. They currently don't use it for the MMR, but they do have them. You know the meaning of result right? The outcome, whether it is a victory or defeat. Maybe you have difficulty understanding that we have two types of results, individual and team outcomes?
Implemented into the game? They are tracking them, they are in the game. If 0, 1,2 3 or 4 people escape that is actually a possible outcome for a match in this game. What alternative reality do you live in where the match isn't a 1v4 and only finishes after either all 4 survivors die or escape and they talley the outcome.
1 -
*Well, you are aiming at win and that is fine. The developers are the ones that determine a win and as pointed out they stated it isn't clear cut and a gradient. Which is inline with the criteria of the emblem system. Therefore the emblems used for the MMR was them standing by what they stated and it not just being lip service as you claim.
Good job! MMRs are based on players' wincon of each match. In the case of DBD, as stated in the game's tutorial and its official website, the win condition for Survivors is simply defined as an escape. I've already explained in detail why Cote's avoidance on the topic of wincon is irrelevant and discarded. The emblem system on the other hand, as you previously stated, has nothing to do with the wincon, but rather only the accumulations of activities that players did within the match. That's why nobody would consider the Emblem system as being even remotely the same as MMR.
*You claim there is only one final result for survivors and yet Patrick stated there are team results. That is an official statement, you discard it. They currently don't use it for the MMR, but they do have them. You know the meaning of result right? The outcome, whether it is a victory or defeat. Maybe you have difficulty understanding that we have two types of results, individual and team outcomes?
Implemented into the game? They are tracking them, they are in the game. If 0, 1,2 3 or 4 people escape that is actually a possible outcome for a match in this game. What alternative reality do you live in where the match isn't a 1v4 and only finishes after either all 4 survivors die or escape and they talley the outcome.
I claimed that there is only one win condition. Results? I'm sure there are plenty of results that can be calculated and tracked in a match - the number of generators I've completed, the number of chases, the number of flashlight stuns, the number of pallets I threw down, the number of tea-bags, the number of lockers I've hidden in... so what? None of that is the actual wincon of the game, and that includes any "team results" that they may be tracking. You're jumping to conclusions and equating the word "results" as a way to indicate how to win the game - because it fits your personal narrative, and can't face facts of what the game specifically entails as being the win condition in the tutorial and official webpage.
0 -
You are wrong, in the interview that was quoted by you the developers themselves stated that the win condition they upheld wasn't that straight forward. The emblem system represented this and was what they used. The change in the match making system is an indication of a change in the win condition that they are using. Where is your proof that this was a lip service and not a reference to the emblem system? You want to use one line from a tutorial/on the website, versus the developers as you yourself admitted multi facet statements on the forums, QnA's and interviews.
This is your own opinion, not something else. You asked for the developers words and those were delivered. You want to deal in facts and the developers have stated what the win condition was not and that was clear cut and had a system built around it. The current system and the old one are not remotely the same, that is also not the claim. Yet the goal of the emblem system was to analyze the performance and have a multi-facet win condition (not clear cut) to determine ones ranking in order to match make them.
Yes the survivors goal is to escape, as that secures a point for their team, that is how they are going to win. Like these statements that you use, aren't actually in conflict with a team win and in the tutorial they do explain that you are part of a team. The logic of a win in a 4v1 where the 4 are a team, literally a statement made within the game. I don't know if you understand the concept of a team and when they compete that the only result that matters is the teams and not their individual scores? That is also why they explain that instead of the moment the gates are powered and opened, you might want to consider going back for the save. Your team might not be in a good spot and it can be the best option to risk it for the overall outcome to secure the win. You claim survivors are not a team, but the game states they are. Patrick indicates that they are considering team results to be part of the MMR system, meaning that it is actually a win.
You make all these claims that are simply falsehoods:
- The win condition didn't change... but the match making system did and according to you that is based on wins.
- The survivors are not in a team, but this is literally explained on the site and in the tutorial, as well as referenced by developers.
The developers got backlash on the MMR system, because the new win condition is incomplete and not inline with what most people believed the actual win condition to be: 3/4k is killer wins, 2k is a tie, 1/0k is survivor win and they base their playstyle around this win condition. The matches have a single outcome, because guess what a MMR system that is based on wins adjusts everyone's rating based on who wins and who lost; if a survivor and the killer both win... there is a flaw in the definition of the win condition, because guess what they are competing and versing each other.
Post edited by Kalinikta on1 -
*You are wrong, in the interview that was quoted by you the developers themselves stated that the win condition they upheld wasn't that straight forward. The emblem system represented this and was what they used.
That seems to simply be your assertion to fit your narrative. You are more than welcome to provide direct, concrete evidence that Cote's quote is referring to the Emblem system though. I doubt you can though - just more assertion, inferences, hypothesis, and stretched imagination.
*The change in the match making system is an indication of a change in the win condition that they are using.
Change in the matchmaking is simply an indication that the old matchmaking system was not working, and therefore needed a new one - it has nothing to do with the win condition, nor does it imply any changes in the win condition.
*Where is your proof that this was a lip service and not a reference to the emblem system? You want to use one line from a tutorial on the website, versus the developers as you yourself admitted multi facet statements on the forums, QnA's and interviews.
This is your own opinion, not something else. You asked for the developers words and those were delivered. You want to deal in facts and the developers have stated what the win condition was not and that was clear cut and had a system built around it.
Ok, let's go ahead and pursue this line of thought further. Cote indicated that win condition was based on whether the players felt they had a good game, whether they had fun. By that logic, the players win as long as they felt like they had "fun" or "had a good game" and lost the match if they didn't. If the players felt that they had "fun" in the match by simply jumping in lockers throughout the match... by his definition, they automatically win. If they felt like they had "fun" in the match because they rescued a survivor right in front of a camping killer and the sandbagged survivor died in a hilarious way... they automatically win. Does that sound like a fitting definition of "winning" to anyone who understands basic game design? And what if everyone in a match felt like they had "fun?" Do they ALL win? How about the opposite where nobody felt like they had "fun?" They ALL lose? How do you matchmake players in such situations? Do we match players who most frequently have fun with other players who feel the same way, and match players who often don't have fun with others like them? Or should the developers figure out the level of intensity of "fun" that players are having to do the matchmaking? How should the developers measure "fun?" And you say that the emblem system is related to all of this? How? The emblem system had accumulated points for doing generators... what if I don't have "fun" doing generators? What if I don't enjoy doing chases or bothering to go rescue someone?
The ridiculousness of it all is the reason why Cote's lip service in that quote can be discarded as nonsense. The fact that you are still entertaining that part of his quote when I've already given you the history on why they constantly avoid the topic... it's pretty sad.
*Yet the goal of the emblem system was to analyze the performance and have a multi-facet win condition (not clear cut) to determine ones ranking in order to match make them.
No, the Emblem system simply used "performance" in a given match to rank players, and had nothing to do with the win condition. Again, you are free to provide any evidence that points to the contrary, but I doubt you can find any.
*Yes the survivors goal is to escape, as that secures a point for their team, that is how they are going to win. Like these statements that you use, aren't actually in conflict with a team win and in the tutorial they do explain that you are part of a team. The logic of a win in a 4v1 where the 4 are a team, literally a statement made within the game. I don't know if you understand the concept of a team and when they compete that the only result that matters is the teams and not their individual scores? That is also why they explain that instead of the moment the gates are powered and opened, you might want to consider going back for the save. Your team might not be in a good spot and it can be the best option to risk it for the overall outcome to secure the win. You claim survivors are not a team, but the game states they are.
Didn't we already agree on the definition on "team"? Why are you going back to this nonsense? We've already agreed that in term of this game, "team" is defined as just players choosing to work together (or not) and escaping together (or not.) And therefore has nothing to do with the wincon.
Look, if the wincon of the game is actually team-based, you'd find something like this in the manual/tutorial/official website: "In order to win, at least 2 Survivors must escape through the exit gates. You lose if at least 3 Survivors from the trial are sacrificed to the Entity." But nowhere does it mention anything like that - and in fact, it indicates that the goal is simply for the player to escape. I understand that you and some of the others would personally (and apparently, desperately) prefer a team-based wincon, but as the game currently stands, it doesn't and it never has. Could it change in the future? Who knows. But not right now.
*Patrick indicates that they are considering team results to be part of the MMR system, meaning that it is actually a win.
Again, not right now. Perhaps instead of getting ahead of yourself, perhaps you should wait until it's actually been done. If Patrick finds that adding "team results" variable just doesn't seem to reflect the MMR accurately and therefore abandons that idea, then what?
The win condition didn't change... but the match making system did and according to you that is based on wins.
The survivors are not in a team, but this is literally explained on the site and in the tutorial, as well as referenced by developers.
Again, the emblem system did not consider whether players won or lost, but so-called "performance" that players within the match. So no, "according to me" that particular matchmaking system was NOT based on wins.
Again, if you want to define "team" as players choosing to work together (or not) and escaping together (or not), then that's fine.
*The developers got backlash on the MMR system, because the new win condition is incomplete and not inline with what most people believed the actual win condition to be: 3/4k is killer wins, 2k is a tie, 1/0k is survivor win.
I don't much care for players' past misconception about the game.
*The matches have a single outcome, because guess what a MMR system that is based on wins adjusts everyone's rating based on who wins and who lost; if a survivor and the killer both win... there is a flaw in the definition of the win condition, because guess what they are competing and versing each other.
In the current MMR system, there is never a situation where all 5 players win or lose together. That's all that matters in this game - there's nothing wrong with 2 players winning and 3 losing in a 5 player game.
0 -
Who exactly is stretching their assertions to claim it wasn't a MMR system? All the basic elements of a MMR system are present in the emblem system; assessment, ratings moving up and down accordingly and matching based on what ranking that rating gave you. You claim to care about facts: those are the facts. The assessments in these games can include anything and weight them as the developers see fit, there are many games that especially in ones with teams use more than one variable and yes winning/losing weighs in. It doesn't even need the developer quote, just basic understanding on what a MMR system is.
Maybe you should check out the definition of a MMR system:
The formula used to calculate the MMR is based on your performance in matches, the result of your team and other statistical factors to ensure a fair experience. Consequently, the MMR evolves with each match you play. - Ubisoft, in For Honor https://www.ubisoft.com/en-au/help/for-honor/gameplay/article/match-making-rating-mmr-in-for-honor/000065548
MMR values are adjusted depending on the role selected, and the player's past performance with each role. - Dota 2, https://dota2.fandom.com/wiki/Matchmaking_Rating
How does it work exactly?
Like we mentioned before, your MMR rating will increase or decrease depending on the matches you win or lose. Oftentimes there’s additional elements that factor in how much MMR you gain and how much you lose. - eSports.com: https://www.esports.com/en/what-is-mmr-in-league-of-legends-and-how-does-it-work-265160
It is an industry standard to have multiple factors used to calculate ones MMR, you are the one asserting their biased upon the determination of what is and isn't a MMR system.
Therefore lets be real your statement:
the Emblem system simply used "performance" in a given match to rank players, and had nothing to do with the win condition.Is literally a MMR system by this definition, you are so focused on the notion it is purely about win condition... but it isn't and it did account for the win condition. A MMR system is in the game to provide the best possible match up and whether you win or lose, the performance you had is paramount to determining your MMR. To me it sounds like you have never played other games that have MMR.
Lets get to the point, the current MMR system is flawed. The player base's misconception of a win? Let me ask you then, what is a win for the killer? Are you trying to uphold two different standards for the opposite ends of the match and then claiming that is a good way to measure whether they are equivalently matched? That is the issue with the win condition as you state it, the killers win condition isn't the same as the survivors losing one.
The thing is it isn't a misconception of the player base, they simply look at what is the win condition for one side, flip it around and that is the win condition for the other. It is quite important that you use the same definition in a game that is defined as a 1v4 by its website, stores, etc. and it is not stated to be a 5 player game (feel free to point to your sources on this), to know who won that battle, the 4 or the 1? You claim the win condition hasn't changed, so... define it from the other end and how that relates to the system.
You don't care about facts and objectivity... just your own view on what a win is. The game is a team game, it literally states it and to have a good MMR system both sides need to be evaluated on equal terms.
Using multiple factors is far from a negative in a MMR system, because it allows the developers to be faster in updating and assessing someone's ranking. The faster they are able to do so the fewer unfair matches we get and the more enjoyable it will be. This is a topic about how MMR works after all and that is just once again a general understanding within the industry; the faster and more accurately you can assess your players 'skill' the better the system is.
Btw. waiting for it to be done... is not how feedback works. You give feedback based on what there is now, to out support or criticism in order to get things changed. He stated something and it is appropriate to state that we agree that it would improve the system, before they do it.
Post edited by Kalinikta on1 -
Sonewhat like. (Devs decide points to give) Survivors=
Gain points: escape by exit and number of players, all gens completed, seconds for chase, secure unhooks, bodyblocks, flashlights and pallet saves, totem cleanse/boon, heal teammates.
Lose points: die, teammates die, you drop pallet, you go Down
Killers=
Gain points: kills, power hit, down survivors
Lose points: survivors escape, seconds for chases without pallet dropped or hit get, Miss power hit, seconds for hook camped
1 -
*All the basic elements of a MMR system are present in the emblem system; assessment, ratings moving up and down accordingly and matching based on what ranking that rating gave you.
Do you see what's missing from the list of factors you just presented in the Emblem system? The win condition. Do you know the most important aspect of MMR? The win condition.
*The formula used to calculate the MMR is based on your performance in matches, the result of your team and other statistical factors to ensure a fair experience. Consequently, the MMR evolves with each match you play. - Ubisoft, in For Honor https://www.ubisoft.com/en-au/help/for-honor/gameplay/article/match-making-rating-mmr-in-for-honor/000065548
*MMR values are adjusted depending on the role selected, and the player's past performance with each role. - Dota 2, https://dota2.fandom.com/wiki/Matchmaking_Rating
Like we mentioned before, your MMR rating will increase or decrease depending on the matches you win or lose. Oftentimes there’s additional elements that factor in how much MMR you gain and how much you lose. - eSports.com: https://www.esports.com/en/what-is-mmr-in-league-of-legends-and-how-does-it-work-265160
Your DOTA2 example: "Matchmaking Rating, or MMR is a value that determines the skill level of each player. This value is used in matchmaking. Winning increases a player's MMR, while losing decreases it."
Your League of Legends example: "People who are looking to climb seek to increase their MMR rating by winning matches or games, increasing points, while losing sets you back a few."
Your For Honor example: "The formula used to calculate the MMR is based on your performance in matches, the result of your team, and other mathematical factors to ensure a fair experience."
Both your DOTA2 and LOL webpage links immediately placed heavy emphasis on the win condition of the game in their explanation of their MMR before anything else. In fact, the quotes I highlighted were actually the first statements on the page. ...and you accused me of cherry-picking? Wow. However, I was actually surprised by the explanation given in the For Honor webpage, given that players' performance is placed before the win condition - and that for their matchmaking, they actually added even something else (Renown) - besides the usual factor like Location. First time I've seen matchmaking like theirs. I wonder how well it actually works.
Just because I was curious to see if it was some Ubisoft thing, I checked out Rainbow Six Siege also, but they also had the usual win condition as their MMR factor.
Rainbow Six Siege example :"Several things can affect your MMR, such as: Whether you win or lose a match. The skill difference between teams during a match. Exiting a Ranked Match early. Inactivity during a match."
But yeah, For Honor's MMR is the exception, rather than the rule. But the problem with the Emblem system extends way beyond that.
The main issue is that Emblem system did not account for the wincon, but instead tried to assess the players' "performance" in any given match. Like I said previously, players were able to rank up despite losing, and rank down despite winning. That would never happen in MMR. Additionally, because the Emblem system did not rate players due to the win condition but instead by their performance levels, it allowed situations in which all 5 players ranked up, or all to rank down. Again, this would never happen in any MMR. and that is why Emblem system is not MMR in any semblance or form.
But because you made some effort, as appreciation, I'm going to post a link to an article that reminded me of the situation here. It's an article by Sirlin, who most people who are into game designs and balancing should already know. For those who don't, he balanced games like Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix and also makes a bunch of interesting board games. But what he's most known for are for his articles on game balance and game designs in general. I'll post the overall link here: https://www.sirlin.net/article-archive and although it's completely off-topic, I suggest forum members to especially check out his Playing to Win article here: https://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win.
But back on topic, the specific article I'm going to post is about the time when Sirlin suspected that Overwatch designers were adjusting the ranking system with more than just the win condition of the game, and wanted to warn them of the danger in doing so. He brought up TrueSkill and stated this:
- "TrueSkill intentionally and explicitly does NOT use any individual performance metrics. Their argument is that no matter what game you're talking about and no matter what metrics you measure to determine how well a given player did, it's necessarily imperfect compared to using only win/loss. The point of trying to guess if a player did well or not is how much they contributed win/loss, but the win/loss stat is the most accurate measure, they say. You'd introducing error by adding ANY other metric.
- In addition to introducing error, you're warping incentives. For example, if you measure "damage done" as one metric, then it means players will attempt to maximize "winning AND damage done" rather than just "winning," which is not great. You can also very easily accidentally do a lot worse: you might accidentally give incentive not to play support heroes in a game where you really need support heroes on your team. (It seems this is already true in Overwatch.)"
And he goes on to touch about few other things, including topics like "ELO Hell" that players might be interested in. https://www.sirlin.net/posts/overwatchs-ranking-point-system
It's similar to what I spoke of earlier about adding new variables to the MMR system. If you are incentivized for both "winning AND altruistic actions" players will try to maximize both. For example, if a survivor gets hooked, all three of the other players might become more incentivized to leave their generators and go for the unhook, despite the presence of Hex: Ruin. Not only does it promote unhealthy competition between the players ("No, I'll do the unhooking!"), but ultimately may create situations in which yes, you got some MMR points for the unhook, but you lost the game because of that. And like I said, the ultimate goal in the game is to escape.
*Lets get to the point, the current MMR system is flawed. The player base's misconception of a win? Let me ask you then, what is a win for the killer?
Killer's win condition?
- Official website: The Killer's main objective is to please The Entity by sacrificing Survivors on Hooks found in the environment.
- Tutorial: The main objective of a Killer is to sacrifice Survivors to The Entity.
*Are you trying to uphold two different standards for the opposite ends of the match and then claiming that is a good way to measure whether they are equivalently matched?
Yes, absolutely. It's an asymmetrical game with different goals - of course they have different standards.
*That is the issue with the win condition as you state it, the killers win condition isn't the same as the survivors losing one.
Why would it be an issue? It doesn't seem to like an issue to me.
*The thing is it isn't a misconception of the player base, they simply look at what is the win condition for one side, flip it around and that is the win condition for the other. It is quite important that you use the same definition in a game that is defined as a 1v4 by its website, stores, etc. and it is not stated to be a 5 player game (feel free to point to your sources on this), to know who won that battle, the 4 or the 1?
Why would it be important? Doesn't seem very important to me.
*You claim the win condition hasn't changed, so... define it from the other end and how that relates to the system.
Why would the Survivors' win condition have to mirror the killer's when their objectives are different? Doesn't seem like a requirement to me.
*The game is a team game, it literally states it and to have a good MMR system both sides need to be evaluated on equal terms.
Sure, we've already agreed that it's a "team" game in which players can choose to work together (or not) and escape together (or not.) Some players would choose to NOT work together and NOT escape together, and instead choose to ditch and abandon other Survivors - we've already agreed that this was not a problem for you. After all, you yourself specifically stated that teamwork was an "option" and not a "must." And given how the game itself never addresses team-based win condition, but speak only of individual escapes, why would the MMR require win outcomes about 4v1, when it actually makes more sense to do 4 sets of 1v1?
*Using multiple factors is far from a negative in a MMR system, because it allows the developers to be faster in updating and assessing someone's ranking. The faster they are able to do so the fewer unfair matches we get and the more enjoyable it will be. This is a topic about how MMR works after all and that is just once again a general understanding within the industry; the faster and more accurately you can assess your players 'skill' the better the system is.
...like I said before, adding more variables actually makes more room for creating errors, and therefore less accurate. But sure, you show me some resources that state that it's faster and more accurate. This should be good.
*Btw. waiting for it to be done... is not how feedback works. You give feedback based on what there is now, to out support or criticism in order to get things changed. He stated something and it is appropriate to state that we agree that it would improve the system, before they do it.
But you aren't giving feedback. You were claiming that this game already has a team-based win condition just because Patrick is potentially considering adding in a "team result" variable into the MMR. It hasn't happened yet, and possibly never will. They'll probably only do it if they find that adding the variable somehow improves the accuracy of the MMR algorithm. So no, the game doesn't already have a team-based win condition.
0 -
I just don't agree with your conclusion that MMR doesn't significantly diverge from skill for exceptionally selfish/unselfish players under this system. I also disagree that what differences do exist will just settle out over large sample sizes, when my lived experience is that this isn't the case. The more matches I play, the more pronounced the problem becomes. There feedbacks here are positive, not negative.
We'll just have to disagree on that then, because I really don't see (in theory and my lived experience) that the people at high ratings (the most skilled at consistently personally surviving) aren't also some of the most generally skilled players, including teamplay skills. The system of course is not about skill in and of itself, let alone teamplay skills, so an argument would increasingly become about whether it should be. I for one have no issue with the system being about seeking 50% personal success rates for everyone, even if that contrary to my conviction would not correlate with any skill or teamplay skill whatsoever. Well, I would likely not be as welcoming of the system in that case, but still more welcoming than of a system that actually tries to define, detect and weigh various different "skills" and pairs people based on them with no regard for success. The Emblem system gave me enough of a taste of what that's like.
I see your point, and I empathize with your worse-than-it-used-to-be playing experience, but I don't think your personal experience is very representative of the system. As I've said, I suspect (and you do too) that rather than any detrimentally-selfish players actually having climbed to your rating by consistently surviving, it's more likely you have just fallen due to consistently dying more often by taking risks (that may very well not consistently be beneficial for group survival either, who knows), or stuff like playing for BP. So rather than it being indicative of selfish players rising in rating, I think it's more so just... that you're being paired with simply worse players at lower ratings, not few of which may also just be making bad decisions and plays that can be seen as "selfish" but are really not deliberate decisions but just expected tendencies of worse, inexperienced, scared players that regularly don't even know much better.
Every time I trade with someone on the hook in the EGC, or take aggro for them when they're on death hook and completing the last gen is not in any doubt, or suck it up and go for the basement save at basically any moment in the game instead of letting my teammate do it, I am putting myself at increased risk of dying in exchange for increasing the likelihood of my teammates surviving. The more skilled I am compared to my teammates and my opponent, the more likely I am to be the one sacrificing myself for my teammates. Even setting aside the impact of selfishness, less skilled players are often still afraid of the killer and are less confident to make risky plays, so they'll do less of that regardless of whether or not that play will help the team. As a result, that plays falls to me more and more. There are plenty of additional factors that drive the outcome this way too. Like, if you run a killer for four gens and they finally down you, the odds of you getting camped to death skyrocket. The frequency of this scenario also goes up the lower my MMR gets.
With regards to all of this I really can't say anything else than I have been saying, which is that such risky/teamplay plays that actually result in consistently increasing the survival chances and rates of the group (lead to a greater-than-neutral return in how many survivors escape through exit gates) will over many matches also be reflected very accurately in the personal survival chances and rates of the individuals employing such play. Even in cases where the last gen is guaranteed to get finished if you keep working on it instead of helping another survivor that is on death hook (and here again we are in a very late stage of the game, so how detrimental can the selfishness really have been if we take this as a consistent occurrence which it'd have to be in order to be systemically relevant), an endgame with 1/2/3 survivors is objectively still much more dicey than one with 2/3/4, every time. Or if you go for risky basement saves, that is actually only a good teamplay if it actually results in you saving them, and it also leading to more people escaping than otherwise would have. If you die trying to rescue in that case, it was a bad teamplay and will result in more people dying than otherwise would have, and if you successfully save them but get hooked yourself for it, it was a bad teamplay if it doesn't lead to more survivors surviving than would otherwise have (so if you merely trade your life for theirs, that is not a good teamplay risk to take, it's not a correct play from any perspective in that case but your own preference of going for risky plays and other survivors surviving instead of yourself).
There's countless scenarios you can come up with where selfishly refusing to help might lead to one's own survival at the cost of a decreased group survival, but none of them are clear-cut and far from guaranteed, and in most of even these cases there's definitely room for argument that personal survival is still more likely in the case of helping, and will over many matches accordingly have the impact on the rating even when looking at such scenarios exclusively. Same for general skilled plays, where I think you are falling back into the mistake of looking at outliers. The person capable of running a killer for four gens won't always do so, won't always then get camped, won't always then not get saved, etc. Rather, since they are good at running, over many matches that will much more frequently positively affect their survival rate, in the endless different scenarios where that is of obvious benefit.
Regardless of all of that, even if you were right and rating would not correlate with certain skills such as teamplay skills (or any skills at all), even if plays that actually consistently lead to increased group survival rate could possibly consistently lead to decreased personal survival rate, it is still not the goal of the system to select for skills or team results. If a player dies more often than they survive, the assumption is that most players in that position would not be very satisfied, and should therefore be matched such that they have a greater chance of survival in the future. Even if that player deliberately sacrifices themselves for the survival of others, it stands to be reasoned that they don't actually want to die, so why not put them into a place where they can potentially rescue fellow survivors without themselves being as likely to die doing so? Of course, this could lead to such players ending up at ratings where they otherwise might not "belong", but if their chosen playstyle actually leads to them consistently dying, the system cannot and should not make some complicated exception, it has to assume that player is simply having trouble not dying and doesn't actually want to die. Yes, the group-based metric will "account" for teamplay skills more (they will have a more consistent impact on the rating, leading people to appropriate ratings faster than the current metric and stabilizing them around those ratings more), but there are still tons of scenarios where selfish play can lead to increased group survival and selfless play to decreased group survival, and there's plenty outlier scenarios that make as little intuitive sense to us as with the current metric, such as the Meghead dying in the first minute of a match but getting an increased rating if her "team" manages to do it without her.
Tournaments are not representative of typical DBD matches, so I don't think they're useful to consider. The skill of the players involved is not typical and tournaments' win conditions are almost always different than kills/escapes, which impacts player behavior.
The only reason I used tournaments is to say that even if the 3 remaining survivors are some of the best, most coordinated, most win-oriented players (and in most tournaments they actually do win by getting kills/escapes above all), the 1v3 scenario dramatically shifts the power balance in the killer's favour, even at very advanced stages of the game (including the endgame), and dramatically decreases the survival chances of everyone. Players that are anti-altruistic in principle from the get-go or just awful at teamplay, will much more often have fellow survivors die earlier than players that are altruistic and good at teamplay, and the dynamics of 1v3 scenarios are one highly compelling argument (of various others) for the idea that such anti-altruistic play results in decreased personal survival rate. At any level of play. I just can't see that low group survival rates in the matches of a player are anything but a great predictor for low personal survival rates of that player, aligning with each other ever more closely the more matches you look at.
I absolutely agree that selfish players would naturally end up at diffferent ratings than altruistic players (all else being equal). That should be the case if MMR is working as intended. My viewpoint is that this is a problem, though, it results in worse matches.
Again, I don't think it's a bad thing if I save my teammates, even if they wouldn't do the same for me. I'm perfectly happy with that outcome and wouldn't have it any other way. My frustration is that this outcome destroys the quality of the matches I get going forward. I'll start taking some stats on my survival rate versus the team's and report back once I have a decent sample size, though. I'd be curious to see that too.
But if those players with time are bound to end up at different ratings, they are less and less likely to be paired with each other in order for that scenario to arise to begin with. Particularly if that scenario does arise consistently in cases where they are paired (altruistic players dying, selfish surviving). Gradually, the system should lead to more alike players being paired more often, since they'll have comparable survival rates and therefore ratings if and insofar their playstyle (such as self-sacrificial altruism) actually has a consistent impact on their survival rates.
Very cool if you'll actually take stats. I'm not playing a lot at all lately, but hell, I'll record my stats too (we can just take screenshots of the tally screen and collect them for a while, then evaluating after 100 images or so).
I agree that there theoretically should be other players going through the same thing at similar MMR. However, the number of players like that are small compared to the number of players who just aren't very good at DBD. So, for every kindred spirit I get paired up with, I get an order of magnitude more potatoes.
This is definitely the big problem, though I'm not sure any matchmaking system could better deal with that, at least not without creating prohibitively long queue times (although I think at least at higher MMR brackets there's still merit in increasing queue times in favour of making closer pairings). But I do think that the group-based metric by virtue of leading players to the appropriate ratings more quickly and stabilizing them around those ratings more will obviously also lead to a decrease in pairings of players that would over time even with the current metric settle around different ratings, so you could very well see a tangible difference in matches even on the personal, "lived experience" level. We'll see soon enough, hopefully.
I am completely on board with lowering the MMR of a player who tries to go for some endgame heroics and fails, e.g. trying to save against NOED and dying along with the person who was already hooked. On the flip side, though, successful endgame heroics should raise their MMR. If the tactic itself is not beneficial to the team, by all means, punish it. I can see an argument from people who just want to mess around that they don't want to have bad teammates as a result, but at the end of the day, if you're not trying to win the game, it makes sense that MMR doesn't reward that. I am trying to win when I take on risk to save teammates, though. I just treat DBD as a 4v1 game with a win condition of collective survival, not a game of four concurrent 1v1s with a win condition of individual survival. I know that not everyone will agree, but regardless, I feel encouraging teamplay is very healthy for the game. I find that selfless plays are very rewarding for both sides and bring joy to the game for everyone involved. It's a great way to counter the salt and toxicity that shows up in lots of matches. Discouraging play like that by pushing players to only care about individual outcomes is not a good idea.
While I for one agree that the game is better as a team game and would even want BHVR to push more for that, there's a few things here.
For one thing, as you yourself point out, the game is not strictly a team game, people may disagree that pushing teamplay is desirable. From a designer's perspective, the concept of a multiplayer game where a group has the same objectives and conditions that have to be met in order for them to achieve their objectives but are still individuals with personal objectives and personal motivations that may choose to cooperate and coordinate but aren't strictly forced to in order to achieve objectives (personal and otherwise) can be very interesting. As opposed to a more strictly team-based game where people can and indeed must cooperate and coordinate to achieve team-based objectives that they either succeed or fail to achieve only as a team-entity (i. e. you only win if 3 survivors escape), the "group of multiple individuals" format allows for a different type of player agency, more meaningful personal decisions (or rather more personally meaningful decisions), and an overall interesting dynamic that one could very well would argue is more fitting for the horror gameplay type (everyone out for themselves but alliances may be made; outrun the other survivors not the killer, or throw something (yourself) at them) and creates rewarding gameplay interactions too (in a way of "game theory", where players have to decide for themselves much more whether they deem it worthwhile to help others, whether it is at a given point worth risking themselves for it). Who knows, maybe if BHVR were to fundamentally re-orient the game and outright tell players they only win as a team (e. g. tally screen giving them a fat "you failed" if less than 2 survivors escaped total) it would be less successful than it has been, because players like that tension of everyone potentially being out for themselves but implicitly and explicitly able to help each other.
For another, I really don't think endgame heroics are worth it from a team survival perspective either. Over many matches, I suspect they decrease group survival, with at-best-net-neutral survival outcomes being the most common result, and instances where more survivors die than otherwise would have outweighing comfortably such where more survivors survive than otherwise would have. Even from a "team" perspective, the only reason you would regularly go for such plays is still the gameplay it yields, the thrill and fun of it, not actually it being a viable risk/reward team survival play.
Beyond that, the system doesn't really encourage or discourage playstyles. The rating is invisible, many people don't even know about it and those that do are free to not care about it. The only effect the rating has is that people that died more often than they survived at previous ratings will meet opponents that failed to kill more often than they killed at those ratings. There's no downside to it conceptionally, so if you like going for (even unreasonably) risky and (even not-beneficial-to-the-group) self-sacrificial plays, you have no reason not to do so, the system doesn't discourage you from it or punishes you for it, on the contrary, if you actually consistently die more often than you survive due to playing in such ways, you should eventually arrive at a level where you can survive more often again, and surely such a player does not actually want to die, they just want to go for such plays. Can you imagine having fun going for risky and self-sacrificial plays in the tutorial match to try and protect your bot teammates? I've done it, it's actually pretty fun, and of course, even the lowest MMR levels of actual players are still much more fun and rewarding than that, so even if a risky, self-sacrificial playstyle would lead a player to eventually sit at the lowest of ratings, they could still have fun and success playing as they are.
I for one do agree that the game is better as a team game where everyone is on the same page about playing "for the team" and the team result (though that may be because I like competitive DbD - I do actually suspect most players in pubs enjoy the "chaotic", "individualistic" gameplay experience more), and I welcome the addition of the group-based survival metric. I just don't think the matchmaking system is really the point of interest to yield more such type of play, it should have to be actual gameplay changes, and actually designing the game around the "team" in general more (with clear and clearly-communicated in-game win conditions based on the group result for starters).
Re: endgame scenarios, I keep going back to this in part because it's an easy example to understand and draws a black line between selfish and unselfish players, but also because scenarios like this as easily frequent enough to throw MMR out of whack. If you had to guess, what percentage of your games have at least one hook during the EGC? Maybe 1 in 6? Leaving in every single one of those scenarios versus hook trading in every single one of those scenarios would make a big difference in terms of MMR; 1 extra escape per 6 matches would in theory be a big difference in "skill", especially when you consider the fact that the most unselfish player is the most likely to get left if they're the one on the hook. In practice it's not as simple as 1 in 6, because sometimes both survivors will get out and sometimes it's a situation in which you basically can't trade (e.g. Bubba, injured with no way of healing, NOED and can't find the totem). Even if the actual number is more like 1 in 20 matches, this is just one scenario.
It's just not very meaningful because in order for those scenarios to have an appreciable impact on ratings, they would have to not only be frequent enough in numbers themselves, but also arise frequently to begin with, meaning such "selfish" players would first actually have to consistently lead games into endgame scenarios. Either that does not consistently happen because their selfishness prevents matches from getting there often to begin with, or their selfishness doesn't have a very negative impact on matches overall because only once it comes to the endgame do they lead to other survivors being less likely to survive.
Either way, as I argued earlier, I think it on average would also have a negative effect on a player's MMR if they went for such plays in a team-based environment. It's just not a "correct" play from the survival perspective, personal and group, and in tournaments you will also see players ditch the last survivor 99.9% of the time. The MMR has to be based on success in order to function as desired (and at all), which means in any case, personal or team success, these plays would not be "encouraged" in an MMR system, rather they would always be something players are free to go for if they personally like the gameplay they yield, the thrill and fun and adrenaline, if they don't mind dying due to this often or enjoy enough to make up for this the rare instances where they are actually successful and get more players out. Obviously I have no hard numbers for this, but I really am convinced that if you took group survival stats from equal players one of which goes for endgame rescue attempts consistently and the other does not, you'd see that the latter actually has higher group survival rates too.
There are many situations in game in which you don't need to show the slightest shread of altruism to teammates in order to escape, but in which doing so would help them survive. These crop up in just about any mid to late game scenario in which the survivors are clearly ahead. At this point, the risk from confronting the killer and being the one hooked and left to die when the last gen is powered, is high enough that there's little reason to even bother. Let your teammates go for the save if they feel like it and just pound gens. There are even fun little extra selfish edge cases, like bringing a key and hatch spawn offering as a backup plan, and hiding near the hatch until your teammates die if you think you have a good chance of losing the match. Hatch escapes don't contribute to MMR, but not using your key and getting sacrificed certainly does.
First of all, I want to again highlight the fact that we have to distinguish between merely-altruistic plays and altruistic plays that actually lead to increased group survival. If we look at the former, then there is no reason to go for them from either perspective, because you are not helping the "team" doing so. You yourself are part of the team and risking your life for no numerically-greather-than-your-own-life return is a bad teamplay. If we look at the latter, I really have a hard time seeing that there are many situations in which what you say is true, and on the contrary, see many more situations in what I suspect is true. That is to say, if in such a mid to late game scenario there are plays you can go for that actually result in an increased group survival chance (and consistently do so, as in leading to an increased group survival rate over many matches), not going for those plays will regularly result in decreased personal survival chances (and rates over many matches) too. Doesn't mean you actually always die if you go for them, or always live if you don't, but I just don't think there are very clear consistent routes of play to personal survival from a non-open-gates-endgame perspective that consistently come at a detriment to group survival. Even if you're on the last gen, having someone else be taken out can be a huge problem, and in cases where it isn't, helping them instead of finishing the last gen immediately would regularly also not have resulted in huge problems.
These are obviously less clear arguments and they revolve more around the specifics and complexities of the gameplay, we may not agree on them (and dev stats on group survival vs. personal survival rate ratios would be cool to have for an a little more objective look at this), but then ultimately, I would have to come back to the standpoint that even if we do assume that there are a lot of clear, consistent routes to personal survival that come at clear, consistent detriments to group survival, the system does not have to care about that - as long as it works to instate around 50% personal and therefore also group survival rates on average overall (it does), it's working as "correctly" as it possibly can, since that is its only goal, giving people more even chances to succeed and actually more even success rates. The gameplay experiences then may be more undesirable for some people (at least until they settle at different ratings due to playing in other ways and not succeeding as often as a result), but that is something that should have to be changed in the gameplay design rather than attempted to be worked around with a matchmaking system, set actual hard, gameplay incentives for people to go for and benefit from teamplay.
"Reality" by which definition? The current MMR system? For almost the entire lifespan of this game, the closest thing to a defined win condition in DBD has been whether or not you pip. Pipping of course determines your rank and rank was used for matchmaking for 5+ years, so the clear message was that pipping is what shows you played a good match. Pipping heavily rewards team outcomes and altruistic play. You will have a much harder time pipping if you never interact with the killer and leave it to your teammates, even in a winning match where you could easily get out. You will also have a much harder time pipping if you don't every save a survivor from the hook. The entire team is punished if someone is left to die on the hook too, meaning team escapes were important for individual success. It was also entirely possible to pip without surviving if you did a lot to help the team (ran the killer for a while, did lots of generators, healed and unhooked teammates, etc.). This system still exists in the game and is shown on every postgame screen as a measurement of performance, and unlike MMR it is intentionally visible. Are we meant to ignore the multi-year history of the game, and the conditions in which most people learned to play, and just accept that individual performance is all that matters now, just because we've had a matter of months with a flawed MMR system? I see this as evidence that the MMR system doesn't reflect the reality of the game, not that the reality of the game has changed.
You could refer to the things @knell is stating for this. The only clearly-defined win condition for this game has always been to kill or survive. Just that. This is not at all controversial. When you ask people what a survivor has to do in DbD, they don't say "interact with the killer, go for unhooks, be in the killer's terror radius for a while, hit great skill checks, take hits, heal often, cleanse totems, try to get chase state a lot, try not to unhook other survivors if they are likely to be downed within 10 seconds after the unhook, and do a whole bunch of other stuff and get a so-called pip which allows you to get a better rank/grade"... they say "you have to survive". This win condition has always been very clear from the basic game description, as well as clear in most of anyone's mind that thinks about the game where survivors flee from a killer - they want to escape alive. (And almost nobody automatically extends this to "you have to survive but at least 1 other survivor has to also survive, and 2 or 3 others if you actually want to win".)
The Emblem/rank system was awful at making good matches happen, the disparity in skill and performances couldn't have been much more drastic. Average kill rates of 70+% in red ranks? Ludicrous really. A system that looks at actual success of players in terms of absolute (yes/no) and diametrically opposed win conditions (which MMR has to be) is just better at creating more even matches, and killing/surviving are definitely what most players in this game consider success. On top of that, most people definitely care the most about their own survival, more than about that of others. We could argue whether this is actually the case, I of course have no objective evidence of this, but I find it to be completely common sense. So having the system make matches happen where people specifically personally have more even chances and rates of success (personally surviving) is desirable to increase overall satisfaction levels. Mind you, I don't actually think the system would yield very different results with the group-based metric, and I would welcome even switching to it entirely, but the devs most likely have reasons why they aren't doing this, and will at most be switching to a hybrid metric of both personal and group survival. One reason for that I suspect is that they do not want scenarios (rare as they may be, little as they may affect the overall system's functioning) where individual players can have loss streaks of dying a lot but not being adjusted to a rating where they can survive more often because their "teams" are surviving a lot.
I'm not sure many people would want to 4v1 game in which the survivors are essentially competitors forced into an uneasy truce to overcome the killer, but who will and should turn on each other the second their own escape is assured. Just my opinion, but that sounds toxic and unfun. WIth the popularity of SWF, people clearly like playing cooperatively with their friends, and this also entails helping them whenever possible, because that's what friends do. I'm not trying to argue that players should value their teammates just as highly as themself, because I agree that's not realistic for most players. I just think it should be a clear goal going into the match to get as many people out as possible. No need to trade just to save your buddy, but also don't leave them to die when you could easily save them.
Well, I don't think the game is one where survivors are essentially competitors, and where turning on each other can consistently assure personal escapes. Teamplay is integral to the game precisely because it correlates closely with personal success. The question would more be about whether players should be free to decide for themselves whether they prefer altruistic even self-sacrificially altruistic gameplay, or whether they only care about it to the extent that it enables their own survival, or yet that they don't care about it at all and only want to be a lone wolf. The game does not dictate this, functionally teamplay is absolutely beneficial, but not absolutely necessary to "succeed" in terms of playing the game "correctly", with the personal escape goal or indeed any other goal. You may not mind dying in order for other players to survive, but someone else may well not mind others dying for their own survival, or not mind dying themselves by playing a lone wolf style, because they only want to survive "by themselves" as much as possible. And so on. Although I do think for the vast majority of players, the teamplay aspects of the game are obvious and something they naturally gravitate toward, and not only opportunistically (for personal and group survival) but even from a truly-altruistic place of motivation, such as trying to contest Bubba facecamps because they just feel bad for the person on hook and don't want them to have a bad experience, feel obligated to try and help, even if the chances of saving are slim.
Definitely looking forward to the MMR changes they've been murmuring about, if and when they come. I just hope it weights all escapes evenly rather than just making a small adjustment for team performance, or something.
Yeah, hopefully they'll share more on just what the "hybridization" of the metrics entails.
I remember your name from some past posts that I thought were really well done, and I appreciate the time you put into responding to me. I'll try to put together some stats on my match outcomes too.
I remember you too, after all you are one of the main reasons why I ever even started looking at and contributing to these forums at all again. Cheers!
1 -
Wow who is reaching now, didn't account for the win condition? Is was one of the most rewarding single elements of it.
Wanted to climb in the emblem system, one of the best ways to do so is to consistently win.
All these statements are true. How did it not consider escaping? It then looked at the rest of your performance to see if you were on par, below or above that of your ranking. I don't think the emblem system was incredibly good, as it took to many things into consideration, as pointed out in the article you provided that has some severe dangers that people will start doing things to get the correct stats while not contributing to the final result. It still was a MMR system, just not a very good one and I for one am actually in favor that they replaced it.
In all these games, you on an individual level are unable to win if the overall team doesn't. You state well people will become more altruistic and stop doing gens, but do you think that can and will result in 3 to 4 people getting out? This is simply a false narrative you are pushing. Just because you have the most damage dealt, doesn't mean that your team will win. I am still stating that the game should look at which side won, did the 4 or the 1 win in the 4v1 game.
To bring it actually inline with your Overwatch article, even though all 4 survivors added value to the match to create the final result and made them win, even though it might have cost someone their life they are not being rewarded equally and even worse the one that died isn't rewarded at all, they go down in rating.
"To generalize Elo to team games, there's two factors you'd use. First, if your team's AVERAGE ranking was lower than the opposing team's average ranking, then you should get more points for winning. Second, if your PERSONAL ranking is lower than your team's average ranking, you should get more points for winning than your higher-ranked teammates who also won."
In the current system the survivors are judged individually based on their individual outcomes, your team can win while you lose and that is an issue. According to your article that is where the danger lies. Literally the teams win and MMR being separated per individual is the issue.
This is what they state on how to get out of ELO hell as they state: "What I mean is, it's probably more important to have few deaths and to generally be on the payload than it is to achieve impressive stats that "in theory" allow your teammates to be on the payload."
That is exactly the issue that we have currently in the game. If you keep playing in a fashion that doesn't result in your team winning, while you yourself are getting out. That means according to the article that you should have adjusted your play, to work with what you have and contribute in a way that makes your team win. You shouldn't have been rewarded for escaping, because your team lost. Literally the article you provided showcases that the individual win condition should be thrown overboard and replaced with the teams win condition.
You have not defined the win condition for a killer, their goal is to kill survivors. Therefore one is enough? Why should both sides of a versus be using the same metrics to determine whether they are well matched and which side won? Because that is what makes these things fair and accurate. That is why I am suggesting and stating that the game should consider the win condition of 3/4 escapes as a win, a 2k/e a draw, a 0/1 escape as a loss.
You claim that there is no team victory, but you are in a team of 4 versus a team of 1. This is just a false statement and so backwards. To get a team result, you tally the outcome of each individual. That is what that means. You don't care about your team, but that doesn't change the fact that the game is a 4v1.
I don't believe that having multiple factors weigh in to determine the amount you gain or lose is a big deal. You are right that it shouldn't expand to much based on what is stated in that article and is why the Emblem system was so bad. It does have some strong points on how individual evaluations are dangerous in a team based MMR system, but the big elephant in the room is that the MMR system isn't accounting for the teams result equally for all those that contributed to it and is doing exactly what they state you shouldn't evaluating people individually.
That article just shows that you are digging your own grave here and trying to jump through hoops to justify individual evaluations over that of a team. The entire article is that a team MMR system and survivors are on a team, should award everyone on the team according to their teams results. All you have showcased here is that the developers fell for the same flaws in the new MMR system, as they did with the old one.
Post edited by Kalinikta on1 -
Thanks.
It's unlikely you would see my work anywhere, I'm a back-end engineer. I used to co-host an Xbox 360 Leagues site back in the day, had a lot of help from the original TrueSkill researchers in implementing an MMR system into our games (so we could match-make our own private COD2 games in advance). The only references to it now are on the way back machine.
A friend and I also sort-of accidentally made a viral rumour about new Gears of War content (this is back in 2006), references to that still exist, search for "the above domain". I'm sure someone will ask, so I'll explain now: it started off as an off-the-cuff comment I said to someone to email me at my username "at the above domain" (i.e. without specifying my email address specifically to circumvent bots that were searching for email addresses to spam). "Gears of War" was new and hot, and my friend thought it was an amusing connection (because the locusts come from underground to 'the above domain', i.e. our area) so made a website with some vague references as an in-joke for our league of gamers. At the time we also used to do game reviews too (publishers would send us copies of games to review... good times), so a number of sources also looked to us for content... saw this, and ran with it not realising it was an in-joke. And then it just grew into wild conspiracies with us fanning the flames until the head of Epic had to make an official announcement about it. Good times :D
Other than that, the most visible project I've worked on is Kayako; when it was acquired a few years ago, I was one of the system architects responsible for moving it from the existing servers to the new owner's infrastructure.
0 -
That's super cool!
Any advice on getting into the industry?
I'm hoping to work as a sound designer/game designer one day.
0 -
I assume you mean games industry? I've no idea, sorry. I've never been (directly) involved. My closest involvement was building the Tomb Raider and Championship Manager platforms (Eidos was our customer).
I'd offer general architectural tips, but I've no idea how they relate to sound/game design. Sorry.
0 -
oh, no, that's all good.
I was just wondering if you had any advice, generally.
your work is still super interesting, btw, I don't want this to sound like I'm detracting from that by talking about game design specifically.
1
