Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
The problem with MMR: DBD is not hockey
There are a few small topics I want to touch on here, but I'd like to preface this with the obligatory do not harass the devs disclaimer. I'm not trying to direct hate towards anyone at BHVR as I know they're just trying to do their jobs, but I think all feedback is important, regardless of whether it's good or bad.
To start with, I love the recent comparisons with hockey because it shows the massive rift in understanding of the game between the devs and the playerbase. DBD is not hockey (roll credits) and I think that should be abundantly clear. The comparison to a sport like hockey implies that DBD is a symmetrical competitive game with clearly defined win conditions, of which it is none; DBD is an asymmetrical party game with a great many ways to get to the end result of either kills or escapes.
What do I mean by that? Well, in hockey the literal only way to win the game is to score more goals than the opposing team, and the only way to score those goals is to take repeated shots on goal. In DBD on the other hand, it's not that simple. As killer there are multiple ways I could go about achieving a 4k — I could 4 man slug and bleed people out on the ground, I could tunnel out one survivor then deal with the rest, I could facecamp and bank on NOED, or I could shoot for a 12 hook. I'm pretty sure we can all acknowledge which of those things is the most skillful way to play, yet the system as it stands disincentivizes that playstyle because it doesn't care about the nuances of how you play, but only the end result.
I'm not really trying to hone in on the quote itself, but more so on the general competitive mindset that attitude pushes. By having a system that only cares about the end result and does not reward people for playing with actual depth beyond that, it detracts from the general gameplay experience. This system relegates killers to tunneling and survivors to selfish escapes, which generally makes the game less fun. Why should I go for 12 hooks if that win is directly equivalent to one with 4 hooks? Why should a survivor run to unhook their teammate with one gen left to go when leaving them to die and finishing the last gen is the objectively optimal way to rank up?
Going for a lot of hooks as killer inherently decreases your chances of getting kills, but it's typically the most fun way to play for all parties involved. Along the same vein, playing super altruistic and trying to get as many people out as possible inherently increases your chances of dying, but it's typically the most fun way to play. The MMR system actively punishes you for being the one to go for saves or for being the nice killer who doesn't like to tunnel.
Essentially what I'm saying is the notion that the current MMR system is good for game health is predicated on the idea that all players are the same and only play with the end goal of kills/escapes in mind. The issue there is that this is not a competitive game and that leaves no room for anyone just playing for fun. Even I am finding myself shying away from playing weaker killers or off-meta builds anymore because of the competitive mindset that is being forced on the entire playerbase.
The devs believe the nuances of how you play do not matter because of the general idea that skilled players win more often. But how do we define skill? What is a win? Is it more important that people prioritize kills by any means and only run the best builds with the best items/add-ons, or more important that we just let people play the game and have fun? I'm probably not the first killer main to say I had more fun in the days of old DS and old Object, not because of unfair and unbalanced perks, but simply because despite all the broken and busted things, underneath there was a cool party game where winning and losing wasn't the only thing on my mind.
I'm not saying skilled players don't win more often or that MMR isn't an accurate predictor of who "wins" most often — I'm just saying that there is more to this game than winning and losing, and MMR inherently makes it less fun by pushing it in a competitive direction.
Comments
-
I can’t be the only person who thinks people harping on the hockey thing are overblowing the metaphor, right?
14 -
A lot of people joke about it, but the thing is it genuinely does highlight a lack of understanding of how people like to play the game. The comparison they gave was shots —> goals —> wins therefore wins = skill, but that directly implies the game is as simple as do gen, open gate, leave.
My issue is with how the metaphor was used. Skilled plays =/= wins because bleeding survivors out on the ground with no hooks is not skillful, and camping a gate while all your teammates die and the killer looks for the hatch is not skillful. The usage of that metaphor to justify not tracking hooks, unhooks, heals, sabos, chase time, etc. is the issue I'm getting at, and I think it's pretty clear a very large chunk of the playerbase takes issue with it if these forums, content creators and Steam stats are anything to go off of.
7 -
So now “slugging” is somehow cheap or unfair, got it.
1 -
When did I ever say that? It is a tool, and I do not have some entitled attitude that makes me think that anyone has any inherent right that the other side plays a certain way. That said, I think we should all be able to acknowledge a 4k with 12 hooks is typically more impressive than, say, camping a guy to death then getting a gimmicky victory off NOED/No Way Out.
6 -
I also thought the hockey metaphor was a little flawed, but it's really time to let it go.
What he was getting at with it - that kills are a reliable indicator of skill when taken across a large batch of games - wasn't even that controversial, it seems most people just get hung up on the idea of an individual match's skilful play when they talk about the MMR.
4 -
I don't think the intent was to use sports as a direct metaphor or target for MMR. It's something that was said on the spot. I don't think any of us are perfectly articulate when we try to improvise in front of audience.
That being said, sports in general account for player performance beyond wins and losses. There's a whole staff on each team dedicated to that regardless of the sport. It's well known that some players put up great stats on terrible teams and some players get carried by the players around them.
4 -
Again, I don't care so much about the metaphor as the general attitude the devs have with the system. And the problem is not that kills/escapes are not a reliable indicator of skill, but that only caring about the end result inherently pushes the game in a much more heavily meta-focused and competitive direction. More players are relegated to having to camp and tunnel to ensure they don't "derank" and start facing nothing but potatoes, which are just unfun in a different way. On top of that, more and more often I'm seeing teams just leaving people to die on first hook because gens, open gate, escape is the only thing on their mind.
1 -
Whether or not that's what their target is, that's definitely how the system works. "Cutting out the middle-man" as Patrick put it directly means that, according to the system, how you play does not matter. I can get 24k BP and "lose" because my 9 hook 1k on Badham means I am "not skilled" and I can get 15k BP and "win" because my Iri Head 4 hook 4k on Midwich means I am "skilled"
1 -
I don't see how else they could do it. As they said in the stream itself, they kinda have to have it be based on win/loss because otherwise you might have scenarios where players 'rank up' after losing which doesn't feel intuitive or accurate at all.
Players feeling they need to play a certain way because of the MMR is also on them, not on the MMR system. It's easier to fix the latter than the former so it's not completely irrelevant information, but it's best not to assume that those players are right and justified.
Also, a lot of the current issues would be fixed by tweaking the balance of the game, not the MMR system.
1 -
I think that's an incredibly shortsighted take.
A lot of people play a certain way because of MMR because the system inherently punishes them for trying to have fun. If you die because you ran and saved 2 people during EGC resulting in a 3 man out instead of a 2 man out, why do you "lose" when the rest of team only won because of you?
MMR is not needed in DBD because winning and losing are not the sole thing that determines "fun" in the game. That said, if you're going to have an MMR system it needs to take hooks into account as well as unhooks, heals, etc. They could still base the general win/loss idea on kills/escapes, but at the very least give killers bonus points for getting x number of hooks and/or give survivors bonus points for every heal/save, so if you're a team player or don't tunnel your ass off at least when you lose you don't lose as bad.
1 -
Like I said, it misses the mark a bit in their implementation. It's fine if they want to do that on killer, aside from edge case scenarios. I think it misses the mark by a mile on survivor given how wide the acceptable matchmaking range is. It can't lack any and all nuance and also allow two good players, a complete noob, and someone determined to throw the game for a rift challenge to be matched together.
2 -
Let's crack into a few takes here, because there are a couple of misunderstandings on display that I think I can help with.
So, first of all: MMR does not inherently punish anything. It also doesn't inherently reward anything! The only thing it changes is, if after multiple wins/losses in a row, it'll put you in a different pool of players to be matched with. It can feel as though it's punishing you, but only because people put far, far, far more weight into one game than the system does.
Regarding your second point- you lose because you lost? The MMR system has nothing to do with that, the game you're describing was strictly speaking a loss when the emblem system governed matchmaking. Any system they use for matchmaking is going to follow the win/loss conditions that already existed in the game before its inception, they're hardly going to radically alter the way the game works at a fundamental level just for a matchmaker to function.
That being said, there is one thing that you've said that I potentially agree with - if, after the current issues with the MMR system are fixed, it's still not performing where it should, the one potential flaw it currently has is survivors not being accurately rated for team play. That's an area it could maybe do with a little more nuance in if it proves to be necessary- hard to tell right now when an unrelated part of it is broken.
0 -
it was a TERRIBLE analogy. Patrick deserves every ounce of ridicule & backlash for that one. A lot of us invested too much money for the game to be heading in the direction of that sort of thinking. He doesn’t play his own game.
4 -
MMR absolutely does punish altruism because altruism inherently leads to more deaths which inherently leads to lower MMR. Same deal with playing split-pressure and not tunneling — it leads to fewer kills which leads to lower MMR. Lower MMR games for genuinely good players are unfun because the games are not interactive. As killer it would mean I 4k with zero effort and have no interesting chases. Over time I would basically just get juggled back and forth between losing to squads that play only to win and stomping 200 hour players that should never be matched with me in the first place.
And are you genuinely going to tell me that it was impossible to die as survivor and still pip up or even safety pip? I used to play mega altruistic when I'd play survivor once in a blue moon and I would rarely pip down even upon dying because my friends and I always liked going for saves and made fun risky plays that got us a lot of points. Along the same vein it was pretty easy to get a 4k entity displeased if you just slugged everyone for 4 minutes.
Escapes were literally only one emblem out of 4; it feels like some people just don't even remotely remember how the old system worked.
1 -
Agreed. The whole point is kills and escapes are a reasonable proxy on average for a win or loss. MMR isn’t meant to evaluate how a win or loss occurs, it’s just there to put killers who “get a lot of kills” against survivors who “get a lot of escapes”. And it actually does work in that when all the players in the match are about the same MMR it’ll be a reasonably good matchup. The issues with the matchmaking algorithm have less to do with MMR being based on kills versus the system ignoring the MMR altogether in the interest of making matches quickly to backfill lobby dodges and to do with what rating the system wants a killer to be when you have a high rated survivor in a swf with a low rated one, for example.
2 -
Skilled plays =/= wins because bleeding survivors out on the ground with no hooks is not skillful
How else am I supposed to interpret that sentence other than “slugging isn’t a legitimate win”?
1 -
I'll grant you that in the case you're talking about, there's an unintended negative consequence that feels like a punishment, but that is not what the system is for. It is not for rewarding good play and punishing bad play, it's for pushing people of an equal-ish win-chance together so the match is relatively balanced. It's currently not doing that, but that's not really relevant- what's relevant is that the system is not designed as an incentive/progression system, and if you want to talk about improving it that is the number one baseline thing you need to understand.
(I'd also like to point out that playing split-pressure and not tunneling doesn't inherently lead to less kills. It leads to less kills because healing speeds need reigning in, and generator speed increases probably should too. That's nothing to do with the MMR.)
Of course you could lose and pip up. You also still lost, because the survivor win condition is to escape. That's... pretty much why the emblem system was completely unfit for purpose and actively worse than what we have now? It was incredibly easy to climb the ranks such that there was a gigantic gulf of skill difference within the supposed highest rank.
1 -
I agree that the game should have been designed from the outset as the survivors being an actual team that win or lose as a group. This whole semi-cooperative thing rarely works.
Unfortunately semi-cooperative “every survivor for themselves but not really” is what we have, and in that setting yes, you lose if you get yourself killed saving the others.
2 -
But was the survivor win condition really just to escape? The dev team never once defined what the win condition was until MMR became a thing, so for all we knew getting a 3 man out by any means was a win, whether that be by a guy dying to go out of his way to save his friends, or by a key escape. How do we know that when the emblem system was introduced the dev team's vision for win/loss was different?
1 -
Nobody ever said DbD is hockey. People who think that was said have a serious misunderstanding of how analogies work.
0 -
Personally I keep mentioning it because it's funny
The hockey thing wasn't even the worst thing Patrick said, the worst thing he said was "Was it really a skilled play to begin with" but the Hockey thing is funnier imo
3 -
And that's kind of the whole point of my post. The entire point of the system is win/loss no matter how you get there, but should dying be considered a "loss" if the rest of the team made it out alive? Or as killer should two wins under completely different conditions be treated as "equal" in the eyes of the system? I'm not saying a 4 man slug should have to be considered a loss, but more that I should at least be rewarded more for taking on the challenge of 12 hooking and winning, or at least I shouldn't be punished for trying to let everyone have a little fun.
1 -
Of course it was? The stated goal of the survivor side has always been to do five generators so you can power the exit gates so you can escape. The only ambiguity before was whether you considered technically failing to meet the win condition a loss if your doing so helped teammates escape-- but whatever side of that question you came down on, its central premise requires the understanding that you did still technically lose.
To be clear, I am not saying that someone should be punished for losing or that losing is inherently bad. You don't make it out of every trial, and that's fine, but if we're talking about the game's win condition there isn't and has never been any ambiguity for the survivor side, and there's only ever been one point of ambiguity on the killer side- namely, whether a 3k counts or not, anything below has always been a loss or a draw.
People spent a long time figuring out the end result they think most proves their skill, and over time I think a lot of people confused that for the game legitimately not having its own win condition when it always has.
1 -
The hockey analogy already didn't work when it came to hockey, extending it to dbd made it only worse.
Unless you think hockey consists only of shooting at goals and nothing else.
3 -
To start with, I love the recent comparisons with hockey because it shows the massive rift in understanding of the game between the devs and the playerbase. DBD is not hockey (roll credits) and I think that should be abundantly clear.
Yes, I agree completely.
The comparison to a sport like hockey implies that DBD is a symmetrical competitive game with clearly defined win conditions, of which it is none
Oh dear... and you started off so well.
LITERALLY NOBODY SAID THIS!!
There!
Not a single dev said DBD is like hockey, because as you said, they're not the same.
What Patrick did say - using hockey as an example - is that you don't need to measure shots on goal as a proxy for skill because the end result (i.e. higher score) is a suitable proxy for shots on goal (you can't get a high score without taking shots on goal).
And in the same way, you can't get kills without killing survivors. And you can't get escapes without evading the killer.
That's it. That's literally the only point being stressed. And you've gotten it amazingly wrong, and then had the arrogance to presume it's the devs who don't know what they're talking about rather than yourself.
4 -
What I find funniest about the hockey comment, is that; We do base hockey players on how they perform during the match to equate to their skill level in hockey.
It's not down to just how many goals in hockey matches, or win's and losses.
There is also Fantasy Hockey too.
6 -
It's a bad analogy because it fixates on the whole 'kill/escapes' thing being the only thing worth measuring
We both know escaping and kills aren't indicative of skill
3 -
Enjoyed reading this.
0 -
Did I say they "said" that? I clearly used the word "implies" in the statement you directly quoted. No matter how you slice it it is still a terrible example to use. And like other people have pointed out it's not even a good analogy in hockey because that only factors in team results. Individual players are still rated based on how many shots they take, for example.
Using the NFL as an example (because it's more in my wheelhouse) we can say that Aaron Rodgers is a very skilled quarterback. Does he win a lot of Super Bowls? No, because the Packers on the whole are not that good. Nobody uses his team results to rate him as a terrible quarterback because that's not a fair rating. A solid example of this is Matthew Stafford. On the Lions his results sucked, yet he was still a very good quarterback with a lot of promise. Now that he's on the Rams (a genuinely good team) he managed to win a Super Bowl. If not for his individual skills taking precedence over his team results, the Rams never would have picked him up in the first place, hence why nuance is important.
That said, with that point you're referencing I was more touching on the fact that even the MMR system itself is based on a 1v1x4, while DBD is a 1v4.
Post edited by cluxdx on1 -
Slugging is absolutely skillfull, maybe not leaving them to bleed out but if I can down everyone in the first few minutes with the nurse and then end the game by hooking them all how in the world is it not skilled? I caught everyone and they all died without camping or tunneling a single one of them. 12 hooking sounds good on paper and it's absolutely possible but against a good squad slugging is necessary to gain more pressure at once and you're more than likely to get gen rushed if you go by the survivor rule book instead of pulling out all the stops and doing what works for whatever killer you play.
0 -
I don’t think anyone needs further convincing that Patrick’s analogy was terrible 😂
2 -
Did I say they "said" that?
I'm going to assume English is your first language. If not, please feel free to correct me.
I don't know why you mentioned "said" in quotes, like your contention is that they "wrote" it. In either case, your position is clearly that the devs have made such a statement because you literally said: "I love the recent comparisons with hockey because it shows the massive rift in understanding of the game between the devs and the playerbase".
The clear implication to any English speaker here is that the comparison with hockey was brought up by one of the two parties... and we know it wasn't the player-base. In fact, we even know what dev it was, and what statement you're referring to.
So whilst you didn't necessarily say the words "the devs 'said' xxx", the inference was pretty clear.
I clearly used the word "implies" in the statement you directly quoted.
Yes. I quoted you saying "The comparison to a sport like hockey implies that DBD is a symmetrical competitive game with clearly defined win conditions, of which it is none". That's literally your opinion of what the implication of the alleged statement is. It has nothing to do with your position that the devs made such a statement.
I don't know where you learned English, but your use of "implies" here does not, in any way, negate the direct inference you made that the devs are comparing DBD to hockey.
And like other people have pointed out it's not even a good analogy in hockey because that only factors in team results.
For the purpose for which the analogy was made, it's an adequate analogy. You're literally misunderstanding it, and insisting that you know what the devs meant when they used it, moreso than the devs themselves.
Using the NFL as an example...
Blah blah blah blah blah... you're literally generating a monologue and argument to something that literally no-one said. Were you writing this post in the shower??
That said, with that point you're referencing I was more touching on the fact that even the MMR system itself is based on a 1v1x4, while DBD is a 1v4
I'm actually genuinely surprised you've understood this... whilst at the same time completely misplacing Patrick's explanation of how it got there.
1 -
I wrote a very lengthy detailed post that literally explained this (and was confirmed by Patrick as being accurate).
Short version, the analogy works. You just have no idea how an MMR system could possibly work. You might think you know how it works, but you'd never be able to implement your imagined idea into an actual workable system.
I'd go into more detail, but I've already done so in that thread, which many read and were grateful for the explanation and better understanding it granted them. I'd suggest you give it a read rather than continue your position of ignorance.
Here... I'll even give you the link: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/306573/how-the-mmr-works-and-why-what-patrick-said-makes-absolute-sense-from-a-dev-pov/p1
2 -
I know how the system works and why it is the way it is
I just don't like it or think it's a good system at all
Also calling other people's opinions on a subjective thing "ignorance" isn't very polite is it, I didn't insult you for having a different opinion. Not that I'm surprised by it, mind you. Come to expect it from people
3 -
The word "ignorance" isn't an insult. It literally means lack of knowledge or information. You don't even have to buy a dictionary these days to learn that.
And I stand by it. Your comment literally reeks of ignorance as to how an MMR system works.
But, what the heck, let's assume you're some kind of master genius that knows something the rest of us devs don't know. Explain to us then, how do you objectively measure a 5-gen chase as compared to someone who just does gens, hides from the killer and escapes. What's the measurable ratio here that can be used for comparisons to work out results for MMR purposes?
1 -
If you say so buddy
All of this because I said kills and escapes aren't indicative of skill. (Which they aren't)
Also nowhere did I say I know how to fix it, or what would be better - I just said I know how MMR works and I don't like it. What more do you want? I'm not writing you an essay. Nice projection btw
3 -
Way to move the goal posts.
1 -
Exactly. There have been plenty of players on losing teams that have been All-stars. The metaphor was terribly sloppy at best.
3 -
All of this because I said kills and escapes aren't indicative of skill. (Which they aren't)
They absolutely are. Case in point, the DBD MMR system uses this and the results speak for themselves. And the people who've built such systems say they are. But you know this right, because you know how it all works? Nice one.
1 -
The results do speak for themselves, you're right
Just not in the way you think you are.
2 -
The entire point of ELO, MMR, TrueSkill rating systems is to jump the player's overall level of skill or assign relative placement value on a player to determine their competitive standing.
Wins and losses matter and should be weighted heavier, but the actual important metrics are how you get to the end result. Chess factors in not only flat wins and losses, but time spent in game and number of moves. Fighting games that used the TrueSkill rating system judged you not only on wins and losses, but factors such as offensiveness, defensiveness, execution of combinations. League and Dota take into account vision score, creep score, damage dealt, damage healed etc.
The more data points you use in your MMR system up to a point gives a better understanding of how each player approaches the game and better indicates their level of skill. We already have a game that allows both sides to "win" by default. Killers and survivors both can pip in the same game so the analogy falls apart right there. It falls apart even more when you account for their insistence of 2 and 2 balance which means as long as you get about six hooks, some decent chases, a handful or two of hits and control gen progress for the first 9 minutes of the game you can get a Ruthless Killer at best which is a pip or Brutal killer at worst which is an effective draw.
Even if you die as survivor if you've done enough things to flesh out multiple scoring events then you can pip. Even by the game's own metrics before we add in SBMM into the mix both states can be true simultaneously. A better indicator of skill in DBD by comparison was the old victory cube setup.
3 -
What goal posts? He made a silly statement that the only implication I could draw from it is that slugging is somehow unfair and winning with slugging isn't an actual win.
0 -
reads title
WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT'S NOT HOCKEY
On a serious note the fact we can be put into games that expects us to carry others and or having extremely laggy matches are the main reason I hate terribly implemented sbmm in other games like I find it funny how companies are pushing sbmm and failing at it when halo 3 had the perfect skill based matchmaking template
2 -
The constant mentioning of the hockey analogy is getting really old but also just wanted to call this out.
The comparison to a sport like hockey implies that DBD is a symmetrical competitive game with clearly defined win conditions, of which it is none; DBD is an asymmetrical party game with a great many ways to get to the end result of either kills or escapes.
The analogy has no connection to whether it is symmetrical or asymmetrical. Nobody implied DBD was symmetrical and the analogy does not fall apart if it is asymmetrical. I keep seeing this "but it's asymmetrical" like that matters at all and suddenly invalidates and disproves every other thing he said. Please explain why that matters.
The developers have now gone back and said, "Yes, there are clearly defined win conditions." You can say you don't like that. You can play not to "win". I have a bunch of fun playing some games while "losing". It turns out I'm quite bad at sports but still like to run around and kick a soccer ball or shoot some hoops even if I'm bad and I still have fun.
Cool. It's a party game. I'm again not really sure why that matters. Mario Kart is also a party game and it doesn't take a lot of skill. After a few games playing against some friends who aren't as good at video games, they get bored because they still like to have a shot at winning. It's not a very fun party game if you always lose. There has to be some chance that you win. Waiting in a queue for 10 minutes to get stomped by a god nurse in 4 minutes is a good way to just get people to stop playing the game. You still need matchmaking in a party game because otherwise it's not very fun and what is a not very fun party game? A dead game.
In sports, there are also many different ways to get to the end result of goals. In soccer, it's obviously skillful to go for hard shots on goal. But, you can also win the game by baiting a defender into fouling you so you can get a free kick on goal. Free kicks on goal are easier to shoot than most other shots. Does that mean the team didn't win? Who cares if there are a lot of different ways to get kills or escapes? That was Patrick's entire point! There's a lot of different ways to score goals in hockey. Just shooting repeatedly from across the rink repeatedly isn't a very good way. You'll get a lot of shots on goal but they'll be bad ones that have no shot of scoring. Why should you count the number of shots to determine skill? But, usually hockey players don't just take repeated potshots that have no chance. So, usually, the number of shots usually indicates that there were more good attempts to score and so you're more likely to get more goals. Why not count the goals then?
It honestly wasn't a bad analogy. The way he said it was a bit forced and it's not a 1:1 comparison because of how the game structure is setup, but it's also really hard to distill what was probably several months of back and forth technical and design discussions into a minute-long answer to a hostile audience. I know that the people here don't really believe it, but as a developer myself, I would likely assume that Patrick and whatever other developers worked on this spent a lot of time both thinking about it and discussing it. They went through a lot of phases where they strongly believed, "It won't work at all if we only count kills and escapes because our first attempt doing that didn't work." They wrote and rewrote prototypes over and over again. They tried alternatives and they didn't work either. They reread the papers on MMR repeatedly and stared at a computer screen just asking, "Why won't this work the way I want it to?" They asked themselves, "What if MMR just doesn't work for this game?" and were forced to work on another project because there was a deadline and they couldn't spend all week hitting a brick wall. Then they revisited some of those original assumptions and found ways to tweak it so it would work. They likely also spent many months figuring out ways to get more statistics so they could run their own simulations rather than forcing the entire community to test whatever solution they wanted to test. The only reason why we know about their thoughts while they were developing the system is because they told us because they wanted to be transparent about where their current opinions were. The reason they are getting more cagey with telling us those thoughts is because, each time they do and they later change their mind, the community won't shut up for years about a thing they no longer believe.
For what it's worth, all of my matches have been much better and consistent since MMR came out. When I escape as a survivor, it feels good. When I die, it feels like I had a chance and the person. As a killer, my matches will be a bit more varied, but generally if I get stomped for a few matches it will scale back the intensity of the survivors. If I stomp too much, the game seems to put me up against survivors who have a bit more experience. I rarely feel as if I have absolutely no chance when playing. When it was the rank system, it was a complete crapshoot. Will I get matches with facecamping Bubbas and teammates that don't do anything? Sure. I got those before too.
3 -
So, a few notes.
The first is that this system does take into account more than just kills and escapes, it just uses those as the primary goal that it then raises or lowers the MMR change for depending on other factors, like which order the survivors died in. Anyone who says the system should take into account more things in that vein, where win/loss matters most and then things can soften the loss if you played really well, isn't someone I want to argue with. I think they're being a little premature, but their position makes sense.
Second, this game does allow "both sides" to win, but it does not allow all players to win. Pipping is not the win/loss condition, kills and escapes are the win/loss condition- and since the game is asynchronous, a little more overlap there than a traditional synchronous competition is acceptable, it makes sense.
Lastly, this game doesn't need to go into the same depth as games like League, or fighting games with competitive ladders, or even games like CS:GO and Overwatch, because it's not that kind of game. What it's going for is more of a Quick Play style MMR, with generalised skill brackets that give a broad overview of how likely someone is to win- that's all it wants, it isn't aiming to be a competitive ladder and failing. Rather than pointing out how other games are trying for something different, you'd be better served trying to make a case for why DBD should be changing its approach.
It doesn't seem to me like a generally more casual game like DBD needs a hyper-competitive MMR system that rivals or even parallels that of genuine e-sports. Why would it?
0 -
I gathered a lot more from his post than that. Seems like you just want to argue on the forums. Have at it I guess.
2 -
The inherent problem with these threads is everyone who believes they understand what skill is better than Patrick focus on his hockey analogy and not the actual meat and potatoes:
- You cannot have a scenario where both sides are considered winners
- you cannot measure activities in a single game and then complain that they didn't contribute to their perceived skillfully or skilless designation
And let me just say, everyone crying for team based MMR to bring back altruism and cooperation are going to be very disappointed. Altruism will not supercede dying, as BHVR will not justify putting someone who dies more with a killer who kills more. That is just absurd.
2 -
I feel like BHVR does already justify putting newer players with 2k+ killers/survivors who die a lot with killers who win a lot
They justify it with one simple thing "que times"
1 -
Is this skilled gameplay?
No this is patrick.
3 -
I'm not skilled gameplay
2
