Why is MMR like this?
Is there any reason why MMR is working as it does? Kills = MMR gain, not killing = MMR loss. Same for survivor. Why?
Scenarios:
Killer spreads hook during the game, wins chases fast and gets 8 hook stages thoughout the game, but everybody escapes. Loss.
Killer catches one survivor, camps them to death. Gets a second survivor with his noed at the end game. Camps to death. Draw.
Survivor hides the entire game, does litteraly nothing, waits until everyone is dead. Killer closes hatch, survivor opens gate with Wake up and Sole survivor and leaves. Win
Survivor gets tunneled though the whole match, holdes the killer for 5 generators. Gets downed in the end. Team leaves. Loss
Why not simply like this?
For every time the killer hooks a survivor, the killer gains MMR. For every missed hookstage, the killer looses MMR.
For every teammember who escapes, the survivors gain MMR. For every survivor who dies, the survivor looses MMR.
Wouldn't this A) be way more fair and B) encourage people to go for a more active playstyle?
I am all ears to hear a plausible reason why this is not much better then what we have right now.
Comments
-
Because that's eventually going to just correlate to kills and escapes. We can get really off into the weeds on different scenarios, and how kills+escapes might not be the best measure for *one game*. But over the course hundreds of thousands of matches, skill is mostly going to correlate with kills and escapes.
0 -
Survivor MMR and Killer MMR is not connected. You could litteraly make survivor MMR based on escapes and killer based on bloodpoints. Its only relevant how in the background those numbers make a match.
Survivors may have a 100.000 MMR and they play against killer with 500 MMR because they work seperatly.
And no, escapes are not skill. I might go always for the safe to trade at the end and because of that i am the worst player in the world. At least according to the mmr we have right now.
Also for the killer, how is a killer who spreads hooks and gets on average 8 worse then someone who is camping and tunneling but gets 2 kills because of that?
1 -
(Numbers are totally made up, so don't read too far into them. Apologies in advance, this is wordy.)
Just want to start here and clear this up before answering the original question. While you do have separate ratings when you play either Killer or Survivor, MMR for the two roles are definitely connected. A 1500 rating Killer would be matched with a 1500 rating Survivor. Each role is somewhere along the same sliding scale, they aren't scored in completely different ways. Beyond that, the win/loss conditions for each role are the same (but flipped, of course) - and this is a very crucial part which I'll get into next.
For a rating system like this to work, you absolutely need one winner and one loser or a draw/void. In order for one person to gain MMR, another person has to lose MMR. This rule, combined with the way your rating changes more or less depending on the rating of the people you faced, prevents ratings from climbing endlessly and becoming meaningless. The best player in the world will eventually run out of equal or better players to beat and stop climbing once they've reached the top.
This is crucial. If both players can win at the same time, their ratings will both increase even though their actual skill level stays pretty much the same. They could then face off again, and despite being at the same skill level as before, gain MMR again. Across millions of matches, people would generally trend upwards.
To put it a simply as possible, you go from the follow possible outcomes to a match:
- A win
- A loss
- A draw/void
To these:
- A win
- A close match that also counts as a win
- A loss
- A draw/void
There are more opportunities to gain MMR than to lose MMR. Your MMR becomes more of a reflection of playtime than actual performance. An average player could climb to 2000 MMR by playing a lot and end up facing a really good player who happens to play much less often. If that happens, the system has failed.
Now applying that to hooks like you've used as an example, say the Killer hooks each Survivor twice and all Survivors escape.
- Every Survivor gains a lot of MMR because everyone escaped
- The Killer gains some MMR because they got most of their hooks
This is that exact situation where both sides gain MMR simultaneously, breaking the entire system. The only way to fix it is to draw a line and determine who won and who lost. Does the Killer deserve the win because they got 8 hooks? If so, is that fair to call it a loss for the Survivors who not only escaped, but kept all their teammates alive? It is incredibly muddy and impossible to say for certain who deserves to move up.
This is one of the reasons why MMR is based on kills & escapes. For one side to win, the other side needs to lose.
Beyond that, they act as a "proxy" for skill - in other words, playing really well will usually result in you catching and killing more Survivors, and vice versa. The reason why we use a proxy is because it is impossible to accurately assess someone's skill with a formula. There will always be a what-if that throws a wrench in things. "What if it's based on hooks? But what if the survivor escapes in the end anyway? But what if it's based on chase times? But what if the killer is tunneling someone and I never get chased, so the best move for me was to do gens?" and so on.
To put it bluntly, it is impossible for any matchmaking system to accurately assess your skill from a single match. No matchmaking system in the world can do it. There will always be too many factors involved to say definitively, and so proxies are used to help gauge where you should be over the course of many matches.
All this is to say: Your invisible rating going up or down is not a reward or a punishment. It is not to make you feel good or bad about yourself or the match you just played. Its only purpose at the end of the day is to find you a roughly even match. If you're had a close match where survivors are hooked multiple times and one or two just barely escaped, this is a good thing! The goal in that case is not to raise your MMR anyway and give you tougher matches. You are already in a decent spot where the competition is close. You might gain a little here, lose a little there, but in the end you'll be hovering around that spot until your skill changes on average.
I completely understand that it feels good to have the game say, "Way to go, you did well!" in a scenario like that, but for it to increase your rating when you're already having close matches would be a failure on its part and only lead to more frustrating matches where you are outclassed. The only goal for the system is to keep you in that close match sweet spot where you're comfortable, nothing more.
5 -
Again though, a skilled survivor is going to escape more games over the course of thousands of games than a less skilled survivor. The handful of games that the player trades in endgame are noise in the system when you take into account every game every player participated in on a daily basis.
1 -
I think a more significant MMR balancing feature would be having a MMR formula for survs in SWF vs SoloQ per match. For example, multiply survivor's MMR by x1.05 for a two person team, or x1.1 for a three person team, or x1.15 for a full swf team.
I know both as survivor and killer, I do alot better when swf'ing with friends,.. and I don't do as well at my MMR going up against swfs.
1 -
Has there ever been an official statement on whether or not gate escapes are worth 0 MMR, if the survivors haven’t repaired all the generators, and the only reason why the gates are powered is because hatch was closed by the killer?
Or more importantly, can killers lose MMR if the last survivor escapes out of a gate, if the survivors haven’t repaired all the generators, and the only reason why the gates are powered is because hatch was closed by the killer?
0 -
MMR *rewards* good players with sweaty matches. At least throw in some bonus for a high mmr. Too many people actively GAME the mmr system
0
