https://dbd.game/4rHHkF5
Please remove the unhook notification
Comments
-
Of course there are still people who think tunneling is a problem. And some still drag that topic openly, its cringe but they do.
the tunneling discussion has been repeated for years and it almost always ends the same way. The same arguments get brought up, the same counterarguments get brought up, and the conversation just loops.
Because of that, some players don’t argue the tunneling point directly anymore. Instead, the discussion shifts toward indirect changes that would weaken tunneling in some way without framing the argument as a tunneling issue. Sometimes that includes perk changes, killer changes, or mechanics like information systems.
Instead of saying “this needs to change because tunneling is OP,” it becomes “this mechanic is lame,” or “this killer needs a nerf because of X.” But the underlying reason is still often the same: they believe it makes tunneling OP.
The reason it gets framed that way sometimes is because people already know what the response to the direct tunneling argument will be. That debate has happened thousands of times and usually ends the same way.
So the argument doesn’t go away, it just gets repackaged through smaller changes because the direct version of the debate is exhausted at this point. And they know trying to get tunneling nerfed by directly asking for it wont be taken seriously.
seeing another post about tunneling being OP is like seeing another post about the knight being OP.
-5 -
This content has been removed.
-
The sticking point for me here is that this is arguing the tunnelling point directly.
OP's reasoning mentions tunnelling twice. They're not trying to hide or reframe that their proposed change is meant to weaken tunnelling, they're saying it outright.
Like you yourself said, this is an old talking point, and it hasn't substantially changed in years. At this point isn't it more likely people just take it as read that tunnelling is a problem worth fixing and don't bother with that preamble when they suggest changes?
It's not like tunnelling's been fixed yet. The things that made it OP back when this topic first aired its head may not be completely unchanged, but the only substantial change it has received was 6.1.0 removing the absolute most egregious version— and outside of that, tunnelling is still OP for the same reasons it was in the past.
There's no reason for the argument to go away, that's why you still see people directly saying they want adjustments to weaken tunnelling.0 -
The sticking point for me here is that this
isarguing the tunnelling point directly.You’re being purposely vague just to keep a weak argument going. What tunneling point are you even referring to?
OP’s point was simple: tunneling off the unhook notification is “lame.” He never said it was OP.
At most, he’s implying it’s toxic or unhealthy gameplay — not that it’s overpowered.
But nerfing something just because you personally find it “lame” doesn’t make any sense from a balance perspective.
Whether you like it or not, “tunneling is OP and needs to be changed” is nowhere stated or implied in OP’s post.
The claim that it’s an OP problem that needs to be fixed is something you introduced into the discussion, not OP.
-8 -
Well, let's pull back and look at this whole topic.
If you think tunnelling is a problem, it is almost always for one of two reasons: the imbalance, or you feel it's unfun to go against. It's usually the former, sometimes it's the latter.
In either case, you'd be suggesting changes to fix it, and you'd be upfront about the fact that your goal is to fix tunnelling as a problem.
Which of the two reasons you have in mind would be relevant to longer conversations, certainly, but when it comes to just pitching whatever change you have in mind the only part that's relevant starting off is that you think it's a problem worth fixing.
That's what I'm saying. There's no repackaging or reframing, there's no sneaky indirect changes to try and avoid saying the issue outright, people just take it as a given that tunnelling is worth fixing and make their pitches accordingly.
There's a fairly large degree to which it doesn't matter in this context whether they think it's OP or unhealthy for more fun-related reasons. We as commenters should still be evaluating the suggestion to see if it'd address the issue and to see if it'd have any unwanted side effects all the same.
Nitpicking the word "lame" to get mad at it isn't constructive either way, and it doesn't mean there's anything deceptive happening with the framing.1 -
people just take it as a given that tunnelling is worth fixing
No they dont. You think its a given. Most people accept tunneling isnt going anymore this debate has been going on for years. your just late to the party.
There's a fairly large degree to which it doesn't
matterin this context whether they think it's OP or unhealthy for more fun-related reasons.No, in no case is the reason for a nerf irrelevant. That makes no sense.
If I say pallets are a problem but don’t explain why they’re a problem, what value does that claim have? Without the reasoning, the concern itself becomes meaningless.
The reason behind a nerf request is the entire point of the discussion. If you want something changed, you need to explain what the actual problem is. And he did.
There's no repackaging or reframing, there's no sneaky indirect changes to try and avoid saying the issue outright
As i said not accusing OP of it but it does happen, because the "tunneling is OP" argument is exhausted.
Nitpicking the word "lame" to get mad at it isn't constructive either way
So now your trying to reframe this entire thing as me being mad at the word lame. Lol.
-6 -
I've been here a while, my friend, I'm not late to the party. Tunnelling hasn't fundamentally changed in years, and yes, when talking about that fact a lot of people do take it as a given that it's a problem.
Not to sound rude, genuinely, but at this stage it sounds a bit more like you personally don't think tunnelling is a problem and don't like seeing it discussed like it is? That's not an accusation, that's just how you're coming across, if it isn't accurate that's fairly relevant.
Moving on, when I say the reasoning isn't relevant I mean strictly when it comes to evaluating a specific change for this specific issue. Which of the two broad schools of thought there are regarding tunnelling as an issue specifically would be relevant for some of the nuances, but they also have a pretty fair amount of overlap- either way, you can evaluate the specific change being suggested, regardless of which reasoning you favour.
The only way you wouldn't is if you disagree with both schools of thought, which would obviously be its own matter.As for the word lame, you do keep bringing it up and always in a negative light, so I have to assume not liking that phrasing is important to your position.
3 -
no offense but this misses the mark given that removing the notification does not stop tunneling, it would just make the killer have to pay more attention/commit. Someone can’t make a blanket statement that tunneling is always OP. It completely depends on which is killer is used, the map, how many gens are done etc. But can tunneling be OP under the right circumstances? Yes (see 4 slowdown Blights with 1k+ wins). But is that the point of this post? Nope.
2 -
Let's drop the word argument, please. Someone disliking the use of an ableist phrase doesn't need to continue to derail the conversation. Please keep the post on topic, civil, and constructive.
Any questions, feel free to DM me.
4 -
Your reasoning absolutely matters when evaluating a change. That’s the entire basis of balance discussions.
A mechanic isn’t evaluated in a vacuum, it’s evaluated based on what problem it’s supposed to solve. If you remove the reasoning, then there’s no standard for deciding whether the change is good or necessary.
For example, if someone proposes removing pallet stuns, you can’t evaluate that change without asking why.
Is it because pallets are overpowered?
Is it because they’re frustrating?
Is it because they slow the game down too much?Those are completely different problems and they lead to completely different conclusions.
So no, the reasoning isn’t irrelevant. The reasoning defines the problem, and the proposed change is supposed to be the solution. If you ignore the problem being claimed, then you can’t properly evaluate whether the solution makes any sense.
In this case, OP gave his reason. And which my response is. Removing the hook notification simply because it feels annoying or unfun doesn’t really justify a balance change.
In my opinion, nerfing base-kit killer information should involve a separate discussion explaining how that information actually creates a balance issue. If a core mechanic is going to be changed, there should be a clear explanation of how it causes something to be unfair or overpowered.
Otherwise, it becomes difficult to evaluate whether the change is addressing a real gameplay problem or just frustration with the interaction.
-4 -
The tunneling discussion is a separate topic for another thread, so I won’t get into that here.
Focusing on the change being suggested, what would be the balance reason for removing the base-kit unhook notification beyond the reasons already mentioned?
If a core piece of killer information is going to be nerfed, I think there should be a clear explanation of how that information currently creates a balance issue.
I also think it’s important not to assume intentions or arguments someone didn’t actually state. Even if something might be implied, it’s better to discuss the reasons that were actually given.
I’m just asking for a bit more clarity and transparency about the reasoning behind the change.
-7 -
I don't think it's possible to have that discussion without tunneling. Without tunneling or hook swapping, there's no reason for the mechanic.
I will say rest assured, though. 2025 showed that there is no real attempt being made at combating tunneling, so the notifications will likely stay. As will the "feature" that blocks the Killer's aura during a hook.
-1 -
I don't think it's possible to have that discussion without tunneling. Without tunneling or hook swapping, there's no reason for the mechanic.
Im asking if their is a balance reason for the nerf. I didnt want to asume OP thinks tunneling is OP because he didnt say it.
I honestly don’t understand why we must keep going down the tunneling rabbit hole. There’s already so much counterplay around it, and it keeps getting repeated over and over. There are even base-kit protections against it. Its effectiveness is largely determined by the skill level of both the killer and the survivors.
It’s not even always the right strategy. Sometimes tunneling can cost you the game, and sometimes it can win you the game. There are so many variables involved, perks, coordination, whether you’re facing a swf, killer choice, etc.
A good SWF can destroy a tunneler. We have coordinated teams showing up with toolboxes and anti-tunnel or exhaustion perks in Discord, destroying any killer that isn’t playing the strongest killers and also playing near perfect. Against good SWFs, tunneling can easily cost you the game. Even if your a good killer.
Yet people still keep going down the same rabbit hole.
-3 -
Because there has never been anything done about it. We can see how successful tunneling is when Killers go on kill streaks in the hundreds. We see it often in our trials. Yet it's not considered a big deal.
However I agree with you. 2025 especially made it clear that they want tunneling to stay the way that it is, even when it negatively impacts the game. BHVR is always right at the end of the day and all we're doing is wasting our breath if we say anything they don't want to hear. It's like writing college papers again. 😵
3 -
What I don’t understand about your logic is this, who are these killers going on win streaks in the hundreds?
If you’re talking about specific pro players doing that with high skill-ceiling killers, how can that realistically be used in a balance discussion? These players are playing near perfectly every match on killers they have thousands of hours on.
Also, why is it that many high-level SWFs who go on win streaks end up having those streaks broken by another well-known high-level killer player? These players are all competing within an extremely small bracket at high MMR. Statistically, they’re almost invisible compared to the overall player base, even at high MMR.
You can’t make the point that tunneling is OP and then use examples of pro players that most people will never encounter in their games. Statistically, the tunneling killers people face in most matches, even at high MMR, don’t have the skill level to ever get anywhere close to something like a 1,800 win streak.
Another thing to consider is why survivors would ever go on longer win streaks than killers in the first place. A survivor team has many variables that determine its effectiveness: coordination, individual skill levels, perk choices, and communication. All of that has to align across four different players.
For a killer, the main variables are the player’s skill and the killer they choose. If you take a very good player and put them on a strong killer with an optimal perk build, it’s natural that they’ll go on longer win streaks than a four-person survivor team where multiple variables can affect the outcome.
Because of that, it’s expected that killers will have longer win streaks. With survivors, the outcome depends on the performance of four separate players, not just one. And we’ve even seen data showing that most of the player base in all MMR brackets consists of solo queue players, which significantly reduces the overall effectiveness of survivor teams against a very good killer player, regardless of the MMR bracket.
-1 -
If the players are on point, the gens will be done in 4 minutes. That means there's no time to worry about peoples feelings about whatever order they're hooked in or any of the weaponized verbiage they've invented. The only lame thing in the entire equation is speaking from a place of self-centered entitlement, trying to act like your "fun" matters more than what's fair in a time-sensitive asymmetrical scenario.
You'd think there'd be some measure of shame in the lack of analytical prowess put on display by complaining that the other side is trying to outpace your progress, but alas, no. The undying, mindless posturing that this community pushes in an effort to whittle down the killer end of the game is embarrassing and positively abhorrent.
-3 -
How about a trade off here, Killers can no longer see unhooks. However, Survivors are no longer to see killers red stain and heart beat.
Also gen repair speed -75%
killers can no longer kick gens to regress them, only to add an insanely hard skill check, if missed, -25% gen progress.
Fair is fair right?
If you are going to demand something without offering in return you are better off making a deal with a brick wall.
-7 -
Pro players are the ones we have evidence for. I don't think they're the only ones.
As far as tunneling goes, your argument just explained why it should be examined. Speaking ideally of course.
-1 -
Pro players are the ones we have evidence for. I don't think they're the only ones.
They are the only ones. The data shows that killers playing at that level are an extremely small group. They’re statistically almost invisible, even within the MMR bracket they’re placed in.
This isn’t a matter of opinion or what someone might think, it’s supported by the data.
As far as tunneling goes, your argument just explained why it should be examined. Speaking ideally of course.
If you can’t explain how my argument proves your point, then it doesn’t
-3 -
the fact 30 people upvoted shows how slow and biased these forms are. how dose such a bad take have so many upvotes, the game is already so ez as survivor why do you need more benififts and buffs, just learn the game.
-5 -
I reread your post just now and actually, I was wrong. I misread it to mean that you had argued it affects Survivors across the board. But upon reflection, I don't think you had much of a point toward the argument I was making at all.
The reason I brought up pro players is that a nearly 2k win streak, which you use in your example, is extreme and most definitely backed by unchecked playstyles like tunneling. If it's very difficult to beat in average MMR and very difficult to beat at top MMR, then that illustrates a very clear problem that affects everyone.
4 -
Upvotes are kind of like a social experiment. They show the angle players tend to come from at a logical standpoint, and it’s good information for the devs to learn more about the community.
Not just in terms of changes for the game, but also to better investigate why seemingly flawed popular opinions and takes get pushed so hard within the community. Upvotes help reveal that during discussions on the forums.
All players really do when they upvote clearly flawed takes, especially when the flaws have already been highlighted — is show the devs that emotion is often the dominating factor in the community when it comes to change. It ends up overpowering logic.
And the more players repeat this on the forums, upvoting flawed takes while dismissing or hand-waving logical reasoning — the more developers will learn to be cautious about treating popular opinion as reliable feedback.
But players don’t see this. They think they’re effectively winning the battle through sheer numbers, when in reality they’re just telling on themselves. To them, more upvotes means the take makes more sense, but it doesn’t. That’s exactly why so many games have been damaged by developers who bend to that kind of feedback. That is why i salute the devs.
Post edited by top500spiderman on-4 -
But upon reflection, I don't think you had much of a point toward the argument I was making at all.
If it really didn’t apply, explaining why would’ve been simple.
The reason I brought up pro players is that a nearly 2k win streak, which you use in your example, is extreme and most definitely backed by unchecked playstyles like tunneling
You’re only saying it doesn’t apply so you can ignore the points made and keep using the 2k Blight streak example.
-4 -
u have to think logically tho, sometimes tunneling isnt the best option but usually it is, when gens pop fast and heal speeds are only a few secs the best way to win as killer isnt 12 hooking but tunneling, when one side gets all the benifits the other side needs to play a little dirty to keep up, nerf survivors and then tunneling will be less prone, if they make 12 hooking something killers want to do and encrouge them to hook differnt survivors with decent buffs the problrm wont be as bad as it is now. But because survivors dont want thier side of the game to change or killers to get buffs or changes, it will never change, the way to stop tunneling inst by punishing it but by giving killers reasons to not too.
-8 -
No. But you're free to believe that.
6 -
Also, why is it that many high-level SWFs who go on win streaks end up having those streaks broken by another well-known high-level killer player? These players are all competing within an extremely small bracket at high MMR. Statistically, they’re almost invisible compared to the overall player base, even at high MMR.
This shows a remarkable faith in a matchmaking system that is almost universally considered terrible amongst the community. If the uppermost MMR players were actually put against one another regularly, then logically, long streaks should be impossible. But it's only when one of these winstreakers finally gets a proper opponent that their streak gets broken. They almost certainly had a wide variety of MMR levels thrown into their winstreak meat grinder before they got there.
6 -
Using popular opinion to strengthen an argument that is logically flawed doesn’t actually make it stronger. The community has already shown that emotion often outweighs logic and reality when it comes to balance discussions.
What you’re not understanding is that the killers or survivors going on these extreme win streaks are outliers within their own bracket. These are high MMR players who are better than the majority of players even at that level, the best of the best, the top 0.1% of that bracket.
Because of that, matchmaking often can’t find them proper opponents. That’s why these pros can go on such long streaks before eventually running into another well-known high level player who finally ends it.
The public data we do have on high MMR kill rates and escape rates already reflects this.
That’s one of the reasons you can’t use these players as examples for why something should be nerfed. The gap they create is mostly a result of skill, not the mechanic itself.
When players are performing at that level, the difference they create in matches is far more about player ability than balance.
0 -
I don't know if I'd call it opinion. The matchmaking either works or it doesn't. I often get sad little baby survivors with 200 hours who run in straight lines on edgemap. These are 4ks at 5 gens unless I give someone hatch, which I often do, because I choose to police the matchmaking that BHVR won't. Then I get soloq survivor matches with a high-hour p100 killer and terrible teammates.
The problem is that killers are much more likely to go on streaks. I can't speak for everyone, but it's much easier as an average player to have small streaks as killer than as survivor. I don't think I've ever won 10 survivor matches in a row, but I regularly win every killer match I play in a session. It shouldn't feel that uneven, especially when you play both.
You can't just use data for changes either though. If your game is perfect on paper but makes everyone feel bad than they won't play it. At this point I know more people who've quit survivor than ones who still play.
5 -
So you're saying matchmaking is perfect, even when I get fresh installs on killers I have 70-80% KRs with, right after getting a team of super coordinated juicers? Or when I get a 10k hour Blight and those previous baby survivors are now my teammates? That makes sense to you? You might actually be the only person I've seen with full faith in this system. I guess the MMR rework that's supposed to happen soon is also happening for no reason, since it's perfect. A system based solely on escapes and kills is not nuanced enough to be accurate.
I believe people should take responsibility for thier losses more, particularly killers, since you're fully self sufficient, but some things are out of your hands. RNG plays into the matches a lot. If I land a team of Exhaustion prerunners on Badham as Dredge with the awful locker spawns I'm pretty much screwed. As survivor, especially soloq, matchmaking lapses can take the game out of your hands. There's nothing you can do if you land three baby teammates and a highly skilled killer.
I'm not talking about the people who come here to cry. I don't take the I-quits seriously because I see those same people playing again a few weeks later. I'm talking about actual friends, people I know, that will not touch the role. I have others that will only play with friends because it's awful without company. I have some that i haven't seen log on to this game in 6 or more months because they just quietly walked away. This game hemorrhages players, but it ropes in new ones with IPs and being free to play on console. That's how it sustains itself. There's always new meat for the grinder when others finally burn out.
2 -
I’m not sure where you got the idea that I said matchmaking was perfect. I never said that. I just believe it’s working as intended.
The examples you’re giving have never happened to me, and I’ve also never seen streamers who play killer for hours experience this either.
I’m not saying you’re lying, but a claim that big needs to be documented and posted here on the forums so the developers can actually see it.
Until then, it’s kind of like saying you saw bambi jump over the moon.
There's nothing you can do if you land three baby teammates and a highly skilled killer.
Lol I’ve never seen anything like that, a highly skilled killer going against baby survivors. All my Blight games feel like championship matches. Even the streamers I watch who play killer for hours never seem to get that kind of luxury. Are you sure they’re as good as you think they are?
As for the game being alive just because it’s free-to-play, I’m sure that plays a role, but it mostly comes down to whether people actually like the game or not. If you like DBD, you play it. If you don’t, you stop.
If most people truly didn’t enjoy the game, it would’ve died years ago.
-5 -
I don't think the developers care. They know how their system works (I hope). These complaints about matchmaking are a regular thing here.
I don't record my matches but I sometimes take screenshots. Do these look like players I should have been matched with from these scores?
How about default Feng who was absolutely terrible and hasn't even figured out how to put on perks yet:
This default Feng managed two perks!
These people don't have cosmetics. They don't have badges and banners. Many have double-digit hours. I'm not just getting bad players regularly, I'm getting impossibly bad ones. Ones that should be below the soft cap still. Meanwhile, me, average skill, playing chill, and giving hatch:
If this is "working as intended" then this is EBMM not SBMM.
If you like DBD, you play it. If you don’t, you stop.
I currently don't enjoy survivor. I still play it. Reasons for continuing are complex and multi faceted. There's money wasted, time sink, addiction, stubbornness, etc. Lots of people playing this game are unhappy. Just look around you. Same angry people complaining about the same stuff everyday.
7 -
Let’s actually break down what these screenshots show, because they’re not proving what you think they are.
First, prestige and “baby perks” are not indicators of MMR. I’ve gone on long killer winstreaks and still faced teams with low prestige and basic perks that ended up being extremely sweaty. Prestige reflects time spent or bloodpoints invested, not skill, and perks simply reflect what someone has unlocked or chosen to run. Neither of those things are used to determine matchmaking rating.
Your third screenshot is also easily explained by a very common situation: a SWF group queueing with a newer friend. That happens constantly. It would also explain why nobody disconnected. The other screenshots could be the exact same situation. If I took screenshots every time I loaded into a lobby that looked like that, I could make the exact same claim you're making, but once the match actually plays out, those games are often far sweatier than the lobby suggests.
The bigger issue here is the evidence you’re using. Screenshots of a few scoreboards are not meaningful proof that matchmaking is broken. That’s a huge claim, and the evidence you’re presenting is extremely weak. If you want to argue that the MMR system consistently puts you in the wrong bracket, then the standard of proof should be much higher than cherry-picked lobby screenshots. You’d need documented gameplay across many matches showing a consistent pattern.
I currently don't enjoy survivor. I still play it. Reasons for continuing are complex and multi faceted. There's money wasted, time sink, addiction, stubbornness, etc. Lots of people playing this game are unhappy. Just look around you. Same angry people complaining about the same stuff everyday.
This goes back to what I said earlier about ego. A lot of the frustration in this community comes from ego. When players lose, especially in a game where both sides can taunt each other, people vent and blame mechanics instead of the loss itself.
If the frustrations those angry players complain about were truly valid balance issues and not just wounded egos, they would stop spending money on and playing a game they claim to dislike.
The truth is that much of the DBD community has an “us vs. them” mentality, and when “them” wins, waves of frustration hit hard. The taunting that happens in matches only makes it worse.
That’s why logic often doesn’t help in those discussions, because the real issue isn’t the mechanic. It’s a bruised ego.
-3 -
I didn't say a single thing about Prestige or low level perks. The first two show the scores from an abysmal stomp of very bad players. Everyone getting 10kish points with me not playing dirty is horrendous. They had zero idea how to deal with me. And four players that are bad with no banners or badges implies new players. I didn't know how to equip those when I was new either. I was maybe backfill in those lobbies, but this simply should not be allowed to happen. And it happens quite a bit. It's not fair to these people.
I've had players that were clearly new being protected by the friends who dragged them there. I do the same thing with new friends. You tell them to hide, sit on gens with them, take the aggro, body block for them. No one was helping these baby Fengs. And even if this was the case, it still shouldn't be happening. A player with 10 hours shouldn't go against one with thousands. They're worse than a bot or a dead player, theyre actually a detriment to the team. It's a guaranteed loss.
You realize I can see many of these people's hours too, right? Everyday I get people with a couple hundred hours or less. There are cross progression accounts, but it's easy to spot an actual baby in-game. Hours don't equate to skill, but 100 hours is not enough to go against an experienced player I'm such an info-heavy game, especially as survivor.
It's pretty obvious to me that the game prioritizes speed over accuracy. I'd also believe it gives you these easy matches sometimes as an ego boost. My last match last night was against a Singularity that clearly had zero idea how to play the killer. They got two hooks. I don't personally want that ego boost, I just feel bad for these people, but considering how many people in this community cry and blame the game as soon as they lose a match, I'm sure many do want everything for free.
A lot of the frustration in this community comes from ego. When players lose, especially in a game where both sides can taunt each other, people vent and blame mechanics instead of the loss itself.
We actually do agree on this, but there are also issues in a constantly changing, live service game that need addressing. The game is not perfect, and many matches are decided by matchmaking and RNG before you ever load in. The devs made an effort to address pain points last year, clearly recognizing an issue, but sadly lacked the backbone to implement a single idea. Any effort at meaningful changes gets shutdown by outcry from a biased and jaded community. This is why so many people in this community are so disgruntled. Nothing meaningful gets changed, the stale meta persists, toxicity is rampant, and prioritizing efficiency over fun is making for a grim experience.
4 -
The first two show the scores from an abysmal stomp of very bad players. Everyone getting 10kish points with me not playing dirty is horrendous. They had zero idea how to deal with me. And four players that are bad with no banners or badges implies new players. I didn't know how to equip those when I was new either. I was maybe backfill in those lobbies, but this simply should not be allowed to happen. And it happens quite a bit. It's not fair to these people.
So you’re using cherry picked screenshots of scoreboards, emblems, and title cards, then filling in the missing piece — the actual gameplay, with your own explanation to claim that the MMR system is throwing high-MMR killers at new players?
Not to mention that in the screenshots you posted, the low scores include a bot in the match. In the one where there isn’t, the scores are actually decent, with the only low one looking like an obvious friend who’s probably new to the game.
If you're making a claim this big, it needs actual documented gameplay showing a clear pattern. Screenshots alone don’t prove anything.
The hours argument is also weak. It’s basically hearsay. There’s no real data there for anyone to examine and confirm the pattern you’re describing. There’s no proof that you’re consistently going against full teams of brand new players where their hours actually reflect that.
What makes the claim even more questionable is that you can go on Twitch right now and watch killer streams for hours. If matchmaking was regularly throwing high MMR killers into lobbies of brand-new survivors, you would see it at least occasionally. But you don’t. It essentially never happens. And when it does look like there’s a weak link, it’s usually obvious that the player is a friend who got pulled into the lobby.
I've had players that were clearly new being protected by the friends who dragged them there. I do the same thing with new friends. You tell them to hide, sit on gens with them, take the aggro, body block for them. No one was helping these baby Fengs. And even if this was the case, it still shouldn't be happening
Most SBMM systems work like this in PvP games. If you queue with a newer player, the system isn’t going to place you in matches against beginners. The match will usually be based on the higher MMR player instead.
I also want to add that players bringing new friends into their games could help explain why solo queue has a higher overall escape rate than other group settings.
Post edited by top500spiderman on-2 -
I know everyone in this forum loves to think that they're at the tippity top of MMR and are The Greatest Player that Ever Lived (while struggling every match. I'm still trying to figure that one out) but I never said I was upper MMR. I can't presume something like that without being able to see it, and to see everyone elses so I can compare notes. What I do know is I'm not at the level of someone with 50 hours and, thus, shouldn't ever see them in my matches for any reason at all. I remember being a brand new killer and getting player's with thousands of hours though. I remember visible Pretiges in lobby and seeing all p100s, not even understanding what it meant, but knowing it didnt look right. It absolutely happens. You can just look at people's hours.
The bots were endgame abandons, not DCs. I'm not a streamer. Regular, casual players don't record all their matches. All you have is people's words. Take it or leave it. Not sure what I'd gain in twisting the truth. I'm just asking for appropriate matching because pity isn't what I want to feel.
I have a ton of screenshots of people's low hours but I don't have them on my phone. I can literally take 10 a day if you'd like.
You're last statement is exactly why I think the "SWF is OP" argument is bs. If a high MMR player links up with 3 mids and they get a high MMR killer, they have a good chance of losing. It really should average out to a mid killer. I can only hope the MMR rework does something about these issues. Matches shouldn't be decided in the lobby.
Post edited by cogsturning on2 -
I’m not saying you’re lying, I want to make that as clear as possible. But when you claim that a really important system the game is built on is broken, you have to understand the implications of that claim. It requires much more than hearsay and screenshots of emblems or scores.
If what you’re saying is true, the best thing to do would be to document it properly. You said yourself that you can take around ten screenshots a day, so it shouldn’t be hard to schedule a stream and show exactly what you’re talking about.
Then you could link that stream here on the forums so people, including the developers, can actually see the matches. If the issue is real, the games should clearly show obvious inconsistencies.
Because we all know what brand-new survivors look like in gameplay.
The community really needs to learn to respect data and understand how important it is for meaningful change. People often think the devs ignore the community, but a big part of the problem is the amount of noise compared to the small amount of solid, well-supported feedback that actually gets provided.
So many people complain and tell stories about their experiences, but they rarely provide the proper data needed for those claims to be taken seriously.
And the longer that data isn’t presented, the more the existing data that contradicts those claims becomes the stronger and more reliable conclusion.
You're last statement is exactly why I think the "SWF is OP" argument is bs. If a high MMR player links up with 3 mids and they get a high MMR killer, they have a good chance of losing. It really should average out to a mid killer
Unless that survivor’s MMR is astronomically high, it’s not going to average out to a high-MMR killer. Proving or even noticing something like that would be extremely difficult.
Average players aren’t bad players, and an average killer can still have a strong game and stomp other average survivors, which can make them look like a high-MMR killer.
Consistency is one of the biggest factors when climbing in any ranking system. Everyone has good games.
-1 -
People often think the devs ignore the community, but a big part of the problem is the amount of noise compared to the small amount of solid, well-supported feedback that actually gets provided.
I get that, but the problem is data only gives you half. Humans are emotional, and games can be frustrating. For every nine matches someone wins and says nothing about, they come here to complain about the one they lost while blaming it on everything but themselves. It's very hard with this community to sort out genuine issues from whining, but you have things that have been making many, many people feel bad—sometimes for years—and nothing gets done. And that's partially the community's fault, because any little proposed change blows way out of proportion, especially with CCs dooming and glooming immediately. This community resists every and all change despite constant complaints about the stale meta. But it's more BHVR's fault for lacking a spine.
And as you said, they have data. They don't need my videos. They know if babies are being dumped into the deep end. I'm not saying matchmaking is broken in that it's doing something it's not supposed to, I'm saying it's a bad system that prioritizes speed and engagement over quality. This isn't groundbreaking info. Search the forums. The same views get repeated over and over in regards to the matchmaking, and it's one of the only regular topics that lacks role-based bias.
Unless that survivor’s MMR is astronomically high, it’s not going to average out to a high-MMR killer. Proving or even noticing something like that would be extremely difficult.
Without a visible ranking system, it's impossible. What you have right now is a whole bunch of people assuming their MMRs, which is useless.
1 -
I'm not saying matchmaking is broken in that it's doing something it's not supposed to
You said that match making is putting highly skilled killers against Noob teams. That is saying match making is doing something its not supposed to.
I'm not saying matchmaking is broken in that it's doing something it's not supposed to, I'm saying it's a bad system that prioritizes speed and engagement over quality. This isn't groundbreaking info. Search the forums. The same views get repeated over and over in regards to the matchmaking, and it's one of the only regular topics that lacks role-based bias.
But where’s the data? This goes back to what I said earlier about flawed popular opinions being driven by emotion.
The idea that the matchmaking topic isnt role biased doesn’t really make sense when everyone is in the same system. Survivors and killers both go through it.
Do you think matchmaking somehow gets a pass when neither side does? Everyone complains about it, just like players complain about survivor or killer whenever they lose.
There will always be something people blame when a match doesn’t go their way, even when the data doesn’t support it. A lot of the time it just comes down to ego.
People go down these rabbit holes trying to force an explanation that justifies the loss, digging deeper and deeper until it feels like it makes sense. In reality, it’s just biased perception.
-1 -
The data is in their database, that's where. And they haven't been very talkative about the system in recent times. Ever since Peanits stopped being involved in the forum there have been a lot of issues and requests for clarity met with silence. Some months ago we had some commotion about how survivor personal stats are inflated by abandons, with direct appeals for clarification and explantion, over the course of several lengthy posts and we got nothing. Any unannounced changes to the MMR system would be unknown to us. I'm hoping whatever they unveil for the new system will come with a transparent understanding of how it works.
Reread. I said the topic lacks role-based bias. The only time I see skewed views in this matter are from the people who are positive that they're upper MMR yet complain about how impossible the game is everyday. This is just ego and an inability to either accept you're not as good as you think you are, or you want a 90% KR instead of an 80% or some such numbers. There are people here who are perpetually miserable and do nothing but repeat the same complaints over and over.
We are, again, in agreement about lack of personal responsibility. But still, the game isn't perfect. Things need tweaks and changes. And so we discuss. And pretty much everyone who plays the game has some sort of bias. Even if you play 50-50, maybe you prefer the narrative idea of being an aggressor over a victim. Maybe you prefer third person over first. Maybe one role stresses you and alters your perception more than the other. Maybe you prefer playing alone to playing with others. Nothing humans do is free of bias, especially when you have two distinctly different opposing sides.
0
