I keep going against red ranks as killer (and my possible solution)
I bounce between green and purple ranks, and the only survivors I face is in the red. Not only that, but when it is rank reset and i'm in yellow ranks, I still only go up against red ranks. If it is this easy for survivors to rank up, then something is absolutely wrong.
I think instead of 20-1 ranks, it should just be 5 ranks (brown, yellow, green, purple, red). The ranks take much more pips, but you are restricted to playing only the players at the same rank as you.
"But brown through green ranks will take almost an hour for a game", that may be true, but the amount of players is not the problem. I'll use Hide or Die as an example (since it just relaunched). That game consistently has around 200 players, yet I can get into a match within 2-3 minutes, much faster than DBD. DBD has (according from the steam charts average of the last 30 days recorded on May 12, 2020) 34,000 players on average.
It's not the amount of players that is the problem, it's the matchmaking itself.
(I know it's not perfect, but just putting it out there)
Comments
-
You're saying that you only go against red rank so I assume you're frustrated with losing too often to competent survivors?
At the same time you say it's too easy for survivors to rank up so by that logic they should be making tons of mistakes even if their rank is high...
Could you clarify?
Post edited by Flawless_ on0 -
I'm asking for a harsher ranking system so babies have a harder time getting to red ranks.
0 -
Harsher rank system would probably be good. There's no way I'm a red rank survivor but I am apparently. Giving ranks meaning by making them stricter would probably be better than just dumping them. I swear though when playing killer it often feels like there are only red rank survivors. From my first game ever to today it's always been red ranks and only red ranks. Certainly forces you to grow quickly and use optimal builds if you want to survive as a relatively new killer cause matchmaking won't ever allow gradual improvement. Not every red rank is good but regardless of your own rank your matches could be the absolute top tier at any time just because there is practically only red ranks. It's super busted.
5 -
agreed
0 -
bounce between pea and grape ranks, and the only survivors I face are cherries. Not only that, but when it is rank reset and i'm a lemon, I still only go up against cherries. If it is this easy for survivors to rank up, then something is absolutely wrong.
I think instead of 20-1 ranks, it should just be 5 ranks (potatoes, lemons, peas, grapes, cherries). The ranks take much more pips, but you are restricted to playing only the players at the same rank as you.
"But potato through peas will take almost an hour for a game", that may be true, but the amount of players is not the problem. I'll use Hide or Die as an example (since it just relaunched). That game consistently has around 200 players, yet I can get into a match within 2-3 minutes, much faster than DBD. DBD has (according from the steam charts average of the last 30 days recorded on May 12, 2020) 34,000 players on average.
It's not the amount of players that is the problem, it's the matchmaking itself.
(I know it's not perfect, but just putting it out there)
FIXED!
1 -
I like the idea
I was thinking of 10-1 in each instead of 5-1
And adjusting certain scoring events also would be needed as well
0 -
But why does it matter what the number next to their profile says? The way I see it, in DbD the ranks don't mean anything. A player is either just gonna be better than you or not. What difference would it make if there were 20 ranks or 5 ranks?
0 -
Cause ppl bring up their own rank to solidify their opinions on the game
0 -
And I don't understand this. Take this game for example:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/833/good clown game (no names).pngI played the killer that's viewed by many players as the worst, if not one of the worst. I didn't run "meta" perks, and the worst you could say about the game is that I had purple addons. This isn't the only game I've had like this either, I go against high ranks all the time even though I'm usually not a red rank killer. I've seen a decent amount of people making matchmaking complaint posts about rank differences like this (around rank 8 or 9 going against a team of red ranks.) If rank matters so much, and matchmaking pairs people up with others that are so much better, so much that they can't learn the game, then how am I still able to beat these teams without going in with a fully stacked setup?
Oh right, because the number next to my profile doesn't matter. What happens during the game is what matters.
0 -
Not enough red rank killers was an issue for a long time. Is that still the case, can anyone confirm?
0 -
Maybe you don't care about the number next to your name.... but others do
That's all I'm saying
0 -
No, I'm not trying to say that people don't care about it altogether. I'm saying that it's not really impactful to the game, so a lot of complaints about the matchmaking/rank right now are just kind of... pointless I guess?
0 -
Rank absolutely is impactful.
I know it's trendy for people on the forums to say, "Haha, rank 1 is the same as rank 20, no difference, nothing to see here." but anyone who actually plays the game knows that it's bull. Rank might not mean much when looking at smaller differences, but the huge gaps we see in matchmaking absolutely do make a difference.
If you're a new killer going again red ranks, you're going to get absolutely destroyed. Not only that, the red ranks will likely be penalized as well.
It's silly. Matchmaking exists in PvP games for a reason.
1 -
Agreed
0 -
Ranks should mean something, they are supposed to be a showing of the skill of the player in question.
Currently however, it is not hard to get to rank 1 on either side, and boosting with SWF is fairly prominent as well. All this makes for very inaccurate matches if we are basing it on the number next to people's names.
That's just how it is. Pips and Emblems need to be tossed all together, it is a poorly done system. I know that some mysterious MMR system is in the works. Let's hope that actually does something.
0 -
No, it's not said because it's "trendy." It's because it's true, and even the devs have said the only thing it represents is how much playtime somebody has put in. If somebody wants to do something about rank disparity, they can at least do themselves a favor and try to get up to purple ranks or whatever to see for themselves that it doesn't make a difference.
Obviously if you're a new killer going against red ranks you'll be destroyed, but that's how it goes. If you're bad, and the other players are good, you're going to not do well. That's why the solution is to get better. Again, I'm not saying that it's a perfect system, but higher rank does not automatically equal skillful player, so to try to use that to justify somebody having an "unfair match" is the silly thing. Not the matchmaking or ranks.
0 -
“It is that easy for survivor to rank up?“
littearly that. Don’t blame the red ranks if you lose. It’s just you can’t win them all. Majority of red ranks are cluelss boosted potatoes who play like a rank 13s.
0 -
Except it's simply not true.
Yes, you can have "smurf" type people at lower ranks, and you can have people not having a good game at a red rank. That's true for every game.
But to claim that there's just no average difference between a red rank and a rank 20 because, "It's just how long you play" is absurd. There's absolutely going to be a significant difference in consistency of good play.
Is the ranking system particularly accurate? Not really. But if someone can't play well enough to pip their way out of rank 15, they're sure as hell not "Just as good as a rank 1 because rank means nothing".
1 -
I didn't say there's no average difference. I said rank has no actual impact on what happens in the game. Nowhere did I say "there's no difference between a red rank and a rank 20 survivor."
0 -
Nice
0 -
refer to my clarification to @ars_perfecta comment
(i'm not saying that i'm getting destroyed, i'm saying that both noobs and pros can easily be lumped together at red ranks.)
0 -
The impact in the game is having both terrible and good people in rank one means there is no such thing as matchmaking. Every survivor no matter how pro or how bad gets just slammed into every newbie without thought. There's a reason matchmaking exists in games. You don't put challenger players in league against iron league potatoes and expect the irons to have any sort of fun. Often lower ranks in most games are also filled with people with worse hardware that puts them at a disadvantage on top of any skill differences. It's not even a game when people of such vastly different ability are just thrown willy nilly at eachother. DbD is completely missing matchmaking in its entirety and THAT is the problem. You are willfully blind if you can't comprehend this.
0 -
Would you say there is a difference between someone playing there best killer/build and playing a new killer/build?
0 -
You explained exactly why I think rank doesn't have an impact on the game in your very post here. "Having both terrible and good people in rank one means there is no such thing as matchmaking." Sure, have a problem with that if you want, but that's on BHVR, not me. They themselves say it's not indicative of skill. Somebody complaining about going against red ranks doesn't mean anything because even potatoes can get to red ranks, especially if they game the system.
I don't feel like rank has any impact on what happens in the game precisely because of what you described. The topic of the post isn't "matchmaking exists or not." The topic is about constantly going against red ranks. Which, as you said, they can even be terrible.
I have no idea what you mean by "willfully blind." You're hilarious in your attempts to call me that, while also completely missing the point of what I said and/or just being purposefully disingenuous for the purpose of being "willfully blind," as you put it. Nice strawman though.
0 -
I would need you to elaborate on that. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.
Just in case I do understand, based off what I'm guessing, if somebody is playing a killer they already know, and have a certain build that they're used to using, then depending on the character they should be able to get roughly the same results. I really depends on how good or bad the builds you're talking about are. Like if you're using perks like Cruel Limits and Iron Maiden then it's probably not going to be as good, no. If you choose better perks, then you're probably going to do a little better. As I said, it depends on a lot of things.
Anyway, I'd just need you to elaborate a little on that.
0 -
There definitely needs to be an appropriate MMS. A good MMS would allow players to grow in skill in an appropriate way without getting them tilt'ed.
Look at League of Legends as an example. When you play an unranked game you are still matched with appropriate players 99% of the time. It reduces the stress of playing with someone that brings the game down for everyone.
Now are there enough people around your skill level? Probably, but you'll definitely make new players toxic by sticking them in extreme mismatched games. They'll think the game is dumb at the very least. FYI this game is really poorly done and has no quality control.
0 -
So because the rank system is flawed magically its not a bad thing the ranked system is flawed and any issues directly caused by the rank system no longer matter? What sort of logic is this? Even with your most desperate attempt to logic this you know any rank 1 player in the current system still has a tangible advantage over a low rank newbie. Dramatically better perk availability. That is a very tangible and real advantage that is absolutely frustrating to beat into. You don't even need to be better if your perk advantage is enough to make the difference and win out anyway. The starting point is statistically in a disadvantaged position before anything even happens in match. A full squad of BT, DS, SB/DH, Adren, all maxed against someone stuck with crap like territorial imperative and iron grasp. Teachables take a huge amount of playtime, and then more time on top of that to actually even get in a bloodweb, and then more to get them to 3. Even the absolute newest red rank is a hell of lot further on that than a rank 20-10 which are always, without fail, put up against often 4x red ranks.
0 -
I'll try by giving an example
I feel like I can play a really good Pig (SB, CI, BBQ, Stridor).... I can get a 4k
Then I play GF for the first time (1 perk)... also 4k
Is it my skill on the killer... or just skill in general
0 -
Then why the hell does the game have a ranking system in the first place?
0 -
Well I don't have the answer to that. As I said, it's an indicator of how much time somebody plays, so at the very least there's that. All I know is that in this game, the ranking system really doesn't mean much.
0 -
If you can hop from killer to killer and succeed on many of them, especially without relying on perks, I would say that it's your skill in general. As I said before, it's hard to tell because there could be a number of factors. Each one of the survivors you play against has the potential to be anywhere from potato level to god level, so each of those would probably matter, as well as the decisions you made split-second, in the moment. Some killers obviously take more effort, such as Nurse. You probably couldn't just main Freddy or Clown, and then switch over to Nurse and have instant success if you've never played her. Thing is, if it's anything like the example you gave where you seem to know what you're doing regardless of your perks/killer, then it shouldn't take you that long to build up a little skill even with a killer like that, and you should be fine.
My point is, I've always just felt like personally, I don't care if I'm rank 1 or rank 20, or what anybody says if they want to smack talk my rank. I just know it's one of the most idiotic insults that somebody can toss out, because rank holds no significance when it comes to skill. All I ever consider improving on is my own skill, and I feel like with that, rank comes naturally. That's why I think it's silly for people to just focus on the number as much as they do. As long as you're just good, then it honestly shouldn't matter what ranks you're paired with/against. It just matters how each player performs in the game.
Sorry if it was a bit drawn out for a reply... I don't really know how to put it concisely, and I'm trying to be careful not to sound like a jerk too much.
0 -
Oh no you're good....sorry if I didn't explain things the way to understand
You do have a point about general skill of killers.... I also understand that rank means next to nothing
But as you said other players take rank way to seriously for their own good
0
