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!
How do killer only users feel about a perfect MMR system?
How would killer only user feel about having a perfect MMR system?
Would guys enjoy always facing teams of equal skill the majority of the time?
Because for when I played survivor during MMR the teams in general were more of my skill level. But when I played killer I found the matched to be a mixed bag, either the survivors were real good, or not that great.
Comments
-
Playing around 15 games of killer (rank 15 rn), I only fought red ranks. ONLY. Every game. I had to quit playing after those games because I got too pissed off.
And obviously, like a player in any video game ever, I'd prefer to have a fair matchmaking system that challenges me but isn't impossible to win.
5 -
A perfect mmr system needs a balanced game. This game is broken on higher levels and always had a lack of killers willing to fight through the unbalance. Survivors are also much easier to learn so there are more survivors at higher skilllevels compared to good killers. So good survivors have to wait even longer for balanced matches and/or face an endless stream of "unbalanced killers" like nurse, spirit, iri heads, tombstones etc.
I doubt this will work seasoned players. The games balance is broken so either the mmr matching or the queue times have to suffer. No killermain wants to play death squads nonstop, so if mmr goes through, i see dark times for highranks ahead.
15 -
I'd love it if it worked right. It'll actually give a challenge, unlike ranks that give me this:
1 -
It would never work because if you pit top killers versus top survivors, the survivors will win nine times out of ten.
It's always been an issue with this game and it's something I doubt will ever be fixed. There are a LOT of little tricks and strategies that survivors can use that make them incredibly difficult to take down. You can't really tone those tricks and strategies down though because newer survivors need them to survive but seasoned survivors who know all the exploits can make even the best of killers look like a fool.
It would likely work really well at the low levels and even mid levels but once you get to the top levels, killers would bleed from the game (even more than they currently do) as it would be nothing but frustration and sadness for them.
1 -
Assuming it works and also assuming one of the defining metrics of it being 2 escape/2 kill average, it would be good for balance. You would see what killers aren’t able to reach the top MMR of survivors and be able to buff them. You can also make changes to survivor/killer balance and it be much more evident on the outcome of the changes to reach their balance metric. Also, the only ones that would really feel the downside of the balance issues if a working MMR was in place would only be the top few percentile of players.
The downside is I think most of us are very conditioned to having games where we don’t really need to try all that hard and still be able to get 3 to four kills and going to a system where we have to try hard all the time to average 2 kills (presuming that is their balance goal) might not feel like playing killer is as rewarding as it once was.
0 -
I don't like facerolls anymore than I like being made felt helpless and out of control of the match.
I'm most engaged when I feel like I have a chance, but I have to work for it.
If I give a team "GG, you guys made me work for that one", I'm usually very happy and pleased with the game.
1 -
How many kills would you need to get to say that? I'm guessing if you said that you probably got a 3 or 4k. If your average drops down to 2k, and more times than not you trying results in a 2k, do you think you will feel the same?
0 -
It's going to be miserable at the top.
And I doubt BHVR will do anything about it.
3 -
I think the point is that killers should feel like their play matters and has consequences. With most of the cast, I know when the game loads in if I am going to be able to win or not, depending on the skill of the survivors. The match shouldn’t feel predetermined, which it does right now.
1 -
For people who have main killers, or a couple, it's going to be miserable due to the sweatlord squads at high rank (unless your good with nurse or spirit).
I know people like to blow off streamers a lot but Scott jund made a video very recently about this and it's 100% correct.
1 -
I don't disagree with anything you said. My question though, if you are already a better than average killer, getting on average more than 2k, then MMR hits and it works as intended, dropping you down to a 2k average, are you going to be more or less satisfied with the game?
0 -
I mean both sides can play real sweaty. But even nurse and spirit would lose 6 out 10 times vs players of average skills. Since there has been videos were top level nurses end losing to high level "competitive squads".
0 -
Can there even be a perfect mmr for this game? Maps and RNG can heavily affect how well I do against a team.
1 -
Less. I shouldn’t be handicapped into not being able to 4k . Why play if I don’t influence the outcome. The potential for a 4k should always exist
1 -
So then you are against a perfect MMR system that matches you with evenly skilled opponents with a balance philosophy of 2 kills and 2 escapes?
0 -
How about you? If you are playing a game of basketball, would you be more or less satisfied winning against a bunch of kindergartners 20 out of 20 times, or being able to win 10 games out of 20 against people of equal caliber?
Ultimately, whether you are for or against this MMR system will tell you what kind of a person you are.
1 -
Sorry for the late response.
I'm usually satisfied with a minimum of 2 kills, even if I had to scrape and claw for them. It's rare that I'm happy with a 1k. And most no kills were usually pretty miserable games I had to force myself through.
With MMR, I do expect that I will get zero and 1k's from time to time. But if it lowers the overall complete blowouts (from either side), I'd say it was better than what we have now. (we're still going to get blowouts, regardless of what they do. All we can do is hope they stop being most of our games)
0 -
Well I think killer-only players are thinking the same thing as any normal person: a perfect MMR system would be... well... perfect.
0 -
I would hate it.
I enjoy playing for fun and having diverse games, not constant sweat-fests where everyone is required to run meta perks/killers. Would much rather them create a separate game mode where MMR is active and have rewards for climbing to higher levels.
It's more entertaining to have some matches where I get stomped, some where I stomp, and some where everyone is on the same skill level.
6 -
That is a false equivalence. Let me try to make it a little more accurate.
Myself and four of my friends decide we want to join a basketball league for fun. The league we choose isn't a super try-hard competitive league because we aren't super try hard, competitive people. The league has been going for a couple years and we don't know any of the other teams or what their skill levels. That's not really important to us though, just that we think the game looks fun and just want to experience it.
When we first start playing matches, we lose almost every game because we aren't as good as the other teams and we just don't have any basketball skills. But we keep playing because we find it fun and we know we are new and can still improve. Little by little, we start to get the basics and learn how to play and we can sneak in a win here and there. Sometimes new teams join and we beat them, but we tell them, hang in there, we were in the same spot as you not long ago and if you keep at it you will get better too.
After 3 and a half years, we have really improved from where we were at the beginning. We are better than average and win more of our games than lose. That doesn't mean we don't lose. There are still teams that have been doing it longer that we go against every once in a while and they give as a good romping. But we know it is because of them having more experience than us and after all, it's just a game, nothing to be upset about. And we learn some things we can try for next time.
Sometimes we get one of those newer teams that hasn't been playing as long and we know we have more skills than. But this isn't a super competitive league. We chose not to be in a super competitive league on purpose. So we always play chill. They score some points, we score some points. We have fun, they have fun and hopefully learn some things from us that helps them get better.
Maybe they aren't exactly a new team, but their skills are just a little below ours and they are an average team. We still play pretty chill, but man we are making a lot of mistakes and they are on point. Maybe they beat us. Usually they don't because our skills are just a little better than theirs so most of the time we edge it out. But hey, we are all here to have fun and learn and get better.
Sometimes we go against teams that are about par with us. It's always a battle, every time we face them. Half the time they come out on top and half the time we come out on top. We are glad we don't face them all the time though, because we didn't really join to be in a super competitive league, we just wanted to play a game that looked fun.
So here we are, with a better than 50% win rate. We don't take the losses personal, it's just a game. But we do like that we can win the majority of our games without getting super sweaty because we have put in the time and honed our skills.
Today we got the news that the league has decided they are going to start matching people differently. They have decided no team should ever have to play against someone they don't have a 50/50 shot at beating. If you start beating the teams they are matching us with more than half the time, we are going to match you against different teams that you can only beat half the time. No more can you say you win more than 50% of your games.
So now to answer the question, if I am better than average and get more than a 50% win rate and the match making is changed so I can only get a 50% win rate, will the game feel less satisfying to me? Yes it will. Because part of the enjoyment for us was being able to see the progression from new to 3.5 years later and being able to say I've improved enough that I can win more of my games than I lose.
Does that make me a scum of the earth person because I might find it less enjoyable to have to play more competitively to win? Is that what you are trying to infer the people against MMR are?
2 -
We'll probably only see Nurses and Spirits in top MMR. I'm kinda scared about MMR tbh.
0 -
No it won’t…. the game is broken. M1 killers like pig and Michael will lose 9/10 matches against good survivors. If the game was balanced, mmr would be fine.
1 -
But that's not really how the MMR will work though since killers will have separate MMRs. The top tier trapper player will probably not be matched with the same people that the top tier spirit player goes against. And the survivor/killer balance is really only going to affect those top teams. For example, if I am a medium MMR trapper player and am getting matched against a set a survivors that I get a 50% win rate against, and then there is a significant nerf to trapper, the system will eventually shift me to a different set of players that I get a 50% win rate against.
0 -
Theoretically, since there will be separate MMR for each killer, MMR will adjust the people playing those killers so they are facing teams they win 50% of the time with. They will most likely not be facing the same teams that a god tier nurse/spirit player faces.
1 -
The comparison is bad, in my opinion. What you dont acknowledge is the fact that the games you win in the old way might end up 72 to 75, but are often more likly to end up 93 to 5, either way. While it might be more enjoyable to you to lose a game 93 to 5 because you also win in this way, the new system will move to matches that are more likly to be 72 to 75, and at this point people like myself dont even care who won, because it was pretty close and a game up to the end, not already determined after the first quarter.
1 -
Unfun if every equally survivor is good. Killers always look for the weakest link. If there's no weakest link then the only way to get a 4K is either be Spirit and Nurse.
0 -
I personally love challenges and enjoy playing sbmm games, so I would enjoy the change, except it is unclear what factors the MMR system takes into account when balancing a match.
There is a big difference between playing a killer with a meme build and no or weak add-ons and playing them with a meta build and powerful add-ons. i worry that MMR will make it impossible to run meme or fun builds without the game ending in 5 minutes.
1 -
I don't have the same experience as you then. My games with rank based are not one extreme or the other. I have lots of matches that are in between. But I don't usually sweat it out for the 4k because I find this to be a casual game. That doesn't mean I don't take pride in the fact that I have a better than average win rate or the player base as a whole. Or at least I do with killers I play compared to the last stats I have seen.
0 -
We'll continue with this basketball analogy.
How does beating up on a bunch of kindergartners in basketball make you feel like you are making any self-improvement? As more and more baby players join, you have more and more opportunities to be matched against those who have less experience than you - players you are able to curb stomp if you are actually trying. At this point with the current unreliable matchmaking, you can't really say that you are winning games because you yourself are improving - in fact, it's more likely that you are winning because you are facing a larger pool of players who have much less experience than you. And while these kindergartners are trying their best, putting 100% of their effort into the match with you, you toy around with them, always in control and confident that if they annoy your team in the slightest, you will always have the power to put them in their place. And that's apparently the kind of games that give many people who are against MMR system satisfaction. Sure, you will on rare occasion be matched up with professional teams that will treat you the same way you have treated the kindergartners, but on average, just because you have more experience than the vast majority of players in this league that matches you up with anyone, you will be the one in control of the game. And you think you DESERVE these "wins" because you have, as you say, "put in the time" unlike these kindergartners who have just started.
Let's be honest, people who are against MMR aren't looking for self-improvement. If they are, then they wouldn't be wanting to be matched with less skilled opponents, or opponents who are so much better than them that they won't even have any opportunity to improve. Those who want to self-improve would be wanting to be matched with people of equal skill level, so that each match will be able to mean something.
No, people who are against MMR systems are simply players who want to face less skilled players so that they can screw around with their opponent who are playing their hardest, and still be able to win regardless. They want the control. They want domination. But self-improvement? No need because they've already "put in the time" unlike majority of the players.
0 -
Not great, don't get me wrong the current system isn't great but a "perfect" mmr would make playing killer too stressful, ngl getting stomped or stomping someone else is almost like a break from having those actually even matches but in a "perfect" mmr those games would be very rare unless you just go in with the intention to lose, but that's lame.
0 -
If the top SWF gen-rushing teams on comms continue to dominate against the top Pig or Shape killers, then MMR will show that. SWF's score will keep rising while these killers score will bounce back and forth, maintaining the same level overall. That in itself will show that balance changes will need to be made for those killers, and be buffed accordingly.
Both the game balance and matchmaking need to function accordingly, because they affect each other. Main reason why the game is so badly balanced is because the current matchmaking is so awful. How would they gather good data if the matchmaking is allowing pretty much anyone of any skill level to be matched with each other?
0 -
This. If anything this MMR system will show how blatantly imbalanced the base design of the game is. Yes, Nurse and to a lesser degree Spirit counteract this, but only because they completely override the mechanics every other killer must respect.
When you give pro survivor players the exact same amount of tools you give beginners, and those players are experienced enough to exploit those resources to the maximum, this game falls apart and 95% of the killer roster becomes completely unusuable, regardless of the skill of the actual killer player.
To answer OPs question I think MMR is a trainwreck. Don't get me wrong I like a good tough match every so often to really test my skills and get the adrenaline pumping, but if it were every game I'd probably stop playing killer period.
I've said in other threads in the past that I wanted this, I thought I did. I'll admit that I was wrong. I still prefer a tough match over an easy one but almost tournament level 4 mans on comms every game against me, a players who find lower tier killers more fun, is not enjoyable in the slightest.
I don't need to win to have fun but a completely hopeless match where every survivor knows your every move with a crappy map offering every other game is not enjoyable at all.
1 -
I kinda like the amount of variety in skill the game normally applies, whether that's on purpose or not.
I don't mind if i get squashed every now and then by superior Survivors, just as long as i also sometimes squash the Survivors, and everything inbetween.
Guess you could say i'm a fan of the chaos.
1 -
You overly exaggerate your analogy so that so that you can claim moral high ground on anyone that disagrees with you. I say "I think my enjoyment of the game will go down with the MMR system" and you equate it to "you just like to curb stomp babies". I also doubt that the 30 year old woman who just bought the game and started playing likes to be referred to as a kidergartner and baby.
I didn't say every game I play I am trying to self improve. I said over the time I have played the game, I have improved and that those that are less experienced can learn when they play against me and can eventually get to the same level. I said I don't want to play an overly competitive, try hard game.
I don't have the same experience with you in matchmaking.Yes, I get the occasional team that is just better than me. And I don't care that I lose. If I were such the control freak you think because I say I don't want every match I play to be a sweat fest, then I would be fuming over losing and probably ranting in the forums about how unbalanced the game is, which I don't. I also, rarely get new players. While the current match making isn't perfect, which is mostly because of the imbalanced ratio of survivor to killer players trying to queue, I hardly every see a brown rank in my lobby.
It's fine that you have a different experience than me. It's fine that you have a different opinion about MMR than me and express why you feel it will be a better system. It is unnecessary and incorrect to infer that anyone who doesn't think they will like the new MMR system is an entitled, control freak, person that likes to curb stomp people weaker than them.
2 -
They wont be buffing weaker killers though. They wont care about highranked killers, they never did. Thats why killers are concerned, they are just confronted more with unbalance.
If this game was balanced, sure, give me balanced matches. But there will be a cutoff point for killer mmr and tons of survivors above it. Who will these survivors face? Killers with lower mmr. These killers aint be getting buffs, oh no. They're just throwing deathsquads at unlucky guys. There is no equivalent to swf sweatsquads, so how to matchmake them
2 -
They basically buffed weaker killers for the last year. Maybe some of the buffs weren't far enough (Clown, Trickster) and it took them much time to finally do those, but balancing is very hard with all the variables and RNG in this game.
My opinion on the topic: My games were all super sweaty and not that enjoyable because i clearly only had a chance with best addons, best perks and a good map. Most of my games were 0-1 kills, some 2, rarely i had a 4k. After they turned it off, i again had some stomping matches where the survivors basically gave up (also not fun for me). I don't really know how to approach this. This game is full of RNG and so many variables, which leads to many "stomp or get stomped" matches - you rarely have 2ks, most of the matches you either win (3-4k) or lose (0-1k), this is how the average of 2k comes about. On the other side, this casual party game style makes this game exciting and funny as you don't know what you have to expect before the match starts. But i sometimes wish the games were more close.
0 -
You're right; I do equate it as the same. That's because I think your (not just you personally, but those who have continually spoke against the MMR system) "enjoyment of the game will go down with the MMR system" BECAUSE you won't be able "to curb stomp babies." Or at least, you won't be in much control of whether to or not. You can choose to play at your maximum and win by completely destroying your opponent and making them regret ever touching a basketball, or you can choose to relax and still win by slapping your less skilled opponent around a bit while having "fun." It's this euphoria of being in control that I think are driving many anti-MMR players to be scared of the upcoming system. You fear a fair fight where you won't have an advantage and won't be in control of the outcome.
I don't know why you are suddenly talking about 30 year old women playing basketball, but in my analogy, I am literally talking about players beating kindergartners to make the point about this massive difference in experience levels that I have seen in this game. But if you think every 30 year old woman is inexperienced at basketball, then that's another problematic topic that we should probably discuss.
Sure, those who are less experienced may one day be able to reach the level where players with hundreds or thousands of hours are at, but in the current system in which they are constantly stomped by said types of players, constantly feeling like they never had a chance in the first place, why would they want to? Why can't they just play people of equal skill level, winning some and losing some, and learning about the game without feeling overwhelmed and helpless against better players with hundreds of hours ahead of them?
And of course you don't care as much about losing. I'm guessing almost everyone on this forum are above-average players who have already invested time and money into this game, which means that in our current ranking system, mostly everyone here are much more likely to win than to lose their matches since they are more likely to face less skilled opponents. Perhaps not "brown rank" type of opponents, but less skilled overall. Given how the current system allows such gap and discrepancy between player skill levels, and the more experienced players only care that they get a "win" regardless of how unfair the match was, why would they complain about a loss here and there?
If you want to have "fun", nobody is stopping you. But do it against a worthy opponent who are equally as skilled instead of at the expense of newer players. It's disgusting.
0 -
Kills is not a good metric to go by and is misleading. Hooks are much better metric.
0 -
They'll be forced to balance killers when (or if) they see that top survivors' MMR scores are much higher than the top killer-types. The reason why it appears that they currently don't care is because of how they are interpreting the data they are getting from the Ranking system. Did you know that the "Red Ranks" Kill/Escape Rate data they shared with the community some time ago only meant that the Killers were in red ranks? The Survivors could have been a rainbow group and they still attached the data to the "Red Ranks" Kill/Escape Statistic. Of course it inflates the Kill rate, making killers look much stronger than they actually were. And that's partially the reason why this game's balance seems so off - because that's the type of data they go by. MMR, in theory, should be able to fix such issues. But yes, it will probably be painful for many killer players until they fix them in the meantime. I personally think it is worth it to make the game better.
0 -
Problem is, they wont act on it. They're not interested in balancing everything equally. Some killers are meant to be weak but easy, while others are meant to compete at highranks. That was their balancing philosophy. And if there are balance issues they will redirect you to play nurse, billy and huntress (or nurse, spirit and blight nowadays).
I think mmr makes the game better for the majority of players, which is lower skilled survivors. And highranked killers have to suck it up, switch to survivor or play another game. Once you "got gud" at killer, your fun at dbd will end. Because you cant further improve and you'll be stuck at unbalanced matches. Do that for a month, fine. Maybe you can take it as a masochist for even longer. But this is not a state any seasoned player wants to be in. Once you reached that point you will understand too
1 -
It all depends if bhvr actually do the right thing and don't prioritize time over fair matches. The second test worked perfectly for me and looked like it was programmed for fairness over time as seen by Dowseys 2 hour wait for a twins game. The most recent test looks like they are going to put more weight on time over fairness and make the entire thing pointless.
There needs to be pain and anger from the survivor side (who is way to strong) for the devs to get real un muddied stats to balance off and fix the core problems in the game.
A perfectly played survivor team will always trump a perfectly played killer (Mostly) because most killers have a hard skill wall that no amount of player skill can surpass.
0 -
Then that's a problem with their balancing philosophy, if what you say is true, and not the problem with MMR. Regardless of the difficulty level of attaining the skill ceiling for specific characters, they should all be viable at the very top. It shouldn't matter how easy or hard the characters are to learn, they should all have an equal chance to win/lose, whether you are playing Nurse, Trapper, SWF, or Solo. When they are balanced at the top, then MMR should match the rest of players who haven't reached the skill ceiling to the appropriate groups and matches so that similar skilled players are matched with each other.
You're right that it's difficult to have faith in the developers due to their past history, but ultimately, I can only hope that they do the right things for the game.
0 -
That would be ideal for a balanced game. Sadly the devs really dont care about the top end of players. No doubts it will be a netgain for most players. But at some point, those players will get good and then they have the same complaints aswell. Until now, there are enough potatoes due to bad matchmaking that games are still decent. But once the potatoes are gone and you only face good survivors, highranked killer morale will reach absolute zero. And then we're back to queue time issues.
0 -
I agree that hooks are also a metric to be looked at besides just kills in determining the skill gap between a killer and their opposing survivor team. But my question wasn't about the skill difference between the two but the perceived level of fun of the match from the killer. I don't think I've ever thought, "gg survivors, you really made me work for those 8 hooks", when all of them escape. So when FrenziedRoach said he was happy with a game he could say "gg, you really made me work for that" I was curious what type of outcome would happen for him to say that. I assume saying "you really made me work for that" meant he won the match, but it didn't come easy because the survivors were good. So would he, in a perfect MMR system, have a different perception of how well the match was when the system is matching him against teams that when he really tries, will only average a 2k from.
0 -
Yes, you literally said kindergarteners. Which is an exaggeration of who new players to Dead by Daylight are. Which is why I bring up a new player can be a 30 year old woman and not young kids that have no clue they might be bad at something they first try that experienced players that say anything against MMR are licking their lips to face off against to stomp on for a euphoria affect from being in control. But again, you are using this exaggerated example to be able to hold a moral high ground over someone that disagrees with you and as a way to discredit them.
You also keep saying the current match making system is always matching inexperienced players with very experienced players that can curb stomp them. And I have said that is not my experience. Can it happen? Yes. But as a consistent rank 1 killer with the current system, I am barely ever matched against a player that just started. And again, that is less about the matching system and more about the lack of players on one side or the other that forces the match making range to widen the criteria in an effort to reduce wait times.
And you asked why someone would stick around to play the game if they might face an experienced opponent that they can't beat, on an infrequent basis? Skill based match making wasn't around when you started. Why did you stay? It wasn't there when I started either. But most people know when they start doing something for the first time, they aren't going to be great at it right away. But if the game is something they enjoy, they will keep playing knowing they will get better.
"It's disgusting." Again you assume peoples motives and attempt to hold a moral high ground.
2 -
I'll just ignore the run-on sentence since I still have no clue what you are referring to about the 30 year old woman.
In many of my matches, the skill level difference between players are unbelievably vast to the point where I think it's more than fair to compare these matches to a basketball match between toddlers and fully grown adults - in that they never had a chance in the first place. I'm exaggerating? From my perspective, you are the one understating the situation to fit your narrative, minimizing the effect of the current matchmaking is having on the outcome of matches, as well as its effect on the players. But perhaps you are just special - living in the right region, playing around the right time, in the right killer/survivor role. We can continue to point fingers at each other, discrediting each others' experiences, but how often have we read complaints on the forum about players feeling like they were totally outclassed or feeling helpless or unfair? How often have we seen streamers just dominate one match after another, and on and on for countless matches?
You ask me why I've continued to invest in this game. Because I enjoy the game mechanics and the theme, and on some occasions, I feel like I do experience a 'fair' match against a opponent of my skill level (though I don't know whether those opponents felt about the same about me). But those types of matches need to happen more often, especially for beginners. Because, yes I'm here, but how many have just gave up in comparison? This game has so many licensed characters from different movies and other games, all of them attached to massive fandom and population of possible players. How many have 'noped' out of the game after being continually being destroyed by more experienced players due to the current matchmaking system? What percentage of them was actually able to endure the pain? If we already had a skill-based matchmaking and the matches felt more fair, I'm sure much, much more would have stayed.
Sure, I've assumed people's motives. I haven't yet heard a better explanation on why they want to continue to be paired with people much less skilled than they are, despite having the opportunity to choose someone of equal skill level. You don't want to "try-hard" on this upcoming MMR system? Nobody is forcing you to. Oh, but you also want to win, and the only way you can win AND screw around is if the opponent is much worse than you. So you feel entitled to be in matches where you can do that, even if it is unfair for the opponents who are trying their best. If that's not the case, then go ahead and explain it to me in a very clear manner.
0 -
I highly doubt the average demographic of Dead by Daylight is 6 years old, kindergarten age. Also, this is a video game, not a physical sport, like basketball is. A group of adults playing basketball for the first time is going to beat a group of kindergartners playing for the first time because of the physical differences, not because of experience level difference. So to use a basketball analogy where a group of adults that have played basketball before stomp a group of kindergartners is an exaggerated example of an experienced Dead by Daylight player playing against and beating a new player that is most likely close to their own age demographic.
And most people would agree that a group of adults playing a basketball game against a group of kindergartners would be extremely unfair. And most people would agree you should use kid gloves with young children more than you should with a group of people in your same age demographic. So when you say someone thinking a skill based match making system will lessen their enjoyment of the game is the same as them saying they want to curb stomp kindergartners in a basketball game, you are attempting to make a moral judgement on people based on an example not equivalent to the issue being discussed. You can keep telling me why you think they are equal, but I am going to continue to disagree.
Yes, I want to play the game casually and not try hard most of the time. Yes, I also enjoy that my experience gained playing the game gives me a higher win average than the average player. But that does not mean I feel I am entitled to win. So when I say I think a skill based match making system is going to lessen my enjoyment of the game, it is not because I want to control and dominate other players will be less able to do so, it is because I will not be able to equate me experience and skill earned as meaning anything.
Hopefully you will take me for my word. I have no reason to lie. I have not been discrediting anyone that has made a post about imbalanced match making. I have not been making posts saying MMR is going to kill the game. I have giving the latest tests specific, constructive feedback and not biased opinions. If you look back at some of my posts when they first tried to role it out, you'll see I was one of the people telling other to not be so hasty on their opinions and give it time. So the only reason you wouldn't believe me is because of incorrect assumptions and biases you have.
1 -
Like I said, my analogy is nowhere near an exaggeration when you are simply comparing the massive differences in players' experience level in a given match, and the obvious outcomes that often follow it. You poking holes in situational differences seem to indicate you don't understand what analogy is. Kindergartners can't beat adults due to physical differences? Fine, let's just change the analogy to players just learning to dribble matching up against professional basketball players who've played for many years. It doesn't matter what the details are. Ultimately, my point is that if possible, less skilled players (in ANY type of game, whether sports or videogames) should not be forced into a match with players who have vastly more experience just to be served as their prop to maintain their egos. And yes, you are absolutely right that I am making a moral judgment on the type of people that enjoy prioritizing their own win-count at the expense of less experienced players. "Oh no, my win count and win ratio won't reflect my awesome skill and vast amount of experience anymore because I have to now face players that are equally skilled as me - woe is me!" To me, that type of personality is pretty disgusting, especially when I think about what the opponents may have had to deal with, and how they felt about it - but that's just me. And I'd go on and add that willingly beating up on weaker players, no matter how many times you do it, doesn't say anything about your skill or your experience - it just mean that you are more than willing to beat up on weaker opponents just for a "win", nothing more and nothing less.
I don't think you are lying. I just find that type of attitude and outlook in life despicable. Nothing against you, personally. More disgusted with many of our current societies that always seem to justify giving more power to the powerful instead of striving to make them fair for everyone, including the weak and the disadvantaged.
0 -
I know what an analogy is. Just because you make an analogy doesn't mean it is equivalent to the topic as discussed. People try to use exaggerated analogies all the time to try and prove their point. When it's not, this is called a false equivalence and is a logical fallacy. I am saying your analogy to the subject is a logical fallacy based on false equivalence. And you have admitted you are making a moral judgement and trying to persuade other to as well as you are fighting the good fight against our current societies that prey on the weak. This is called appeal to emotion. But you are doing so based on assumptions about a person and your own biases.
0 -
And I've already stated why it's not an exaggeration and why my main point still stands. I've even altered the analogy to make it simpler for you to understand. You wanting my point to be a false equivalence and repeatedly calling it so doesn't make it one. And ultimately, even if it was one, it doesn't make one tiny bit of difference about my impression of those who are continually whining about the MMR system, and the reasons I've given about it.
The fact that you are now simply lashing out about the analogy, when the analogy itself is the least important part of my posts, seems to indicate that you have nothing more to add about the main overall topic and the subject itself. Then it looks like my point has been made.
0
