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!
To everyone who likes the MMR system better than the previous Emblem system
Hey all!
in case you've missed it, i've made a Poll the other day about whether the community likes or dislikes the MMR system in order to see how the view of the community has changed (or not changed) between the latest MMR test run (with MMR being a rather controversial topic) and now after its full release.
as of right now, it is quite clear that there is a rather big dislike for the MMR system (of course my poll cant speak for the whole community, but thats the trend i have been noticing with, at this point in time, 70% of people saying they dislike it)
however, this post isnt for those people. This is for the 25% that did say they liked it, because i have a genuine question to you.
So if you dislike the MMR system, you do not need to bother with replying. This isnt meant to be a discussion to determine whether someone is right or wrong, whether the MMR system is good or not - we already have plenty of those. This is just me asking a question, hoping to get some more elaboration on the topic.
enough of that, lets get on with the question:
the most common response i saw from people who said they think "MMR is a good addition to DbD" was, that, while they do not think it is a perfect system yet, they do view it as a better system than the old Emblem system was.
Now my question to you is:
what makes you say that?
because personally i just can not understand this argument.
in my opinion, the MMR system is actually quite inferior to the old Emblem system - my argument for that being the following:
MMR not only fails at determining an individuals actual skill level, it actually never even tries to. all MMR is looking at to determine who wins and who loses MMR points is the final result of the game; in other words, all it cares about is whether someone escaped or not.
This means that it does not matter how you played in game, if you make it out it is counted as a win, while if you died at any point in time it is counted as a loss - the most glaring issue with this philosophy is, that the final outcome of the match absolutely doesnt stand in any correlation to how good you actually are at this game. Lets just say you were the absolute MVP during your last trial - you did 2 to 3 gens on your own, went for a couple of really clutch saves and kept the Killer busy in a chase until the last few gens got done too, but then got downed right at the end with the Killer making sure you die on hook. Does this make you a bad player? Does this mean you played worse than the 3 people that made it out or even the Killer in that matter? I dont think so - but MMR does.
And this is where i believe the old Emblem system to be way more advanced that the current MMR system is, because in that system the ultimate outcome of the match was only one of four overall factors that went into determining your score, instead of being the sole one. In the Emblem system the game at least tried (im not saying it was particularly good at it, but at least it actually tried) to judge you based on your actions ingame, meaning that, at least in my eyes, the Emblem system did a significantly better job at actually determining someones skill level in direct comparison to MMR.
the same applies to Killer btw - the Emblem system actively rewarded you for playing well and giving Survivors a multitude of second chances, to ensure that you couldnt just hook someone, camp them to death and then get a NOED strike on someone else and repeat the same - if you did that then you would be severely punished by the system due to you not engaging in many chases (even losing points in this category due to a camping penalty), not defending your gens, not injuring many people and not achieving many hooks either. MMR on the other hand only looks at the overall outcome of the match, meaning if you just do that exact same thing, MMR is actually going to reward you for it, due to you achieving 2 kills over someone who played fair and, lets say, only got 1 kill but had the others on deathhook.
In other words, the Emblem system actually tried to get Killers to play in a way that Survivors would enjoy, instead of taking the safest and most boring way possible - while MMR does nothing of the sort and actually encourages this behaviour by Killers.
but maybe i'm just missing something here, something that gives the MMR system a clear edge over the Emblem system, something that the MMR system can achieve which was entirely impossible for the Emblem system to ever get right, which is why i made this post to ask you all to elaborate on your previous statement a bit more, so i can understand where you are comming from with it.
thank you for replying!
EDIT:
sorry for the late edit, but given the amount of people that responded with this exact same misconception i feel like it is quite a necessary one.
the Emblem system =/= Ranks.
Yes, the Ranks were not a good factor at matching people together, that is pretty much common knowledge - but that is not what i have been referring to here at all.
the Emblem system was the way of earning points that would then be used to determine your Rank, which was then used to determine your opponent. I am not saying the overall matchmaking system was great, i am saying the way you used to earn points for that matchmaking system was significantly better than the current one.
The point i am trying to make here is, that the Emblem system did a better job at determining an individuals skill level than the MMR system does, because it took significantly more aspects of the trial into account to see who was good or bad - the Emblem system only cares for whether you escape or die, which is a very onedimensional view on this game.
as i have stated in pretty much every comment that had me talking about Ranks, they were far from perfect and needed improvements. However, i do think the Ranks were a lot more salvageable than MMR is, all they needed were some slight tweaks to them that made it harder to get to high rank / maintain it (and maybe even add a few ranks on top) to further seperate the high ranks skill levels from one another - this however does not stand in any correlation to the Emblem system, which is its own seperate thing.
and i simply do not agree with that system being completely ditched for something that, in my humble opinion, is far inferior.
Had they merged these two systems together, i wouldnt be here complaining like this.
Comments
-
I'm not sure if my input is going to be particularly valuable to you since I only put that it was a good addition because it was a good idea and needs extra tweaking, but I can try and answer this.
So, the first thing I want to highlight is that everyone understood the rank system of matchmaking to be garbage while it was a thing, and I'm not sure why people are starting to cling to it- that system was bad and we all knew it was bad, even if this system isn't any better calling for a return to something we know doesn't work seems like a bizarre choice to me?
Regardless: The emblem system does have its strengths, it does encourage a certain style of playing, it just doesn't work as the matchmaking system universally because not every killer can realistically actually get full points on it. Any killer with an instadown is inherently punished for using their kit by the emblem system, because the emblem system wants multiple injures and longer chases, just as an example. That alone completely disqualifies it as better than the MMR system, it's clearly not fit for purpose at all based solely on that one example.
Then the MMR system comes in, and it standardises everything: Now it doesn't want you to play in a hyper-specific way to rank up, which is pretty dumb for a matchmaking system since that should just measure your overall skill, not put a challenge in front of you. Instead, it only takes into account whether or not you completed the objective, which is... reasonable, that's your goal, that's the thing you're trying to do. How consistently you can do that is a pretty reasonable basis for an MMR system, especially since it does have a little bit of nuance by softening your loss if you played against higher-MMR players or if you died third/fourth.
However, you're not completely wrong. My conclusion on the poll post is the same as it is here- the MMR system should incorporate the emblem system as a second round of loss-softening, so you don't fall as far in the system for a loss after getting a really good emblem score than you would if you just played really poorly.
7 -
The supposition that if you play well your rating can go down is misleading because, on average, it won’t. Sure you can do a bunch of gens and do well in a chase and still get killed, but the more likely result is if you do those things you’ll escape, so on average your rating will tend to correlate to your escape rate. And ultimately escaping is the actual goal of the game - doing gens and being good in a chase are just tools to get to that goal. So it makes sense that the rating system should focus primarily on the escapes and kills versus other tasks that get you to those goals.
And the old ranking system definitely had its flaws. It was as much or more about time spent in matches than outcomes. Longer matches give you more points and raise your grade/rank, shorter matches give you less emblems and point and lower rank. If I remember right, as a killer you could possibly Mori 3 people, one escapes by hatch, and you lose rank because not enough else happened in the match. Or you could run around, break every pallet and kick every gen and get some hooks but get zero kills and gain a notch in rank, even though you spent time pretty inefficiently.
So I don’t have data one way or another on what the median results are for matches under the current system, but I do remember the old ranking system having issues and I know in my own games currently I’m generally ok with the matches I’m getting.
0 -
The emblem system was mostly fine for killer, because you didn't have to compete with your teammates for emblems. There were some killers that didn't work well with the emblem system due to how their kits worked like instant down killers tend to get less chaser, but even then that could be played around if you really needed to. Even instant down killers could generally pip up despite the issues with chaser.
But on the survivor side, the emblem system sucked. Climbing to rank 1 wasn't hard, but could take forever since sometimes you just can't get unhooks or the killer never chases you or you face a killer like Wraith or Twins whose powers don't start chases either. Too many situations where you could play perfectly but not even pip.
0 -
I'm not sure if my input is going to be particularly valuable to you since I only put that it was a good addition because it was a good idea and needs extra tweaking, but I can try and answer this.
dont worry, i appreciate your response just as much as from anyone else ^^
everyone understood the rank system of matchmaking to be garbage while it was a thing, and I'm not sure why people are starting to cling to it- that system was bad and we all knew it was bad
personally, i dont view the old system as a particularily good one. i do however view it as a better system than the current MMR system, so I'd rather go back to the old system than receive a direct downgrade to it. additionally, i think the old Emblem systems flaws were actually a lot more resolvable than the MMR systems flaws.
lets take the unfairness to oneshot abilities as an example:
you are right, it is straight up unfair for characters such as Hillbilly to receive significantly less Chaser Emblem points for succesfully using their power in comparison to any normal M1 Killer - however, the fix for this is actually quite simple: just slightly tweak the Chaser Emblem to count oneshot downs as two seperate chases - one that took as long as it took you to apply the oneshot and one that is counted as instantly over. That way you would not only make it fair in comparison, but actually reward Killers for spending some more time in a chase to use their, usually also not that easy to use, powers instead of going for the safe option of just M1ing.
in addition to that i personally just dont see the point of introducing a competetive matchmaking system to a game like DbD. There is just so little actual competetiveness in this game, that i do not believe a system like the MMR system is going to work - ever. (a competetive game has to be competetively viable. this means the game has to be overall well balanced and the detemrining factor of someones success has to be their personal skill level - which, simply put, just isnt the case in DbD, due to things like RNG playing such a big role)
So people like me dont actually want the old system back, but we do think it provides a much better basis to build an an actually functioning matchmaking system on than the MMR system does.
i know this was a bit off topic to the OP, but i hope i could answer your question.
however, i think i will have to disagree with you on one thing here:
I think skill in DbD is a much more versatile thing than just seeing who escapes and who doesnt - for example: i do not think that Blendette who sat in a corner all game, did a gen and instantly opened a door to leave her team behind was a better player than that Jake who just looped the Killer for 3 gens, made a couple of clutch hook saves and is currently getting facecamped - yes the Claudette played it safe, but she didnt play it well. Her success is directly reliant on the rest of the team doing well - and if this Claudette happens to be part of an SWF group, then she will be able to consistently "do well" and be treated as a top tier player, despite her not actually being good at the game.
this means, in my opinion, a system is needed that takes more into account than just this one thing, which the Emblem system has at least tried to do. Not to say the Claudette in my example wouldnt also have a clear advantage in the Emblem system over people who werent part of a SWF, but that system at the very least was a lot less exploitable in that regard than MMR currently is.
1 -
I agree with your assessment of the flaws in this system- I completely agree that skill is more versatile than whether you escape/get a 4K, but I do also think that your skill should only be measured in how well you can leverage it to achieve that win condition. However, to speak to your example of the Blendette, I do have two things to say.
Firstly: That's why I think that the emblem system should be used as a secondary decrease/increase modifier, so that the Jake who did really well for the team and happened to die shouldn't have his MMR decreased all that much (maybe even breaking even as though he'd hatch escaped), and so the Blendette doesn't get as much of an increase as she would've if she were more active. The goal is still to escape, so that should still be the primary thing being weighed, but some extra stuff can be evaluated alongside that with slightly less weight.
The second thing I'd want to say is that hiding in a corner and leaving immediately is only gonna get you so far. Once that Blendette goes up against better killers, she's gonna find that she's pretty easily scoped as the weak link and thus is the one who gets targeted for the easiest pressure on the team- at least, hypothetically. I know the game has some balance issues that complicate that, but to be fair, those aren't directly related to the MMR system. Beyond that, though, strategies which work at a lower tier and that start to plateu when you climb is a pretty common part of most online games, in my experience.
I agree that DBD isn't competitive, though, which is why it's very important to remember that this system is not designed like a rank progression system, as you'd see in games typically associated with the term "MMR". It's just for matchmaking, it's pretty barebones.
0 -
I barely played with the old system before it transferred to the new (new player) but here's my opinion on the problem with the old system. Your rank fluctuates and that promotes sweaty style play. I like bp and once I hit Iri I as killer, I don't care what happens in a match. Do I want to try out a new build stress free? Got it. Do I want to try a new playstyle? Sure. Do I want to pick up a new killer? Use suboptimal perks? Try new strategies? Why not? If I get one hook on each survivor for BBQ and Chili, I don't care about the rest as I'll make up any lost sacrifice points on brutality, chasing and deviousness.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the old system punish that? If you were good with Billy but decided to try out Nurse your ranking would get smashed? If I decided to not kill anyone but go for eight hooks so I could practice more strategies wouldn't my grade go down? It's that as a new player that would make me hesitant about switching back to the old system.
1 -
you are partially right with this.
There wasnt any individual Killer ranking in the old system, meaning if you got to Rank 1 as Blight and decided to try and learn Nurse, thats where you'd start out.
However, there were a few more things to it:
1) there was no reward for being high rank, meaning you actually had no incentive to ever be Rank 1 in the first place - so losing your rank was actually not a big deal, unless you, for whatever personal reason, decided that you really wanted to be Rank 1.
2) Rank 1 was full of people of very varying skill levels. This means a Rank 1 game was usually a lot more chill than a high MMR game in the current system, due to a lot more mediocre players being present.
And this leads us to another point: The "individual Killer ranking" the MMR system provides us with is actually nowhere near as individual as they made it out to be.
You still have an overall Killer MMR rating, which is actually quite close to your highest Killers rating - if im not mistaken, then the max MMR you can have currently is 2000. So if we assume you got max MMR on someone and then pick someone else you never played before, that would only reduce your MMR rating by 200, meaning you still get matched with Survivors who are pretty equal to the ones you got with your main Killer as well.
1 -
Killers are suppose to kill
Survivors are suppose to survive
MMR tracks that seems good to me
Kill/survive more get harder games, less kills or die alot easier games
2 -
I'm not saying the new system is perfect, but I don't think that actual "skill" is not really a good measure for matchmaking in this game.
If I had to design a system to measure killer skill level it'd be probably based on e.g. how often and successful he uses his power, the number of hooks, gen pressure, stuff like that. The problem is that this is not a good measure for matchmaking because even against many mid-level groups, you can 4k without really using your power (yes even on a 110% killer), camping and tunneling works all too well, too, and when it doesn't there's still NOED to save the day. An actually "skill based" MM would probably just mean infinite free stomps against low to mid MMR survivors as long as you avoid learning to play the game.
For survivors I don't know, but my criticism of the old pip system was that escapes had not enough weight and I had to play with lots of people who knew how to rip teammates off the hook right in the killer's face with BT and then everyone died but still pipped up after a shitshow because they did enough to rank up even though what they did sabotaged the match. I was always pretty mad when I died yet again but still pipped up so I had to play with the same poor teammates against even better equipped and sweatier rank 1 killers, so the chance to survive did continuously decrease. I consider myself a casual player but that doesn't mean I am fine with getting stomped on 95% of the matches I play.
0 -
My Matches on BOTH Survivor and Killer have become significantly harder, "more sweaty", and difficult ever since the MMR update.
I guess that just means that I'm being placed against more people around my skill level or better than me now?
I'm honestly having quite a bit less "Fun" - however, I have noticed that it is actually MAKING me a better Killer and/or Survivor.
My skill level has improved significantly ever since the MMR update, and I'm starting to learn new Killers even faster than I ever have before because of the increased challenge and difficulty.
I think that MMR is at least working closer to keeping matches "FAIR" than the system before did. My matches seem more "Fair" generally speaking because I know that I'm a good Killer so if I want to secure even 1 Kill I have to try my hardest and not make any mistakes because of the Survivors that I face... is it always fun? Hell no, it's a pain in the ass and very stressful, it's actually made me start playing the game less.. BUT it FEELS Fair to me, and when I play I ALWAYS have a challenge, and I don't always end up securing 1-2K but often I do and I can feel myself improving and playing better/smarter.
It's a very interesting dilemma because in 1 part it seems unhealthy for the game, and in another exact opposite part it feels like the healthiest thing that's ever happened to the game.
Sure, did I enjoy logging in and having super easy / chill games to mess around randomly "for fun" before? Yeah, I did, and I lost that with MMR it has not even happened ONCE yet since the system was placed in, however, those games were UNFAIR for the people I played against - and arguably because of the lack of challenge they could have been considered "boring" if I was actually looking for a better challenge instead.
I think MMR is BETTER overall for players that want to play fair matches and play more competitively and actually improve their own gameplay rather than just enjoy easy free wins.
The ONLY issue that has really come to light with MMR is that at the highest level of play, Survivors have a HUGE advantage over Killers in this game and it never actually feels "Fair" for the Killer. But this is simply because the game is truly Unbalanced, and ultimately favors Survivors who know how to play together as a Team. What I have realized though, is that this has taken the "4K" possibility away from Killers, against good Survivors who we seem to face constantly now, but instead of a 4K my new goal is to get a 2K and plenty of hooks - now in my mind as long as I get a 2K with a few extra hooks that is a win for me.. I still lose a lot, but the idea of getting a 4K has completely vanished from my mind - honestly if I manage to get a 4K it generally means that I actually played against bad survivors that round and MMR didn't really work as it was supposed to.. but this has become extremely rare now unless I play my best Main Killer with the most Meta Build.
0 -
I dont like the mmr called Skill base since its not determine your skill, but the mindset you have when playing.
As other said, instant down Killers gained alot of benefit due to the chase emble. That theyre so good and the chase is so short that keep them at lower rank.
As for me who play survivors more. I prefer mmr far alot since its guarantee me to have easier or more fair play killer despite I use non meta perk. With emble system I had to use full meta because there is no difference between low and high rank killer, both have good skill and/or try hard.
I got told learn to play from a teammate before mmr. While I was using Leader, street wise, vigil, prove thyself and they had full meta. Which they had to carry me because I meme.
I understand killers struggle with mmr because at higher mmr, all survivors are try hard and you cant find any weak link.
0 -
In principle, it is quite simple. The emblem/pip system has nothing to do with the MMR and it didn't before, because there was no MMR before. It was only matched according to ranks which was bad. Now it is done according to MMR which makes a lot of things better and I would like to mention again that you should please stop mentioning ranks again and again (they are dead) or to include the emblem system now. They are all separate things. MVP or not.....I already wrote it in one of my posts: imagine now that the developers would calculate the MMR differently ( or as you described it ). Then there would be only farm rounds to achieve a higher MMR or ? and that would definitely be a pure disaster for Dead by Daylight. For me BHVR has definitely made the right decision here
0 -
Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me
0 -
"Rank 1 was full of people of very varying skill levels. This means a Rank 1 game was usually a lot more chill than a high MMR game in the current system, due to a lot more mediocre players being present."
Do you not see the problem in this sentence? your saying that emblem system was more effective at calculating your skill but also saying that there were a ton of mediocre players at rank 1(the highest rank in entire game). Your asking for players to have discussion about the topic when your topic was easy to debunk in a single sentence. Top MMR/Rank should be top players. It is that simple.
MMR for survivor is super fun. Most of my teammate are really good. Most of killers on average get 1-3 hooks. I faced a spirit today that got 1 hook.... poor spirit, got balanced for casual players. The only games I lose is when I get poor teammates which I assume is matchnmaker placing me in lower MMR matches because of my high MMR from lack of high MMR killer players, so it gives weaker teammates to balance out lower killer MMR.
MMR is really sad because most of DBD is balanced casual brand new players to average bad survivors like Sluzzy with his 10% escape rate, so as result, most of killers are underwhelming often with unimpactful add-ons and large laundry list of worthless perks. Playing weaker killers is like watching paint dry up where most of your losses are out of your control. You have to accept losing to enjoy a lot of them now a days. With MMR, I feel like I can only play at top MMR when I am playing Nurse, Blight and Leatherface. Huntress and Doctor, I feel like I am on fence with these two killers because I feel like a lot of my matches with these two killers are really close to winning but barely losing. I wish I could play top mmr Oni, Clown, Trickster, Pinhead but game balance just isn't there.
Tl;DR top MMR killer is pretty dull from poor balancing :/
1 -
You guys are comparing the emblem system to the MMR system?
They have always been separate, and the Emblem system is still in the game guys.
0 -
Well the Emblem system has been used for matchmaking until it got replaced by the MMR system
2 -
Problem is that people keep wanting to link mmr to your own skill. This just isn't the case. It's not what it's trying to do.
Not that you can blame people when they started calling it skill based match making instead of matchmaking rating that it actually is
What MMR measures is how good your opponents should be.
If a killer is able to kill 3-4 survivors by camping, They should start facing stronger survivors that know how to deal with that stuff
If a killer tries to play for 12 hooks and only gets one kill, it is nice if that killer gets weaker survivors so they can play that way AND get kills next time
If a survivor is able to run a killer for 3 gens, do the other 2 by themself and get most of the unhooks but dies at the end, then it isn't a bad thing if that survivor gets a weaker killer next time so they can play for the mvp AND escape.
If a survivor hides all match and does nothing and still is able to escape through the gate then they should start facing stronger killers that don't lose what's essentially a 3v1
But no, in people's mind MMR is good and having lot's of it means you're good. Ignore that it's an invisible stat. They need it.
All these people who are trying so hard to cheese the mmr system are fools, they are shooting themself in the foot. So many killers come here and say "Well if MMR only cares for kills, I'll just facecamp with Noed to guarantee 2 kills" and what ends up happening is that they keep cheesing kills without actually getting better and keep increasing the difficulty of their opponents. Untill they suddenly hit a wall of actual good players that they don't know how to deal with.
And then they come here complaining how impossible the game is for killers and how it's only for 1-3 killers possible to even play the game.
MMR isn't perfect. But as long as you don't pay attention to it and just let it do what it does in the background it works adequately. But people tried to game the system and are now paying the price.
4 -
i never said the Emblem system was perfect in any way - it had its flaws, quite a few actually. But overall i believe it was a lot more effective at determining an individuals skill than the MMR system, due to it taking a lot more actions said player did throughout the trial into account, when MMR in a direct comparison only looks at the outcome and ignores everything else away.
the issue here doesnt lie within the actual concept of the Emblem system, but rather with the way Ranks worked - it was just too easy to get and maintain them, meaning a vast majority of people ended up at the highest rank.
This however is quite a fixable problem, as all you really had to do here was making it harder to maintain a high rank, so the more experienced players would end up kicking the less experienced players out again. so instead of removing and completely reworking the Emblem system into an MMR system, they could have just as well removed safetypips and maybe added a few bous ranks on top of Rank 1 that would be significantly harder to gain. This could have been one way of addressing said problem while keeping the Emblem system in tact.
and from what i've heard this exact problem still applies to the MMR system - for Killers. apparently it is significantly easier to rank up your MMR score as a Killer in comparison to Survivor, meaning a lot of Killers of very varying skill levels are at the highest levels of MMR, simply because the game makes it relatively easy to reach that.
also, you mentioned a very interesting point - that being the imbalance of this game.
I 100% agree with that. One of the biggest downfalls of the MMR system is the fact that this game is so incredibly unbalanced at high level play.
This however is something that, in my opinion, doesnt actually defend the MMR system, but rather speaks against it. Because this game will never be truly balanced or competetively viable - the Devs have made it very clear that they have no intention of balancing DbD around the highest level of play. In addition to that, of course, there is the fact that DbD itself is essentially build on mechanics that are just straight up unfair to the involved players - the most notable one here being RNG.
a lot of the time its not actually the skill of one of the two opposing sides that matters, but flat out map RNG. You might be an amazing Hillbilly player, but if you get send to Lerys Memorial Institute, you are going to have a significantly harder time against the same group of Survivors then you'd have on, lets say, Shelter Woods.
that means this game is never going to be actually competetively viable, which in return means it makes no sense for the Devs to be pushing an competetive matchmaking system in the first place, which is the reason why i think MMR as a system is actually a lot less resolvable than the old Emblem system was - the whole concept of MMR doesnt make sense for a game like DbD.
This is also why i dont necessarily think Rank 1 in the previous system being a bit more mixed in terms of actual skill level was inherently a bad thing - though it could definitely be excessive at times. this is just not a competetive game and i think a lot of people would do themselves quite a favor if they stopped pretending like it was.
also #StopSluzzyAbuse >:(
1 -
Not really, other than only people from the same near ranks can play with each other. Matchmaking was based on a hidden mmr system. This was common knowledge.
0 -
"the issue here doesnt lie within the actual concept of the Emblem system, but rather with the way Ranks worked - it was just too easy to get and maintain them, meaning a vast majority of people ended up at the highest rank."
You realize that current MMR being kill and escapes is extremely simple right? your saying it was too easy in old system where as current system is EASIER than old system and yet matches are far more accurate (teammate wise for survivor) and killer skill-level wise. I'm actually very impressived for how good the killer players are at their killer when playing survivor. Difficult was definitely not the problem.
I will give an anecdotal game I had few days ago. It was vs Huntress. I had game where first survivor who did a chase got hooked in basement in 3 gen chase(fairely standard for high MMR). Another survivor tried to save the person in basement when huntress was camping, He went down, two people were in basement. I was around 60% done on 2nd gen. 3rd teammate tried to go next basement, realized it was impossible save, so he did gen with me, we had 1 gen left. Two people in basement died. He did a long chase, I finished last gen and opened exit gate and I escaped, He died and got 1 hooked.
If this was old emblem system, It would say everyone lost. Huntress with 3 kills lost, The person who escaped lost and person who did a great chase at the end lost equally as hard.
In new system, the killer actually wins which is true... 3 kills is killing most of the team, so therefore yes, killer did win. I think most people would agree with that. The two people in basement lost most MMR. 3rd person lost least and I gained MMR according system. Its really easy to see how new system beats old system in being able to judge results of a match.
The reason why matches were all over place before including teammates was because system was flawed at its core before because it could not judge results(win or loss in the match). The only problem current MMR system for survivor is that it does not take account team results.
For example, that game i escaped, I didn't win, the killer won. I could never win, only lose or draw since most of my team died, 2 people walking out of exit gate was never going to be happening in that game. A common occurrence now a days is 3 people escaping and the final person dying from killer facecamping. the one person who died, the game does not take into account that killer was billy with instant down camping a hook, so nobody could do a safe unhook save, therefore last person dies.
MMR for survivor is mostly accurate. its only pitfall is facecamping and EGC solo escapes. facecamping is dbd problem in balance and EGC solo escapes are mostly a problem with not having any team-rating. I think this can easily be solved that if more than 2 people escape, the survivors could get a draw in MMR, so last person who dies automatically from everyone leaving, they get a draw and if less two people escape, last person only gets a draw kinda like hatch escape. Killer MMR is super accurate. Its so accurate to the point that some killer players are surprised at the teams they're facing now a days. it makes me laugh.
I think only people that dislike new matchmaking are killers that enjoyed facing bad survivors. The level of play since MMR is much higher than it ever was compare old system on both sides.
Post edited by Devil_hit11 on0 -
Okay, a few things.
- Anyone who works with stats for a living will tell you the problem with polls, especially binary polls. The biggest being selection bias (only people who care about the poll enough bother voting, so it'll be skewed to the 'desired' result).
- MMR is absolutely not perfect. It's not hard to abuse and tank/smurf. It occasionally just borks out, and matches you against either complete newbies when you are a solid intermediate, or crazy high tier people.
- It's biggest weakness is the lack of nuance in terms of what constitutes 'skill', especially for survivors.
- However, it's a million times better than ranks were, for anyone who isn't already very good at this game. I know, because I started learning about 15 months ago and I ended up hating the game, because I was constantly getting matched against survivors with thousands of hours played. Now, aside from the occasional 'wat' game, smurfs etc, I actually get some good matches, and if I don't want to play sweaty I can get matched against others who want to play more chill.
1 -
New mmr makes it really easier to play against weaker survivors, at least it has for me.
Its nice because I play lazy with clown and use stuff like agitation and brutal strength, and either oppression or nothing for regression/detection.
Since the new mmr I tend to play against other survivors who are either new or are playing like me with one ######### game ever so often. Usually ever 4th or 5th.
Honestly I've been leaning towards the two hook then slug game. The games fun in the lower ranks and the new mmr let's it be fun for longer. In the old system I found you'd have to throw and throw hard to get away from the gitngud crowd.
1 -
This was definitely not common knowledge? Where are your sources for this claim?
The devs definitely said it has been the visible ranks that were used for matchmaking until MMR was used. Except for the MMR test phases of course. It didn’t work most of the time for sure but that doesn’t mean there was some other system running in the background.
2 -
I think the overall idea of MMR is that if you kill/survive you are the better player. Regardless of how it is accomplished. NOED/Slugging/Camping/Tunneling are cheeky ways to win, but they are what they are.
I do enjoy the separate rankings for killers. The base rank is the same which makes sense as many common killer strategies are valid across the board.
Ive found as survivor that teammates are generally better as well in soloq. You get the occasional potato, but overall much better quality. There is the aspect that as survivor you won't PIP because killer decided to engage in a 5 gen chase and activated NOED at the end. You don't get any points for altruism, boldness or survival. At least with new MMR the chance to pip is still there (barring NOED lol)
0 -
A matchmaking system should create games where all players have equal skill levels.
Why do you believe the emblem system was better at matching players of equal skill compared to the new MMR system? I've played games where there was a Rank 1 red Killer going against a Rank 19 and a Rank 20 survivor in the emblem system. In fact, it was common to have Red rank players mixed with brown and yellow players. It was very common for games to end with in a couple of minutes because the emblem matchmaking system had unequally skilled players in it.
The skill-level of players is much more equal in the new MMR system, by far.
You created a poll in a very Killer-biased forum filled with Killers who have played for very long periods of time. Of course they want easy games, which the old emblem system provided. You pretty much excluded survivors entirely in your poll by asking the people in these forums. You also, pretty much excluded newer and mid-level players, because this forum is filled with very experienced players as a whole.
1 -
Dude to work I don't get to play much as I'd like to see every rank reset I'm stuck playing against players who were clearly outmatched and it got stale quick.
MMR system has,for the most part, placed me against players who are now equal footing. I'm taking 2-3 kills about 60% of the time and survivor about half of my games. It's much more fair this way
2 -
Everywhere. There was a lot of talk about it among the forums, in dev livestreams, and among content creators while the SBMM was being implemented because there was still some people that didn't understand that matchmaking was never based solely on Rank. It would come up off-handedly before that when a dev would correct someone on the forums, or discord.
Also you're not that important for me (or anyone really) to waste time finding "evidence" when the evidence was given to us multiple times over the years, and you just chose not to pay attention. It makes no difference to me that you're wrong about something, and this thread can be further proof that so many players really doesn't understand how the game works to be having an opinion how it should.
0 -
i paid attention though and have never seen official confirmation on this. I am pretty active here on the forums as well as watching dev streams or at least reading summaries on them.
So I am guessing you just want to believe this to be true and that’s why you can’t provide any evidence which apparently there is so much of. Makes no difference for me that you are wrong either btw.
1 -
sorry to intervene here, but @Mooks is right.
the old matchmakis system was based entirely on your Rank, there was never any hidden system running in the background that would determine your opponents - that is a new addition that came with the MMR system and the grades.
3 -
For me personally, the MMR system is indeed pretty stupid for survivors. But I LOVE it for killers!
First, the MMR system doesn't force you into a particular style of play, as somebody else here already said.
Second, and the reason I love MMR, is that IF YOU PLAY however you want to play, consistently, for example trying to 12 hook every game (or close to it) the MMR system will eventually put you against survivors you can play like that against.
I despise using slowdown perks right now on killer. I mainly use perks that synergize well with the killer, for example, I will use on
Huntress: BBQ, Lethal Pursuer, Iron Maiden and HEX: Blood Favor
Because I think these perks are fun and work well with Huntress' kit.
MMR will put me against survivors who I can do pretty well against with this build. Mainly because I don't care that much about how high I get in MMR, I just want to be at the spot I belong to.
The MMR system is pretty much only a problem for those that wanna keep climbing, like most popular streamers... They eventually go against super efficient survivors, with all the second chances they can get, while the killers themselves are also using 4 slowdown perks themselves... I don't wanna be at that level, so I won't play that way, or use those perks. Simple as that...
2 -
That's not correct.
Prior to SBMM being implemented, matches were based solely around the ranks that was shown in the end screen - it was set that you could be matched 6 or 8 ranks higher or lower than you as well. MMR was active in the background for some time but this was purely to collect data and was not used for matchmaking except for the short tests that were run, which were always advertised.
6 -
I have second account who already playing 79 hours for BOTH sides, since MMR launch I'm always got SWF full meta perks.
79 hours, dude.... Are you kidding me?
0 -
It even same with my main account who already playing 1.480 hours
0 -
I'm pretty meh about it all, ranking up never meant much to me in the first place. When MMR started my killer matches were a bit more challenging than I am used to, but I think that's starting to subside as I'm finally starting to get more evenly matched which I am enjoying. As opposed to each match either being a wipe out or a stomp with no in betweens, I might grow to like this more if this pattern keeps up
0 -
My reasoning was that the quality of both team mates and opponents went up. The people I played alongside became more consistent and better performers, and opponents were tougher and challenging.
The previous ranking system was hugely inconsistent, and did not make the game particularily fun. One match would have people who were vanquished quickly. Another, as killer, I'd be facing a player who clearly had a lot of experience, and players who clearly were very new. The matches had no consistency.
Forgetting any technical aspects of how MMR works and such, the simple fact that there was a very clear change in quality for me made the system far better.
However, were I to improve the system, I'd look back at the 4 categories of emblems and create an MMR based on matching players on the average score they'd achieve in each section.
For example: Someone who averages 5000bp in Survival and Altruism and 4000bp in the other 2 would be teamed with people with those same average scores. The killer's emblems can co-exist, and matching would be done that way.
The aim would be to match players with others who score consistently in those same categories, thereby showing a similar playstyle with a similar success and skill in that overall playstyle.
0 -
In the old system, new killer players would be facing red rank SWFs as soon as they hit green ranks, which would not take very long. This was competely unfair and would put a lot of people off.
In the new system, good killers tend to get kills. Good players tend to survive. A lot of complaints are based on one match, "Hey I ran the killer around or 5 gens and then lost MMR because I was left on a hook". MMR is not based on one match, it's based on lots of matches. On average you will be surviving more than you die if you can run the killer for 5 gens.
1 -
I think the way you play is the best way to enjoy the game. Whats the point of all these perks anyway if we just run the same meta perks.
As for popular streamers, they don't like the system because they go against super sweaty hardcore SWFs all the time. That actually shows the system is working. If people who play this game for a living are up against people that just play casually on an evening and a weekend, those games are probably always going to be a walkover. Now they have to earn their 4Ks.
To be honest, I think watching streamers is more enjoyable now because they don't win every game.
1 -
What you say is right but unfortunately still not enough players understand that. Despite all the announcements
For me it is clear: For many players the word SBMM is a thorn in the eye because the word skill is hidden and because in their eyes skill has nothing to do with escapes and kills. But you can not calculate the MMR in DBD differently.... as I already wrote. That would only lead to farm rounds and would be very bad for the game.
0
