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!
Patrick is wrong, in a polite way there are better ways
2K 2E will never be a good and balanced match especially in my eyes, it shows an outcome but nothing that happened to get there.
I understand hooks dont paint a full picture but they paint a better one. Hooks will always show more than kills, someone who can do many many chases (downs, mindgames, outplays) etc.. show more skill over the other players
Patrick's one and only arguments that had some standing was the "is it a win, or a loss" well how about a tie/draw?
This game is a 4v1, it will never be perfectly balanced and that's just how it is but holding an asymmetric game to a similar view to the 4v4 equal games is a mistake.
My idea, balance on hooks (mostly) individual hooks =1point and a kill=2points. This way someone who can 3 hook someone and get a kill gets far more than someone just face camping.
You can decide what is a win, draw and lose. In Patrick's example 8hooks can be a draw, anything more will increase your rank (the more hooks the more you go up) and anything less would be a loss (lesser hooks mean a bigger loss)
In an unbalanced game having a draw is acceptable, both sides can play incredibly well.
In this game 3hooks on 1 person is a kill, in hockey you dont score 3 times to get 1 point. Your "shots" are downs, none are rewarded, killers arent rewarded for getting a down. Yes you're downing (taking a shot in hockey) but it doesnt mean you'll score, however hooking someone should be a score, and a kill should be a bonus like in other sports that provide more points for a better "play"
Edit: dont ban me for a discussion, no disrespect here at all just a better view or at least in my eyes.
Comments
-
I always thought the older rank system was way better, just had to make it a tad harder to pip as survivor. Problem solved...at least I think? It worked for many years.
29 -
Only in video games do people arbitrarily decide a win is not important. So anti competitive, and that would fine if they admitted their arguments were nonsensical.
5 -
Oh yeah I agree, sadly we wont go back to that one now. My idea for the old rank was limit altruism and Escaping to a gold (allow chases/objective go over iri emblem) and then limit hatch escapes to silver.
I will always see hooks as more impressive whether I'm killer or survivor
6 -
Well even the competitive scene puts tones of rules etc. In place to try and balance it that bit more, they also award hooks.
But still even in a comp setting it's a bunch of tunnel and camp with NOED and that's not interesting tbh
1 -
Of course, high level DBD is a joke and not particularly fun. I 100% agree with that.
1 -
The problem with basing the MMR on hooks - beyond the fact that basing it on kills works perfectly adequately - is that the killer is fundamentally not in control of how many hooks they get.
Even if we put aside the idea of people suiciding on hook, which we shouldn't because that would absolutely happen more if salty survivors knew they were messing with the MMR system in doing so, there are other reasons why you may not get 12 hooks in a good game. Survivors trying to make a kobe happen and failing, disorganised teams not going for saves in time, heck, even just a very close and well played game that results in one or more survivors dying on first/second hook at the endgame.
The MMR adjustment after a single game isn't supposed to be an exhaustively accurate measure of your skill, because there are far too many variables and flukes that can happen for that. It's supposed to measure your skill over a large batch of games, and looking at the end result of the match is a perfectly adequate way of doing that- do you win more often than you lose? If so, your MMR should probably go up so you face opponents who are more skilled at stopping that from happening. Do you lose more often than you win? Your opponents are probably too skilled for you, and you should go down until they aren't.
There are problems with the game's balance that hamper this, of course, but... those things are still problems with the game's balance completely separate from the MMR and would need to be fixed anyway.
8 -
But the issues you bring up happen more with kills as a means of ranking, neither are perfect but hooks show that little bit more.
Everyone can give up giving you 4 kills in a few hooks, doing the way I suggested wouldn't boost you up in mmr for a team not playing.
I'm also not expecting people to get 12hooks, but if someone can get 12 hooks against a team they clearly should gain a decent amount of mmr for that match.
Hooks just show more than kills, allows a more precise balancing point and encourages more individual hooks (better game health) than camping and mass slugging which the devs are trying to stop by adding more HUD, and things by default.
A killer can still get 2 kills by camping the very first person and then the next, not very skillful at all but goes up in mmr. I also dont think a survivor running a killer for 5 gens and then dies unskillful.
They wont change SBMM, but it doesnt mean there aren't far better ones out there
8 -
So, two things: The first is that, if it turns out after the matchmaking portion is fixed that the system still needs work, I would agree that getting a high emblem score (including individual hook actions!) should result in you going up further for a win, but I would still contend that looking at wins is still the thing that should happen. You shouldn't go up in MMR after losing, that'd be completely counterintuitive, so when looking at large batches of matches it's simply most convenient and pretty accurate to look at a simple win/loss ratio.
That might be moot, though- I have no reason to disbelieve the explanation we've been given, so it seems to me like the problems come from the matching portion, not the MMR calculation portion.
Second: The person who gets two kills by camping first of all doesn't actually go up, that's breaking even. But if they did go up, they should go up, because they're getting kills and should be going up against survivors who can handle what they're bringing a little better. It's not a reward, it's putting them against opponents who are capable of handling them.
The survivor who runs the killer for five gens and then dies isn't doing that every match- either it's a fluke against a bad/struggling killer that they can't replicate en masse, or it's a tactic they try often and therefore should be judged on their success rate overall. It's not about one game, it's about how consistently you win or lose.
2 -
This might work, but how about the events where you play altruistically and help your team enormously, then die at the end. You may have contributed the most for the other 3 players' "win", but you lose in the end because you died. This, by the way, is normally how i play. I'll do gens, unhook/heal, try to help my team out as much as possible, but at the end of it, I'll gladly hook swap and take the death if it means getting someone else out of the game alive.
That other person might not have done a thing the entire match but skulk around the map, but they get the "win" and I take the "loss", even though I did more for the victory. This is why I don't think a single "win" condition should be in effect. The entirety of the match should be considered with regard to MMR. Heck, the other person might have done just as much as I did, and they should get extra points with regard to their MMR because they did escape, but I don't think I should be penalized with a straight up "loss" when I helped as much as possible.
6 -
forcing symetrical sbmm into asymetrical game. if each player has 1000 mmr, its really simple to see its 1000:4000 and not as any other symmetrical game with logical 5000:5000.
And 2K 2E ends up with bizarre 4K or 4E which ends up in their balance goal.
5 -
Well, does that happen every game? Even if it does, it sounds like this is how you prefer to play and you've already accepted that dying is a part of it, so you'll sort of hover around a certain level of MMR where you're not going up against potatoes but you're also not elevated up too far, either. It's certainly an outlier situation that should be considered, it's a valid point to raise, but I don't think it truly breaks the MMR when by your own admission you're choosing to take a loss because presumably that's a more fun way of playing for you.
It loops back around to the common misunderstanding that MMR is some kind of reward- there's nothing waiting for you at a higher number, just harder games that you might find less fun. But again, I do agree that if the system still needs work, using emblem score or something equivalent as a weight metric to see how far up/down someone goes would be the best option- you just still have to win, which should be your goal anyway.
Regarding your point about the person who does nothing the entire match but skulk around, I'd point you back towards my answer to the facecamping killer- that player should be elevated to the point where their cheese strat stops working. Above a certain threshold of skill, that player is the weak link a killer will leverage into a win, and they'll have to learn how to actually loop to stay alive.
2 -
What is a "skill" in any game, but having the knowledge and the ability to fulfill the win condition of that said game?
In this game, the ultimate goal of the game is to Escape/Kill. Everything you do within the game, should be so that you can achieve said win condition of the game. The purpose of playing any game is to carve out a path to victory - that said, "skill" in this context is defined by whether they have the means to do so.
So if your so-called "skill" is not providing any positive outcome majority of the time, should it actually be considered a skill? If this "skill" doesn't correlate at all with providing victories, should it be considered a skill?
I can claim to have skills because I am in the top 1% of players in the number of tea-bagging I do per match, but unless "tea-bagging" is correlated to the likeliness of winning, should it actually be considered a skill? Similarly, if doing long chases are causing you to lose majority of your matches, is it really a "skill" in this game? If doing 8 hooks per match is causing you to lose majority of your matches, is it really a "skill" in this game?
If I am losing majority of the time in any game, there are 2 things I should be asking myself: 1. Is what I consider "skill" actually a skill in this game? and if it is, then 2. what sort of bad decisions am I constantly making that would completely counteract that skill that I supposedly have?
2 -
Bit of a problem with this though. I die/lose about 60-70% of my matches, yet I don't drop in MMR. I'm still facing Killers of roughly the same skill level, with Survivor team mates of roughly the same skill. There are those few outlier games where I get completely stomped, or completely walk over the Killer. The majority of my matches are with opponents of roughly the same level of play I have.
With the current MMR system, and how I play (my win conditions aren't the same of course), I should be in the bottom ranks of players. Getting matched with new players and those who play more casual like myself. I'm not though. I'm facing, and playing with, people of the same skill level as I did under the old system (high purples -> low reds). I'm not a top tier player obviously, but my matches feel comparable to how they were before. I get a few more outliers, to either end, but overall it's still the same level of play.
3 -
Well, right now it just doesn't work, as the devs have confirmed. So right now your matches are gonna be a little bit out of whack, especially at certain times.
Also, grade doesn't have anything to do with rank? I'm not sure if you were just using that as shorthand for people who play about the same and the same amount as your opponents before, but it's worth mentioning in case that's a point of contention.
0 -
Oh nah. I know grade means nothing but how much time you've played. Especially since you can't rank down at all. Just lose pips back to same grade 0 pips.
I just feel that if you are going to say the game itself is team based, you need to rank people based on their team effort. That includes everything, comparable to the Emblem system (something I think just needed tuned better to make it harder for Survivors to rank up). Escaping doesn't necessarily mean you contributed to the team.
If they are going to rank, actual rank not grade, people based on escapes only, they need to make the game itself, at its base, solo oriented. It becomes the 1v1v1v1v1 that it was originally intended. This doesn't work of course, in my eyes at least, since the game has evolved fully into a 1v4 team based game. Perks, mechanics, and all other things are team oriented for Survivors. The only exception being the hatch.
I honestly think the Emblem system could have worked, if they had tuned it better and developed it more. I know how easy it was to rank up as a Survivor, I generally had to meme for a number matches to drop back to where I was comfortable playing. It just seems more fitting to have a ranking system based on your total team effort, and not just a single point/no point if you escape.
1 -
I could definitely get behind more of a team thing for survivor MMR- I know the team said they were looking into addressing how the MMR system interacts with teams, but I'm pretty sure that they meant more like SWF adjustments and such. It shouldn't be too complicated since it's meant to work off aggregate batches of games instead of a single match, but there definitely is room for nuance here.
(Though again- kind of speculative until we know how the system functions after the matching portion is addressed)
I do disagree that the emblem system could've worked, though- it fundamentally didn't work at all for killer, and it was far too easy to rank up for survivors. If we're talking about which system is a better base for improving upon, I'd contend it's easily this one, and it's not even close.
0 -
The problem with balancing based on kills is that you don't get a good view of how individual games actually play. If survivors kill themselves on the first hook, the killer is being treated as if they had a tremendous game. Likewise, if a killer camps two hooks to secure a "balanced" 2k/2e score, the game counts it as a fair match, despite the killer completely ignoring the entire 'find/chase/down/hook' system that the game is supposed to hinge upon.
If MMR tracked HOOKS (not hook states), I think the devs would get a very interesting look into the actual state of the game.
2 -
Yes but this issue is everyone is deemed on a win or loss, like I said in the op an asymmetric game cant be balanced like non asymmetric games.
So having a draw would be acceptable, this means hooks can be used as a balance point (more precise) and then you can encourage hooks over camping and tunneling which in turn improves game health and community satisfaction while still having a working SBMM.
A simple point system like comps use (1point for hook, 2points for kill) would be far better than kills and escapes equal win. It just encourages selfish and bad plays, the amount of times I'm just left to die after carrying most of the match is a little stupid tbh.
1 kill is 0-9hooks that's far too vague to get good data, use a point system including hooks and that huge gap is now a more accurate balancing point
3 -
I'm not sure where you're getting that from- the killer player can draw, that's what two kills is. Survivors can't, and perhaps they should be able to, but their win condition kind of is much more binary and has been from the start so I think it's probably fine that every match is considered as what it is by the MMR system.
As for the current system encouraging selfish and bad plays, it doesn't, but I do empathise that it's going to be very hard to actually get through to people that the MMR system does not reward or punish them no matter what they do. Too many people can't quite grasp that there's no progression or incentive associated with it.
But as I detailed in my original response, basing it on hooks would be far more inaccurate because that is not something the killer has control over. Kills are, at least to a degree, and it's also what the killer's win condition is so it makes most sense to measure that instead of something more granular.
1 -
I think the more interesting notion I saw is that you shouldn't matchmake based on result, it should be BP scored/time (of course that would need killer powers to stop being so damn random in their BP awards because Deviousness is a duuuuumb category, but hey), basically on the idea that you'll match players up based on efficiency.
1 -
For Patrick MMR is working fine sadly so we won't see any change and is here to stay, when they realize at some point that the playerbase is going down nostop maybe we will see some change.
4 -
Most complaints about the emblem system were based on misunderstandings of how the game prioritizes matchmaking when queues get long for one side. The scoring and reset needed to be tweaked but scrapping it for this half-baked escape-based matchmaking was a mistake.
3 -
??? What ??? You Offered no argument besides "It's nonsensical!!!" Okay, how? Explain
0 -
You guys can't keep asking for a perfect system and complain about everyhing Patrick does.
Your definition of skills are all subjective
1 -
Whos Patrick 😎 ?
0 -
It’s not so simple though.
It’s quite obvious that, all things equal, looping the killer for 5 gens is highly skilful. Conversely, sitting on gens the entire match, never seeing the killer, and running out the exit at the end is not skilful at all.
So we could say, the goal is to escape, thus whatever you do to successfully escape is skilful, however would just be taking nonsense because in reality escaping doesn’t necessarily take any skill, just as you can fail to escape whilst carrying your team to victory, which can easily require superior skill.
1 -
Not really, I think most high MMR players can say what is skillful and what isnt.
Infact it's why most high end players arent happy with it as they understand you can escape without doing well and you can get kills by unskillful plays.
I'm saying there should be a draw. Atm in DBD you win or lose, and those conditions is kills and escapes. Which isnt the best way to balance things.
Killers have just as much power over hooks as they do kills, in fact it's more likely a killer can get hooks than kills. Bet far more killers have gotten multiple hooks but 0 kills, saying a killer that gets 8hooks but 0kills is bad is just silly, I gave you an example how you can easily get 2 kills every game with hardly any effort or skill.
You can't say kills are better when 1 kill can be 0-9hooks...
How can something that has a range of 0-9 be more accurate than something that counts the actual progress? (the max being 12 in a trial, but you get 9 and it's a loss, that's 75% and you lose)
Hooks are more accurate, they also show more skill. But Its why I said a draw should be added in as it's an asymmetric game, then you can balance of more skill based things.
1 -
Two survivors left. 1 generator remaining.
1 of them hides in a dead corner of the map, practically AFK, not doing anything, waiting for teammate to die, to take a chance at escaping through gates.
1 of them actually plays the game and tries to do the final generator.
Guess which one dies first? The one actually playing the game and trying to do the final generator. Developers of this game think that person is "unskilled" because they died. But what was his choice? To sit in another dead corner like the other guy, and sit for 1 hour while Killer patrols 3 generators and the game is basically dead?
The game devs want to reward the hiding player who just waits for team to die, because that person has more chances to escape and will succeed on some of them.
7 -
But the killer player - who I assume is who we're talking about because we're talking about hooks - already can draw. Two kills is a draw in this system, that's two wins and two losses in the individual 1v1 the MMR looks at for each survivor.
Regarding having just as much power over hooks as they do kills, I respectfully disagree. A killer can be gifted both by a player that simply doesn't want to play, but a killer can't be robbed of kills in the way that they can be of hooks. As I laid out in my first response, failed kobes, disorganised saves, and just generally getting your kills in the endgame instead of before all rob the killer of individual hooks without it actually having anything to do with their play at all.
Besides, kills are the killer's objective, hooks are just the way to get there. It shouldn't really matter if you two-hooked everyone and they all escaped, because your job is to stop them from escaping. Over time, how many times you win, lose, or draw at the game is a pretty reasonable indicator of where you should be placed in a matchmaking system, so I don't see why there's any need to swap it over to measuring something other than the win condition.
0 -
You say that it's obvious, but then won't explain WHY you believe that looping the killer for 5 gens is considered "skillful" to you in this game. If it doesn't correlate highly with one's Escape Rate - the entire goal/point/objective of this game, then why would you say that it is an expression of "skill" in this game? I can be the best juggler in the world, but I wouldn't claim that it makes me skillful at basketball - because it doesn't help me score more points than the other team. I may be able to swim the 50m butterfly within 25 seconds, but that doesn't make me "skillful" at chess - because it doesn't help me checkmate the opponents' King. If looping the killer for 5 gens doesn't help you Escape, then why would you consider it "skillful" in this particular game?
Perhaps you should start by defining what exactly you mean by "skillful" in terms of this game.
1 -
Well, to me it’s so obvious that I didn’t think it required an explanation.
The argument of “the objective is to escape therefore only escaping is skilful” is frankly ignorant, to put it politely. It’s just nonsensical fantasy that has no bearing on reality.
Running through the exit gate is easy. You simply hold W in the general direction. I could do it with my eyes closed, and it takes no skill whatsoever.
I can sit afk, hiding in a bush or locker, whilst my team deal with the killer and the gens. Then, I can run to the exit gate, close my eyes and walk right through.
Is that skilful?
Looping an equally skilled killer for the entire match is literally the most difficult thing a survivor can do in the entire game. Going down one time right at the very end and being abandoned by the team you carried, or if they fail to rescue you, doesn’t suddenly negate that, just as you aren’t required to hold W towards a loading screen to validate it either.
4 -
"Running through the exit gate is easy. You simply hold W in the general direction. I could do it with my eyes closed, and it takes no skill whatsoever.
I can sit afk, hiding in a bush or locker, whilst my team deal with the killer and the gens. Then, I can run to the exit gate, close my eyes and walk right through.
Is that skilful?"
If one can consistently do this in majority of his/her games, then yes, absolutely it should be considered "skillful" in regards to this game. After all, this person understands exactly what needs to be accomplished to fulfill the main objective, and have the ability to pull it off for majority of their matches. That's what having skill means. But for the vast numbers of players, I'm guessing that hiding in a bush all game and doing absolutely nothing else will eventually lead to their own deaths, or if they're lucky - a hatch escape which has no effect on the MMR what-so-ever. Rather, I'd like to understand why you'd even think that being able to pull things like this consistently isn't skillful in regards to DBD.
"Looping an equally skilled killer for the entire match is literally the most difficult thing a survivor can do in the entire game. Going down one time right at the very end and being abandoned by the team you carried, or if they fail to rescue you, doesn’t suddenly negate that, just as you aren’t required to hold W towards a loading screen to validate it either."
Looping a killer for the whole match is difficult? Sure, so is being the best juggler in the world, or being able to swim the 50m butterfly in 25 seconds. But as I stated before, these specific abilities don't make you skillful at basketball or chess. So I ask AGAIN, what makes you think that looping a killer for the whole match makes the player "skillful" specifically in regards to DBD if it doesn't correlate with one's Escape Rate?
0 -
I addressed these points in my initial post.
Of course you have to actually do stuff to consistently run through the exit gate, and some of that stuff takes skill, the most skill intensive of which is looping the killer for a long time. The least skilful part is the actual escaping. You literally just run towards a loading screen.
0 -
No, what you have said is that "it's obvious" without further explanation, and gave some examples that you believe is skillful/not skillful in this game - again, without explaining exactly WHY you believe them to be so. I refuted those assumptions. Try again.
0 -
I’m referring to the previous post in which I addressed your arguments before you made them, not my first post. My bad!
You have not refuted anything at all lol. Your arguments are very easily dismantled, and I will again demonstrate:
Yes, escaping is the objective.
To achieve the objective you must do other stuff.
Thus, your objective consists of multiple gameplay loops/activities, aka other objectives. These objectives require varying levels of skill.
Walking through the exit gate is the easiest activity within your main objective.
Looping the killer for a long time is the hardest activity within your main objective.
“But Mr. Gingeroo! Escaping IS the main objective!”
Yes, it is indeed! However, as we have already established, and as you have admitted yourself, in order to achieve said objective, you have to do other stuff. Therefore, your objective actually consists of far more than simply running through an exit gate. There are….several objectives!
Here’s the kicker though: The end result - actually running through that loading screen, is the easiest part of it all. The other stuff you do beforehand takes more skill. Running the killer for a long time takes the most, regardless of whether or not you run through a loading screen afterwards.
“But Mr. Gingeroo! Are you saying that survivor skill is not based solely on escapes, and to judge it that way ignores the full-picture? And…and that some of the activities you must engage with in order to escape in the first place actually take more skill than the actual escaping itself?”
Yes! That’s what I’m saying! I’m glad we are finally getting somewhere :D
(This topic sort of bores me and I’ve got to have some fun with it)
3 -
I just wanted to chime in and say this man, THIS MAN, he understands the self-iterative loop of a true gamer.
I'll take it a step further. I don't blame anyone for my loss unless I play perfectly.
You don't get better if you can't critically evaluate yourself.
0 -
My man,
He's not saying looping isn't a skill, he's saying if it doesn't get you the win in that match, it shouldn't be measured as a skill, in that match.
That's why only the win condition is measured, because it rolls up all skills under a single value. Sometimes looping contributes to a win. Certainly, doing it consistently absolutely improves your chances at winning, but should it be measured independently?
Hell. No.
0 -
How are you not getting his point through your skull?
SOMEONE has to keep the killer busy. SOMEONE. Or else you don't get any generators done. do you get it?
If a player is so skilled, and can loop the killer while rest of team does generators in peace and quiet... and then that players gets hooked at end game and camped by killer because killer is salty and desperate for 1k.... how the hell can you consider it a W for the other 3 players, and a loss for the player who died?
The player who died literally carried his team, and does not get any credit for it.
My gosh its not hard.
3 -
I know what they’re saying, but what I’m saying is that they’re incorrect.
Looping (as well as other objectives) should be measured as skill even if it does not net you an escape.
Everyone loves analogies so here’s one to highlight the point:
Mr. Gingeroo loops the killer for 5 gens. Everyone else just does gens. Mr. Gingeroo gets hooked. Everyone leaves.
Should Mr. Gingeroo be penalised because his team did some skill checks and held W through the exit gate, leaving him to die on hook?
Who was the most skilful, and who had the largest contribution towards victory, in your opinion:
Claudette, David and Meg did 5 gens together, unabated.
Mr. Gingeroo outplayed an equally skilled killer at the most skill-intensive activity survivors have access to for 5 free gens, but finally got caught and was unable to complete the last part of his objective (holding W through a loading screen.)
Judging skill based from escapes alone does not roll it all up into one value. That’s the issue I’m getting at.
2 -
Ok, let's talk about these "other objectives" (aka side objectives that players must do for the sole purpose of achieving the main objective) you keep mentioning.
According to you, 1. hiding and achieving the main objective is not skillful, and yet, 2. looping the killer the whole game despite if they fail to achieve the main objective is skillful. Why is that? If the entire point of hiding/looping is to fulfill the main objective (escaping), shouldn't it be considered more "skillful" to consistently take actions that would place the player on the path of victory? If you are consistently losing by looping, and consistently winning by hiding, WHY should the game award the players who are consistently losing? After all, if their actions are actually "skillful" in regards to this game, shouldn't they be winning?
If, as you say, the "easiest activity" is to walk through the exit gate, but you consistently FAILED to even get to that point in the game, why should the game consider you as a "skilled player?"
To me, it seems like the only thing you are trying to discuss is how "difficult" an action is, not how "skillful" something is in a game. But if the "difficult" actions you are taking are irrelevant to how likely you are able to win in said game, it seems like they are simply wasted, meaningless effort in regards to that specific game.
1 -
100% with you, many of us are.
It makes no sense too, because the game -already tracks these stats-.... such as time being chased (looping), etc... but somehow they can't use all of those stats into an overall grade score to better measure each player's contributions to the result..?
2 -
Gosh, calm down. What you're saying is that since "SOMEONE" has to do it, they're a martyr who's more likely to die. That's not the case. In most games multiple survivors contribute to the looping mini-game. In a game where one survivor has the skill to loop for 5 gens, they most likely have the skill to loop for 5 gens + Gate open. The entire argument is disingenuous.
You need to stop looking at this in a petri dish. If those three other survivors don't have the skills necessary to win consistently. They. Will. Not. Them getting out the one game where this guy magically looped for 5 gens and not a second more is their outlier. They won't get Mr. 5-Gen Supreme next game, or the game after that. And if this guy magically loops for 5 gens every game, then for him it is a norm, and he is more likely to escape in general.
Arguing that your MMR should be adjusted positively when you don't win is the most backwards logic I can think of.
Some questions for your hypothetical:
- What if you killer-bombed the people doing gens? How does the game evaluate that? How does the game even measure that, can you keep track of all the variables involved that would be necessary just to DETERMINE if the looping and chase was skillful or just dragging the stain through their comrades?
- Is a killer less skillful because they get sucked into awful looping situations? They exist on several maps, where if you're M1 you're boned. Should they lose some MMR even if they get a 4K because they were looped a lot?
- What if someone else wasted 30 seconds of the Killers time with a well-played immersion stunt? How does the game measure that, proximity? What if a person is in proximity just because they're sandbagging with a flashlight looking for an archive save?
- What about a survivor who has every totem spot memorized and can hammer out that NOED the second it comes into play? Is he less skillful for only doing a single totem the entire game instead of as many as possible, or maybe he's just lucky? How would the system know?
The second you start picking and choosing what you think is a more valid expression of skill is, you create two issues. 1) Like Patrick said, scenarios where both sides have 'won' to a degree, and we already understand why this doesn't work. And 2) You end up with a system that can't accurately track the metrics that lead to a win because they are too acute and nuanced.
In either case, rolling it up is the solution, and it is accurate. I refuse to believe these mythical 5-gen loopers are losing as much as the forum would have us believe they are losing.
1 -
So my personal experience on the matter: usually I'm not good enough to do a whole 5 gen chase, but there are lot of times when I end up doing 2-3 at the end game - then sometimes I get hooked, camped, and left for dead. We've all been there.
I don't blame the killer for wanting one death - that's their ultimate goal for the game. I don't blame the other survivors for leaving me to dead - that's their ultimate goal for the game.
I do think about how I could have changed the outcome of the match. Was there some other part of the map where it would have raised the probability of me losing the killer? Should I have intentionally let the killer hit me earlier so that someone else would have been in chase during the final generator? Should I have led the killer to a generator that hopefully was being worked on by other survivors so that he would have been distracted, allowing me to possibly lose him? Or perhaps I was placed in that circumstance in the first place because I unknowingly led the killer to other survivors working on a generator, thereby slowing the generator progress. What could I have done differently so that I would have had a different outcome to this particular match?
Ultimately, I lose because I wasn't skilled enough. I win because I was skilled enough. The results of the game - my victory or loss - show everything I did and didn't do. My looping skills may have been superior to those particular killers, but perhaps I needed more skill at analyzing the conditions of the map/generator progress better so that I can do chases at a better time or at a better place - perhaps I needed better perception and memory skill to figure out the likelihood of another survivor coming to rescue me before even starting a chase.
But that's the fun part, right? In ANY game, the fun is figuring out the path to victory.
0 -
Patrick mentioned in the QA that they considered using hooks, but that it made it difficult to decide whether a player won or not for certain scenarios. And regardless of the actual implementation, this potentially led to situations where all involved players would get a "win", which would totally screw the math of the MMR ratings.
I'm thinking that's the core issue of the MMR considerations, keeping the MMR ratings stable over all players. If you have scenarios where more / all players jump up in rating than players that go down, the overall MMR will eventually climb up, so you would have to adjust, introduce some inflation to the ratings etc.
With basing the rating on just kills, you just do not have this issue. For every survivor losing MMR (bc they got killed), the killer rises in MMR. For every surivor that escapes, their MMR rises and the killers goes down. This simple system is very efficient in keeping the overall MMR stable.
Last but not least, we should always keep in mind that the MMR is an average rating over of multiple trials. The predictive power for a single game is very limited. MMR does not measure skill, but your oddds of escaping / killing survivors.
1 -
Why the ######### do you guys continue to address Patrick personally as if he is the sole person to decide this? As if his answer wasn't written by or at least approved by people higher up than him?
0 -
According to you, 1. hiding and achieving the main objective is not skillful, and yet, 2. looping the killer the whole game despite if they fail to achieve the main objective is skillful. Why is that?
Because hiding and doing some skill checks with no care in the world doesn’t take skill. Looping the killer the whole game does, regardless of whether or not you escape.
Also, why did you not escape? Were you left to die on hook?
Leaving a teammate to die doesn’t sound very skilful. Sure you escaped, but you didn’t play well.
Did your team try to save you and fail? That doesn’t sound very skilful either. Again you escaped, but you didn’t play well.
This is the issue. DBD has a matchmaking system. This system is supposed to measure how well you play and pool you accordingly.
If you ignore sub objectives in favour of the main objective on the assumption that it encompasses said sub objectives, you have a very poorly designed matchmaking system.
Will it work? Sure, it can function and self correct over time, but it’s not accurate nor is it efficient.
You could say, well if they escaped, were they truly not playing well? Escaping is the main objective after all.
And I could say, no, they didn’t play well, they simply avoided any skilful play for a free escape, which is the opposite of playing well, regardless of what the end objective is.
There’s a clear disconnect here.
I understand that the objective is to escape. However, I’m talking about skill and how we judge it, which leads us to how survivors are placed in the rankings.
Just escaping is not necessarily indicative of skill. Looping the killer for 5 gens is, every time, regardless of escaping.
We all know that if you put our looper into a higher ranked match, they’ll fare much better than their teammate who hid all game but still escaped. But guess what? Our looper actually de-ranked, and the other survivor ranked up. It’s the wrong way around! That’s the issue I’m getting at.
If the entire point of hiding/looping is to fulfill the main objective (escaping), shouldn't it be considered more "skillful" to consistently take actions that would place the player on the path of victory?
This sounds nice and paper but in reality things are not so black and white. Our looper is the one who put everyone on the path to victory. It’s his victory, gifted to the team at his expense.
Everyone else got to chill and play gen simulator, ranking up while our looper ranks down, and the matchmaking has to self correct this error over time. It’s inaccurate and inefficient.
If you are consistently losing by looping, and consistently winning by hiding, WHY should the game award the players who are consistently losing? After all, if their actions are actually "skillful" in regards to this game, shouldn't they be winning?
It’s circular logic. This is a team game yet survivors have to be ranked individually. If your teammates escape off the back of your hard work, their victory is technically your victory; in this scenario they escaped because of your actions, not because of their own.
The matchmaking will rank you down, and it will rank them up, even though they contributed the bare minimum to the actual victory.
If, as you say, the "easiest activity" is to walk through the exit gate, but you consistently FAILED to even get to that point in the game, why should the game consider you as a "skilled player?"
Addressed this above but quoting you makes my post look longer.
To me, it seems like the only thing you are trying to discuss is how "difficult" an action is, not how "skillful" something is in a game. But if the "difficult" actions you are taking are irrelevant to how likely you are able to win in said game, it seems like they are simply wasted, meaningless effort in regards to that specific game.
That’s not what I’m saying at all. My above points actually address this, but quoting you makes my post look longer :D
2 -
This subject is becoming more interesting to me but it’s 1:30am and I need to do real life stuff so I’ll have to get back to everyone tomorrow.
0 -
*Because hiding and doing some skill checks with no care in the world doesn’t take skill. Looping the killer the whole game does, regardless of whether or not you escape.
See, again, you are not answering the question. You are basically saying, "it is not skillful because it does not take skill" and "it is skillful because it takes skill" without being able to actually define what skill means. As I stated in my first post, I defined skill in a game as having the knowledge/ability to fulfill the win condition of said game. Now, your turn: define the term "skill" in the context of games without giving examples or circular definitions.
*Also, why did you not escape? Were you left to die on hook?
If I did not escape, then it's because my skill wasn't enough to allow me to escape, no matter what the reason.
*Leaving a teammate to die doesn’t sound very skilful. Sure you escaped, but you didn’t play well.
Why would you assume that I didn't play well if I escaped while leaving others to die? If the whole purpose of playing as a survivor is to escape, and I escaped, what exactly makes you think that I didn't play well? You keep making certain assumptions, without explaining why you believe it to be so. Didn't play well? Ok, tell me why.
*If you ignore sub objectives in favour of the main objective on the assumption that it encompasses said sub objectives, you have a very poorly designed matchmaking system.
Again, why do you believe that to be so? The only reason why these "sub objectives" even exist is in order to fulfill the main objective. If it can be ignored or replaced by something else to do the same task of fulfilling the main objective, then why shouldn't it be ignored or replaced? Why does it matter?
*Will it work? Sure, it can function and self correct over time, but it’s not accurate nor is it efficient.
I'd argue the opposite - adding unnecessary sets of measurements in which its significance may change after every update would actually make the matchmaking less and less accurate over time and overall bloated. The win conditions never change, but the importance and value of the games' chase mechanics, generator mechanics, hiding mechanics, altruism mechanics, etc all could change with every update, as well as have different values depending on addition of maps and perks (or add-ons), etc.
*You could say, well if they escaped, were they truly not playing well? Escaping is the main objective after all.
And I could say, no, they didn’t play well, they simply avoided any skilful play for a free escape, which is the opposite of playing well, regardless of what the end objective is.
See, to me, there is no such thing as "free escape." If I was engaged with the killer majority of the time, and they escaped - then they did EXACTLY what they were supposed to do in order to fulfill the main objective - they understood their roles and was able to complete it, utilizing me correctly in the process, and thereby earning their victory, regardless of what happens to me.
*Just escaping is not necessarily indicative of skill. Looping the killer for 5 gens is, every time, regardless of escaping.
I would only consider "looping the killer for 5 gens" a skill if they have constant positive outcomes to show for it - otherwise I wouldn't. Here's the thing - in most circumstances, I actually do think that players who are constantly able to hold chase for 5 generators are skilled - but (and that's a big but) that's because those same players often show results - as in, they're able to escape those same matches. If they didn't, and they were constantly dying at the end, I would think differently. Ultimately, it's about whether they were able to produce the result they needed to win.
*We all know that if you put our looper into a higher ranked match, they’ll fare much better than their teammate who hid all game but still escaped. But guess what? Our looper actually de-ranked, and the other survivor ranked up. It’s the wrong way around! That’s the issue I’m getting at.
Again, if the player who is constantly hiding is also constantly winning, why shouldn't that player have a harder match against players who are able to cope with that type of strategy? If the player who is constantly trying to loop the player is also constantly losing, why shouldn't that player face other players who are also losing?
*This sounds nice and paper but in reality things are not so black and white. Our looper is the one who put everyone on the path to victory. It’s his victory, gifted to the team at his expense.
But the fact of that matter is he didn't earn any victory - and therefore there is no victory for him/her to gift. The player's goal in the game isn't to help other players to achieve their goals - it's to achieve their own. If you end up helping other survivors or the killer win at the expense of your own, well - that's your choice, but the game isn't obligated to give you a "win" for being "nice" or pat you on the head and tell you that you are "skilled." If for some reason, you think you deserve a "win" for sacrificing yourself, then that's a personal problem with the player, not the game. Game's win condition is clear - what you do with that information becomes the players' problem.
*It’s circular logic. This is a team game yet survivors have to be ranked individually. If your teammates escape off the back of your hard work, their victory is technically your victory; in this scenario they escaped because of your actions, not because of their own.
*The matchmaking will rank you down, and it will rank them up, even though they contributed the bare minimum to the actual victory.
But this isn't solely a team game. If it were, the win condition of this game would be indicated as, "Survivors win if 2 (or some other #) or more survivors escape." But it's not. It's been shown to only be about the player's own personal escape. On DBD's official webpage (under game objectives - how to win): "As a Survivor, your main objective is to escape the map and live another day." Pretty much the same thing under their game tutorial. Hell, during an interview, Mathieu Cote is quoted as saying, "It is an asymmetrical multiplayer game where you can live in the world of these 70s and 80s horror movies. It’s anti-social multiplayer where survivors have to collaborate and cooperate up to a certain point. The old saying is that you don’t need to be fast than the killer, you just need to be faster than your friends. Whereas the people playing as the killer, they just need to straight up murder everyone." So, sure, survivors are obligated to cooperate with each other to a certain degree for their own survival, but they are certainly not responsible for each others' victories.
0 -
Yeah I've been watching some of the Swish tournament going on at the moment out of boredom and they keep going on about how the competitive scene is so legit and BHVR should be actively adding stuff to facilitate it.
Like are they even watching the same matches I am? Every single match bar Blight is just down one person, camp them to second stage, come back and tunnel them when they get unhooked, then try to get an extra down or two with Noed + No Way Out.
Nothing about that is a good game or a healthy competitive scene.
3 -
Simply put, the system should work as push + pull.
Clearly the game is capable of calculating the length of a chase, so why not award/take away points.
In my eyes, every player in a match should start with a neutral amount of points (say the baseline was 1000), you are then either deducted or rewarded points based on the actions you take.
- As a survivor, if you have a short chase (as the game calculates chase time), you will be deducted points, but if you have a longer chase, the game will award you points.
- Taking protection hits resulting in a safe unhook rewards points, whereas an unsafe hook that leads to a down deducts points.
- Not having a certain amount of gen progression results in deduction
But as a killer,
- Being in hook proximity after a certain time, starts deducting your points, distance from hook x time around the hook dictates how much is taken - However entering a chase with someone will slow down that deduction
- Downing after unhooked player straight from hook also results in deduction
- Having a short chase will reward points, whereas a prolong chase will start to dwindle points rewarded and eventually go into deduction.
Something to make people more responsible over their actions, and thus it becomes reflected in their rank.
Suddenly, you don't have Bubba with a high play and kill rate because he is a camp/tunnel killer.
1
