Why MMR tho?

It is. For example, when they did their round of MMR testing about a month ago, the day with the strictest MMR brackets had the tightest (aka sweatiest) matchups, and the loosest bracket days had the most comments about opponents being all over the place in terms of skill. Likewise the day with the grade system as the test metric had a lot of comments about matches being very swingy in terms of opponent skill.

I just flipped to the same topic as you, friend. We went from MMR not accurately measuring your skill at winning the game, to winning the game not being within your control, a concept that I was responding to.

People who play in SoloQ definitely deserve some help and they could especially use help dealing with camping and tunnelling at lower skill brackets, but that's precisely why those two things aren't a problem with the matchmaking system. They'd be problems with a modified version of the old system too, unless you made it so permissive that you could consistently rank up without winning, which would cause its own slew of problems.

If those things are required skills for winning the game, then being good with them means that you'll more consistently win the game. That's kind of the entire point of doing them in the first place, completely disregarding matchmaking systems entirely.

Being able to do those things is one half of being skilled at this game. The other half is knowing when to do them, by reading the match in progress. Your goal is to win, not to build up an arbitrary number of points and then lose.

Nope, I said the reason why emblems are bad for matchmaking. Situations where you can't reach high emblem score because you're rarely in a position where filling a certain emblem is a good idea (say, you're rarely in a position where you can heal or unhook and instead you're focusing on gens or running the killer) will unfairly punish you if your matchmaking rank is based on the emblem score.

It'd be tempting to counter that statement by saying situations like that aren't that common, but it doesn't change that the emblem system heavily incentivises certain actions regardless of whether they're a good idea for the specific match you're playing. Either you're unfairly punished for adjusting your tactics according to the match, or you make the system so loose that you can rank up even after you lose provided you did an arbitrary number of meaningless actions; neither is good, and basing matchmaking on overall winrate is clearly the better option. This is all, of course, assuming that the emblem system actually measures good play, which it often doesn't- especially on the killer side, where it's a lot more unfit for purpose.

Remember that the point of the matchmaker isn't feedback or reward for playing a certain way. All it cares about is how likely you are to win the match, because putting together players with a roughly equal chance of winning is the entire point and function of a matchmaking system, in any game.

Why would you pin the cause of that problem as MMR, and not camping?

Seriously, if they made a BPPM system that measured the concentration of a player's scoring events by playtime - it would quickly deduce what survivors are able to accrue lots of points in the shortest amount of time are clearly better at the game, while those who waste their time and drag matches out longer without usefulness are clearly learning.

You could even keep the Badge system as a bonus to average out the scoring events and make playing well even more rewarding.

By placing 'Airlock' bumpers on matchmaking, you could use this system to create a 'Kiddie pool' of newer, low BPPM players that don't have to worry about being great | Low-end players that have a lot to go | Average players | high skill players | and sweatlord SWF hellscape where the top 5% duke it out in Valhalla - with little to no overlap between the bases.

Using BPPM would be the most eloquent and useful way to encourage people to play the game the 'right' way, encourage newer players to learn, accurately portray player skill, and safely determine the balance of a match by aggregate BPPM scores of both sides.

Per minute.

As in - if you get camped and only have a small amount of playtime, it averages out how many points you earned and how much time you were actually on your feet as a survivor.

If you earned 8,000bp in 2 minutes while you have one friend that earned 16,000 in 4 minutes and another that earned 24,000 by escaping in 6 minutes of up-time, you all have a BPPM score of 4,000.

That's also the beauty of such a system.

If survivors get stomped and the match doesn't last long - the killer doesn't look bad to the scoring system.

If a survivor gets tunneled and dies - they do not look unskilled according to matchmaking if they played well while alive.

The difference between 2 killers with 4ks is how long the match went on and how well they played, NOED kills at the end will show less skill than a killer with 8 hooks and good chases with 4 escapes.

Survivors that allow their teammates to perish for hatch are seen as relatively unskilled.

By looking at gameplay time (Not hook time, by merit) one could easily tweak the scoring systems to weed out campers and scummy survivors while rewarding those that play the game right, even in the worst of circumstances.

If 1.5 minutes of S3 is hook time it will consider it 8k BP in 2.5 minutes.

That being said - I'm unsure of what kind of game a survivor can loop the killer for almost 3 minutes and gain only 8k points.

Atop this, if the killer tunneled S3 so aggressively - how did the other survivors gain 20+bp without interacting with the killer in chases and healing? Especially if they only had 1 additional minute of gross playtime than the tunneled one. This example makes very little sense outside of S3 being veritable dead weight outside of chase.

On that note - this could easily be remedied by a addative scoring event for evading damage in chase for prolonged periods of time.

'Evasive' scoring event that grants 250-500bp for every 20 seconds in chase without taking damage would solve this 'problem' without issue - although it's already a very niche one.

hopefully mmr is improved im sure we both can agree on that. I personally have a messed hand and still can have enjoyable games solo. Maybe my mmr is low i just have a lot of time to play lol. sorry if i came across rude, but it does pertain to balance, it has greatly effected my skill and thus my mmr. I used to have a much higher kill rate when i did main hag. This happened slightly before was adjusted. Then I played for the period of mmr test relearning joystick skill esentially.

what does a balanced dead by daylight look like aside from 2 kills, from each perspective killer and survivor.

currently game starts in survivors favor and each survivor has 3 hook states. A perfect path as survivor, you may be able to run the killer all game.

As a killer i enjoy hook states, so 2 hook each, a active hook state applys more pressure than a dead hook state gen wise. There are layers of skill in dead by daylight so truthfully the kill/escape base one doesn't seem like it would balance accordingly, but even if it did...would that be balanced, what would those matches look like?

-MMR is worth discussing. I do have civil intent so hope that is how i come across. Disagreement is 100% healthy, otherwise there would be no progress.