Did Emblem match making give better teammates?

No, the MMR system is actually a better estimate from what I can tell. Evidence for that also came up when they did their big batch of MMR tests earlier this year, the closest matches were the ones where the algorithm most strictly followed the MMR to pair people up and was worst when it followed MMR more loosely or used Grades (which are the same as the old emblem system).

P.S. That's not to be confused with the matchmaking algorithm as a whole. MMR is the underlying rating every player has for survivor and for each killer they own. The matchmaking algorithm is what actually pairs people up. It tries to use the MMR as a guide but there are a lot of situations where it can end up ignoring MMR because of time constraints and lobby dodging and swfs and such and that's where you get most of the mismatches you might see.

Kind of.

With how the emblem system works the survivors would have to have some capability of doing gens, lasting long in chase, or rescuing others. Meaning that there was baseline expectations you could get from survivors in red ranks.

Though it wasn't perfect and the rank system was adjusted many times to make it easier to stay in higher ranks without needing to climb there.

MMR has some issues and it sure isn't perfect, but the main issue is with the match making. The match making system will loosen up and throw people together to reduce queue times over quality games.

Emblem-Matchmaking and bigger Rank Reset (from 1 to 10 instead of 1 to 5) and you got decent teammates for around 3 weeks. Week 4 was rough, but after Rank Reset games were alright again.

Once they changed it that you only go back to the next Color, the quality of games went downhill pretty fast IMO.

MMR gives you more accurate teammates. That means that good players are more likely to get consistently good teammates, and bad ones with other bad ones. That said, Low MMR has a very significant "gravitational pull" due to various factors like ragequitting, sandbagging, and generally throwing matches. This means that the skill of one needs to be able to both be proportionate to their role in the 1v4, while also being enough to offset teammates who are not.

Since the sole determining factor of the ranking is based on survival through the exit gate specifically, it leaves multiple places for good players to do bad and bad players to do well. It refines over time as good players are more likely to carry and survive regardless of their allies. This is why when you get to high MMR, everyone is already trained to play well beyond 1/4th of their team, and you get extremely solid teammates. most of the time.

Since bad players can still get carried, you get the occasional person who doesn't belong, just like you can get unlucky good players who are stuck in ELO MMR hell because people make most of their games uncarryable (which to be fair, still did happen less frequently with emblems.) compared to the emblem system, its much harder to climb in general, which is why it has a pretty decent correlation to skill even while skipping most of the factors regarding skill in the game. Since none of those considerations are present in the emblem system, it basically becomes a matter of average players being able to climb as much as strong ones, just taking longer to get there.

I would say that MMR is more accurate, but I wouldn't necessarily say its better. The game is much more balanced for emblems than MMR, since the game itself is horribly unbalanced. There are simply too many match deciding factors that can have little to nothing to do with player input on either side, far too much agency denial, and all MMR does is teach people how to min/max those more effectively. It removes nearly all variety at high level play, while also making it harder to get there in the first place. Its just not a very even distribution, nor is it fitting for the game's original design.

No that's not what happened. Survivor's used to get queued against worse killer's because of them being filled into their lobby's. Now that the ratios is changed it's the opposite. We could have matchmaking be "tighter" were It doesn't just hit 3 min and start filling in who ever is available.

I felt the emblem system was better in the sense that everyone seemed on the same level of play.

It was also a clear indicator of skill level. It didn't feel like it was kept hidden. As a yellow rank ghostface getting dunked on by a red rank lobby of Meta Mike and the boys was frustrating but I thought "they are more experienced than me" not "I suck".

I know people will take issue with rank = skill but at the very least it indicates time played. I equate time played to experience and experience to skill.

It was really bad. A lot of incompetent people in red ranks, and far worse: people in the forum, who ended every post with "and im in red rank, so my opinion is right".