Any Plans to Reinstate MMR?

Options

I know the old mmr system was far from perfect, but is there any plans to reinstate some sort of rhyme or reason to matchmaking? It would make for a better game if the two sides had some sort of equal footing so there was a chance for a good fun game.

If MMR is impossible how about a golf handicap scenario where the side which is the underdog gets some sort of buff so gameplay is a bit more evenly weighed?

«1

Comments

  • stvnhthr
    stvnhthr Member Posts: 777
    Options

    Would you be willing to wait longer for an MMR match rather than being matched with 3 level 1 Survivors against a level 100 Killer?


    I guess I do not understand why the idea of matching similar skilled players together is not part of the design of the game.

  • knell
    knell Member Posts: 595
    Options

    When the matchmaking system "gradually expand its search range," does it prioritize the outer ends of the population bell curve? For example, if the MMR ranges from 0 to 100, does it give priorities for 0s and 100s (with the least numbers of players) over 10s and 90s so that 0s will much more likely to be matched with 5s and 10s, and 100s will be matched with 95s and 90s, instead of the least number of players being stuck with each other (0s and 100s being matched together because of the difficulty in finding others with similar ratings) From the complaints sometime heard on the forum (I don't know if it's true or not) it sometimes sounds like brand new players are going against players with thousands of hours - to the point where it's hard to believe that there is absolutely no other players in between those skill levels during that time in that region. Or do all of those cases occur only because of random backfills? ...any progress made on the backfill issues?

  • knell
    knell Member Posts: 595
    Options

    I guess what I was wondering is when the matchmaking expands, it should be much easier for the middle 80% of the ratings curve to immediately find a game with each other than for the top and bottom 10% to find a game with players within that 80%. Just wanted to make sure that top and bottom players are not being matched with each other because everyone in the 80% had already found a match amongst each other. It sounds like it's not - thanks.


    Few more questions:

    1. You said:

    "The vast majority of matches are already within a very close margin where your odds of winning vary by a few percent."

    What percentage of current matches require the game to expand the search for players beyond what BHVR would consider a fair match for all players?

    2. How well does MMR predict the escape outcome for SWF games vs solo-que games?

    3. Any progress made on the backfill issues caused by lobby dodging? Mandy had suggested locking the lobby - could we at least test that out to see if it would improve the quality of matches?

  • bm33
    bm33 Member Posts: 8,098
    Options
  • Beatricks
    Beatricks Member Posts: 857
    Options

    So then how is it possible that one of the most well known Survivor player that should by all reasonable accounts be well over the MMR cap got matched against a killer with 97 hours in the game? I understand that playtime doesn't equate to skill, but I find it impossible to accept that a multiple competition winning survivor was pitted against someone who only recently picked up the game and matchmaking was doing a pretty good job so far.

  • woundcowboy
    woundcowboy Member Posts: 1,994
    Options

    It’s because they are again showing that they don’t care about their most loyal, veteran players. He straight up said that this happens more often at the extremes of the MMR brackets. It’s the same reason they balance the game for scrubs who occasionally play. They don’t care.

  • bearr_trap
    bearr_trap Member Posts: 120
    Options

    This clarification brings me, and I'm sure many others, joy. I hope many eyes read take a gander at this post.

  • Seraphor
    Seraphor Member Posts: 9,003
    edited August 2023
    Options

    ...because it's only natural that the extreme ends of a bell curve would have fewer closer relations...

    This is a mathematical truth, not a conspiracy.

  • SixShotOcelot
    SixShotOcelot Member Posts: 121
    Options

    Thank you for always explaining the MMR system when it come up, it is very helpful ad clears many misconceptions.

    I am curious, would it be feasible to have a 2 system matchmaking where players can control their matchmaking preferences in settings.

    Setting 1: Prioritize Time - Literally the present system, unchanged other than the "always improving updates" you mentioned.

    Setting 2: Prioritize Rating - A system where time is not a factor and you are only matched once players at your rating have been found. Due to the way lobbies and backfill mechanic work, if a player left the lobby, the whole lobby would need to break and the search would begin again.

    This way players can have their cake and eat it too. Personally, I'll always choose the present system. But, this wuld allow players who state "I'll wait however long, as long as it's a well matches game" to actually do that. But, it won't force it on any player. Additionally, if the player is in control, they should have nothing to complain about.

    I do realize this could be unrealistic if you invest the resources into an implementation/system such as this and +90% of the players stick to the present system.

  • woundcowboy
    woundcowboy Member Posts: 1,994
    Options

    Balance for people who play the game, not the Claudette crouching around the map and not helping the team. It seems like an obvious choice to me.

  • Evan_
    Evan_ Member Posts: 532
    Options

    Conspiracy theory time:

    Many perceive slightly better players than themselves as a comp-SWF-squad, and slightly worse players as troll baby-survivors. Maybe because of the game's snowbally nature, maybe because we can't imagine how much better and how much worse players are out there besides those we usually face.

  • SantaKlawz1
    SantaKlawz1 Member Posts: 192
    Options

    I don't believe mmr is legitimately used. I won't believe until I see it. So many times I'll check after a match because the other survivor couldn't last long in chase, missed multiple skill checks, hides across the map when chase is nowhere near them, etc. Everytime it's a new player. Same with a killer that obviously makes dumb mistakes and gets smoked. I spend maybe 10 seconds waiting for a match and the lobby is filled within a few seconds, so I don't really believe these replies by Peanits.

  • BlueRose
    BlueRose Member Posts: 658
    Options

    I suggest yall look into matchmaking right now and see if something has changed since as of late I feel my matches have been way too one-sided. I very rarely see balance matches anymore, there are either me(the killer) stomping the survivors at 4 gens or the survivors competely owning me and I walk away with 2 to 3 hooks and no kills. I know I'm not the only one who feels the matchmaking last few months have been really off. The streamer Hen333 made a post about it on Twitter a few weeks ago also.

    https://twitter.com/HensDBD/status/1689737719553933312?s=20

  • biggybiggybiggens
    biggybiggybiggens Member Posts: 659
    edited August 2023
    Options

    To clarify what Peanits said, they don't want to make the majority of players feel they need to wait longer for a more fair match as many of those same players will get bored of waiting and just go play another game like Civ V, so until further notice, we're stuck with the faster Q times and worse match-ups. :/

  • Reinami
    Reinami Member Posts: 5,182
    edited August 2023
    Options

    I can definitely tell the difference. There are what i call "normal" survivors. And then there are the "babies" and then the "efficient" ones. And you can definitely definitely tell the difference just in how they move and what they do. The "comp squad" is an exaggeration sure. But it was meant to illustrate the point rather than try to explain details.


    The point is, my matches swing wildly back and forth in terms of quality and fairness for seemingly random reasons.

  • Moonras2
    Moonras2 Member Posts: 277
    Options

    If it were balanced around the Claudette crouching around the map there wouldn't be so many complaints about solo queue. It would be awful for playing killer as it would be balanced around one or two people. A player to do gens and one to run the killer for 5 of them.

    It would be like balancing the game for killers that don't know how to chase. They try to bloodlust every safe pallet on a map, refuse to break them, and take turns around obstacles as wide as possible. They'd have to remove 90% of the pallets and allow killers to phase through the objects to balance for that.

  • DrDucky
    DrDucky Member Posts: 675
    Options
  • Dicerson
    Dicerson Member Posts: 6
    Options

    I think a big part of what has alot of people convinced that DBD matchmaking is near to non-existant is a combination of two main things

    The first thing is that there is a possibility that the maximum range is a bit too wide at the extreme ends. The main complaint I hear is from cases of extremely skilled players with thousands and thousands of hours matching into people who have maybe a few hundred- and such a fact shows well before the match ends, as such games tend to be terribly onesided in the favor of the veteran. I hear and see from alot of high end players that something in the park of 90% of their matches are basically trivial because they match into people who don't know what they're doing.

    The second thing, and the thing that much easier to fix, is the fact that MMR/Ranking is not visible or apparent to players. The way you've phrased your post here implies that the MMR system is very granular with a wide range of tiers or brackets for skill; but that is about as far from common consensus on MMR as it gets from the perspective of the players (as propagated by the game's content creation community). Most players are convinced that DBD MMR consists of a very small number of brackets, the absolute highest end of which is extraordinarily wide and encompasses the vast majority of the playerbase- therefore resulting in these skewed matches being the norm.

    If that is in fact the case, then the fault is clearly a flawed system for calculating MMR which does not accurately reflect the skill of the players and is falsely placing too many people in the highest bracket. If it is not the case, and the system is in fact granular as your post seems to imply, then the easiest fix would be to simply make MMRs visible to players. Their own, and those of their opponents post-match; including MMR changes from match results. This would give everyone a much better idea of how the MMR is actually working and do absolute wonders to mitigate complaints about the system- as if people can clearly see their relative granular rankings, they may be much more inclined to believe that the other players simply made too many mistakes and had a bad match.

    Of course, this would also happen to expose any potential flaws in the MMR calculation since it would be glaringly obvious if the system is giving players too much MMR for wins relative to losses- or if the game is even correctly identifying what constitutes a win or a loss in the first place.

  • Katzengott
    Katzengott Member Posts: 1,205
    Options

    For me it feels the majority of the playerbase is at least above the soft cap at this point. And for how this MMR works, it means it will be still a mixed bag of average, good and really good players. Maybe it's time to higher the soft cap a bit?

  • MeowMeow93
    MeowMeow93 Unconfirmed, Member Posts: 60
    Options

    It's not far from perfect its useless you get potatoes with you so call things as they are

  • saym
    saym Member Posts: 82
    Options

    Did you know that modern MMR is broken? That's why there's been a lot of discussions about MMR on the forums lately. No matter how much you listen to the explanation in words, no one can believe you if you can't see the rating.

    Consider making casual and ranked matches as others have suggested. The reason is simple. This is because there are players who value "time" and players who value "quality". And make sure that only you can see the rating. This is for credit. What to do is very simple.

  • knell
    knell Member Posts: 595
    Options

    Since there have been several suggestions in this thread that promoted separating those who want quality matchmaking vs fast matchmaking, I'm going to bring up why BHVR has probably not done that.


    By separating the queue into "quality" lobbies and "fast" lobbies, you are actually dividing up the pool of available players. So even if you want "fast" matchmaking, half of the people in the current queue may be unavailable because they want "quality" matchmaking, and therefore you may be forced to wait twice as long - it is no longer a "fast" matchmaking system. Players who want "quality" matchmaking may also need to wait e.g. 20-30 minutes instead of 5-10 minutes also - this would be because even though there may currently be others who are at a similar MMR, they may get immediately pulled into the "fast" lobbies because that's what they had picked as their preference. (although some folks, like me, may be ok with this.)


    This game already divides players by 1.MMR, 2. eight server locations around the world, 3. and role (survivor or killer) that they play. (And remember, they want the killer:survivor ratio to always be 1:4 as much as possible.) It is also influenced by the time of day that players are able to play. BHVR may be hesitant to separate the queue further because of that.

  • saym
    saym Member Posts: 82
    edited August 2023
    Options

    "Fast" Robbies should not be subject to MMR as they are now. In other words, the lobby will be created as soon as 5 people gather, so if the queue is split and the number of players is halved, it is expected that the matching time will actually be faster. Also, I think that there are few players who care about matching time because players who emphasize "quality" literally gather in "Quality" Robbies. Finally, by having "fast" lobbies and "quality" lobbies, both players who want "fast" and players who want "quality" can enjoy it (currently neither player can enjoy it), so the player population I think that will increase.

  • JPLongstreet
    JPLongstreet Member Posts: 5,564
    Options

    The last time they asked this community in a survey whether they favor queue times over quality matchmaking the overwhelming response was for the queue times.

  • woundcowboy
    woundcowboy Member Posts: 1,994
    Options

    This game isn’t casual. It was overwhelming when I started playing in 2018, and is even more so now due to all of the content. This is a common talking point that I hear and it is completely wrong. It takes a ton of time to learn how to play properly. The devs should embrace the fact that the game is obtuse and balance around those who stick around. If they are balancing to make the game casual, then they are failing miserably.

  • JPLongstreet
    JPLongstreet Member Posts: 5,564
    Options

    Getting the blasted Cross Progression done can solve your second point.

  • woundcowboy
    woundcowboy Member Posts: 1,994
    Options

    Except again, nothing about the game is casual. I think when people say they want it balanced to be casual, they are actually saying that they want easier wins.

  • saym
    saym Member Posts: 82
    Options

    I'm surprised so many people say this game is a casual game. If it's a casual game, why are so many people commenting on balance changes? I think it's because people want the game to be fair. So what does the game look like when we seek fairness? The answer is simple. Makes the game more competitive. In other words, it can be said that many people are really looking for competitiveness in their hearts. Fairness⇄Competitiveness

  • Seraphor
    Seraphor Member Posts: 9,003
    Options

    They said they routinely move the soft cap to ensure that roughly the top 5% of the playerbase is above it.

    I'm certainly not above it, and I intend to keep it that way.

  • stvnhthr
    stvnhthr Member Posts: 777
    Options

    It has not been a casual game in a long time. Every change is made to make it highly competitive . MMR does not work. If you play Survivor you may get one person in your MMR but the other two will usually be way way way lower. There needs to be a change to make it fun for all I can not get friends to play because they will not grind 1000 hours to get a decent game.

  • crogers271
    crogers271 Member Posts: 1,476
    Options

    I think a lot of this is true and goes to human psychology. If MMR works players should get to a point where they feel like they hit top tier competitors, regardless of whether it is true or not.

    In addition to the snowballing, I think people don't really grasp the probabilities. Example: let's say I'm using huntress and I have a 50% chance to hit the survivors with a hatcher based on our skill levels. One out of four times I'll hit the first two shots and be doing great, one out of four times I'll miss the first two and potentially be way behind. But people tend to think in the first scenario that the survivor was just really bad and in the second that the survivor was really good, when its more of a case of randomness. Given how important the early game is, early good luck/bad luck can be a deciding factor.

    I'm surprised so many people say this game is a casual game. If it's a casual game, why are so many people commenting on balance changes?

    If you took everyone on the forums, reddit, etc. posting about the game, we'd still make up well under 1% of the player base.

    Also, a casual game can still have balance changes, things can be broken, those two aren't really related.

  • HarlockTaliesin
    HarlockTaliesin Member Posts: 763
    Options

    This. I value quality infinitely more than time. I will wait for a lobby so long as the subsequent trial has balance. It's not like there's so little to do on the internet during the wait. Plus if things are more balanced the amount of DCs/suicides will naturally reduce, as the painful and obvious imbalance is one of the primary drivers of DC/suicide.

    I understand there are those that do want to get lobbies as fast as possible, regardless of getting stomped every time. That's fine. They can use the fast lobby setting while those who prefer a more balanced game can use the quality lobby setting.

    The important thing is that there IS a choice, and that is actually works properly. Not like the trial feedback rating above the scoreboard, not like the player kudos feedback, not like the current lag icons. NOT a placebo.

  • Nazzzak
    Nazzzak Member Posts: 5,063
    Options

    Thing is, BHVR had a test week last year where they messed with their SBMM every day to see how people reacted. On the more accurate MMR days, people overwhelmingly did not like the longer waits. In fact, at its most strictest there were people waiting for upwards of an hour. Lots of people say they'll be happy to wait longer yet when that time arrived, it was recieved negatively.

  • HarlockTaliesin
    HarlockTaliesin Member Posts: 763
    Options

    The issue with that was everyone was in the same boat, so it was an all or nothing situation. What I'm proposing is letting the players decide which they want. If you want a fast lobby, you can turn that setting on. If you want a balanced/quality lobby, you can use that setting. This way each type of player can get what they want, or as close as reasonably possible.

  • Seraphor
    Seraphor Member Posts: 9,003
    edited August 2023
    Options

    The problem with this is that you're dividing the playerbase, which itself effects matchmaking negatively.

    With the people who select 'long queue/closer matches' out of the 'fast queue/looser matches' running, both options will end up taking longer.

    Fast queues will end up having no matchmaking at all, and long queues will take a ridiculously long time to the point where you'll probably give up waiting around the 30 minute mark. Everyone loses.

  • radiantHero23
    radiantHero23 Member Posts: 3,645
    Options

    Wouldn't it be a good idea then to implement a competetive and a casual mode?

    Competetive would be for the players that focus on balance and that are ok with waiting a bit longer for their matches and casual would focus on the players that want a fast match making experience.

  • Hex_Maidenless
    Hex_Maidenless Member Posts: 112
    edited August 2023
    Options

    I'm against anything that splits the playerbase sigificantly.

    I don't want to sit in lobbys for 5 minutes plus. Sure once it's a minor inconvienence. But 200 times it's a reason I stop playing your game. It sucks in Apex, it sucks extra hard in Overwatch, and it would suck here too.

    Absolutely no.

  • knell
    knell Member Posts: 595
    Options

    Let's say there is a queue (in the same region, around the same time) that looks like below with its role, MMR, and preferred matchmaking type.

    • Surv 500 Speed
    • Surv 500 Speed
    • Surv 500 Quality
    • Surv 500 Quality
    • Kill 500 Speed
    • Surv 1000 Speed
    • Surv 1000 Quality
    • Surv 1000 Quality
    • Surv 1000 Quality
    • Kill 1000 Quality

    Now, if there was no preferred matchmaking type, these players would immediately form two lobbies - one with MMR around 500 (top five), and another lobby with MMR around 1000 (bottom five).

    However, when you add another variable to matchmaking (in this case, Speed vs Quality of matches), now you will end up with three incomplete lobbies:

    • Surv 500 Speed
    • Surv 500 Speed
    • Surv 1000 Speed
    • Kill 500 Speed

    • Surv 500 Quality
    • Surv 500 Quality

    • Surv 1000 Quality
    • Surv 1000 Quality
    • Surv 1000 Quality
    • Kill 1000 Quality

    So now you would not only require 5 more players, but those 5 extra players would need to fulfill very precise roles, MMR, and matchmaking preference so that their lobby would accept them. And this is just a simple scenario in which there are only two ratings (500, 1000) - realistically the MMR range would be much more diverse and varied, and if those players had picked "Quality" for those specific MMRs, each one of those would have to have a separate lobby, and would not able to share any of the "Speed" lobbies even if few of them have similar ratings. Additionally, in the example above, it has the ideal 1:4 ratio of killers to survivors. Realistically it may be much more lopsided, dependent on the time of the day, which will also affect the number of accessible lobbies.

    Now add "different region/servers" and "SWF" (besides the issues of adding SWF with wide MMR gaps, remember that duo SWFs can never be in the same lobby with 3-man or 4-man, and 3-man teams can never be in the same lobby with duo or 4-man, and that issue is exacerbated if one of the SWF prefers speed while another prefers quality) and you have even more additional variables to consider when forming lobbies.

    So in a perfect world with a perfect ratio of players, adding this new variable (of preferred matchmaking type) may benefit the formation of lobbies to the satisfaction of majority of players - but I'm not sure how realistic that really is - and as I said, this may be what concerns BHVR.

  • Seraphor
    Seraphor Member Posts: 9,003
    Options

    Because long time players don't want competitive matches, they want quick easy wins. So all the best and sweatiest players would just play Casual, with an even bigger chance of being paired with newbies they can bully.

  • saym
    saym Member Posts: 82
    Options

    Most games know that queue quality and time cannot coexist. So it seems that you are trying to measure the coexistence of "quality" and "time" with vague MMR, but please understand that it is impossible. It's best to split the queue in two.