Adding Ranked/Casual Options to Matchmaking
As with most games, DBD has an existing ranking system that has fallen behind on providing the experience it was intended too...and that is a clear definition of skill based matchmaking.
Iridescent 1 rank is a great idea, but in practicality it falls short. While a reward is available on the 13th of the month for your progress, it hardly compensates fairly when you can easily earn 2mil BPs in just 4 hours time (I've done it numerous times). Despite the ranking system, there is no clear indication of skill based matches. I shouldn't be paired with a 3 Bronze Survivors when I am at Iridescent level. I prefer teamwork to get out, not remaining wishful of getting a hatch with only 1 gen done.
The solution is fairly straightforward and should be fairly fun if implemented. I suggest a Rank Matchmaking and Casual Matchmaking setting where rules are clearly enforced and rewarded in Ranked Gameplay and Casual can be a free for all. This way it provides everyone with a true skill based matchmaking setting. It would also open the door for you to offer tournaments and mini games to keep things interesting for everyone.
This game is amazing, and it could be even better if it was polished just a little finer. The community would likely appreciate the changes and the toxicity would clear as a result of keeping enforcement in ranked gameplay.
Comments
-
I keep seeing this suggestion on here these forums, but I never hear the posts address the issues with those ideas.
1 . Splitting the player base between two queues.
2 . The Subjectivity of Skill, Toxic, Ranked and Casual
The first is ofc just a general problem with numbers, you will piss of a lot of players if Queue time takes too long, but the second point is nobody even bHVR defines what is skilled play, toxic, ranked or casual. Not even everybody here will agree. "Why are you Camping in Free For All?" "Why are you BM'ing in this mode?"
I suggest a Rank Matchmaking and Casual Matchmaking setting where rules are clearly enforced
Its clear what you guys want, You want two modes that removes everything you dont like to the other mode, but nobody who writes these posts I have not seen them get into specifics of defining the rules fully. It does not make a good suggestion in my opinion if you can not define those.
You want bHVR to define what skilled and casual play is in DBD? I doubt bHVR could, they would know those concepts being ill definable. Which I believe to be the reason why bHVR has not created such a mode yet other than the fact you would be splitting the playerbase.
1 -
In regards to your reply, I can give a few brief insights.
There is, and has been, one mode of gameplay for earning progress since the games inception. The queue for this mode is notoriously bad, with some wait times being over 10 mins to find a match. It's not an every day occurance, but anyone that played BBQ event recently probably knows what I'm talking about.
With that aside, the rules that the devs of the game have established are rarely followed. What are the repercussions for not following the rules? That's right... Find a new match. Don't like the match your in because someone isn't playing properly? That's fine, just quit, but YOU will get penalized, not the guilty party. What I'm getting at here is the game punishes you for not finishing a match. A match that might not be played properly. Is it so wrong to be fed up with that? I have only been playing for a few months, and have 1.2k hours (52 days). I assure you, I've seen it all the last few months. The amount of games I'd rather have quit out of because of both killer/survivors playing improperly is daunting. I wish I could conceive a number, it's probably hundreds.
Touching on Ranked Gameplay, a set amount of hours would be required to play this mode. This would allow newer players to learn the game in Casual Mode and keep a balance between the different modes population. Additionally this would provide us with a crossplatform leaderboard that all can participate in and monitor their skill and progress. Ranked mode could include rules the game has already established but with a point system that is proximity based on movement and cunning, and penalizes folks how make bad plays (like blowing gens, standing still, camping hook, missed flashlight blinds, etc.) and leaves a clear indicator of the progress you made in the match (how many gens you did, how many players you healed, how many players you hooked, etc)
I just think the game could use a real competitive mode. Would it make some folks upset? Sure it would, what doesn't? You can't please everyone. But at the end of the day, it just makes sense. The playerbase will continue to find other games if the game remains static as it is. The events are fun, they bring a lot of intrigue to players, but some people just stop playing around those times because they don't want to play it. If it had it's own event queue, people could play both.
I'm not saying this is a perfect idea, it needs a lot of development, but if it's been suggested numerous times I feel like it should be considered.
Post edited by BadToad on0 -
the rules that the devs of the game have established are rarely followed
What rules are those? What rules of the Game is rarely followed in game?
Mention the rules that are not followed. Also Source might be good too here.
Would it make some folks upset? Sure it would, what doesn't? You can't please everyone. But at the end of the day, it just makes sense. The playerbase will continue to find other games if the game remains static as it is.
That is a really bad way of dismissing critique of the idea. All of these questions is what bHVR needs to answer before they start development, if you cant answer them. Then what hope do you think bHVR has for answering that?
but if it's been suggested numerous times I feel like it should be considered.
They most certainly considered it 100 times over by this point.
2 -
|| What rules are those? What rules of the Game is rarely followed in game? Mention the rules that are not followed. Also Source might be good too here. ||
https://deadbydaylight.com/game/ - While the game doesn't specifically define "rules", there is plenty of definition on what you're intended to do. So, by process of elimination, if a killer is meant to hook survivors and doesn't they are taking the game hostage correct? Is that not a violation? Is there not a report function for such things? Seems there are plenty of rules in place. Perhaps BHVR should properly define them...maybe with different game modes? I could type out numerous different things that both survivors and killers do that aren't intended to be in gameplay but happen. Body-blocking, face-camping, slugging, blowing gens intentionally, sandbagging, going full AFK for the length of matches...the list goes on.
|| That is a really bad way of dismissing critique of the idea. All of these questions is what bHVR needs to answer before they start development, if you cant answer them. Then what hope do you think bHVR has for answering that? ||
The intent of the forum is to suggest ideas, not define and develop the game for the team. The suggestions are taken into consideration and the proper teams get to work on development. This is how games are made, and have been made for decades. The implementation of forums is newer, but still fairly old. I don't see why I should have to define every tiny detail for the team. If legitimate interest was peaked and they couldn't develop ideas, I'm sure I'd be contacted. But I'm a nobody, with no background in game development. I'm a gamer who enjoys the game and wants to see more from it.
|| They most certainly considered it 100 times over by this point. ||
If this is true there is an adequate amount of sources for this. I'd encourage you to post sources here backing up your claim.
I offer the report system as a clear indication that rules exist within the game. If they don't, then the report system should be removed. If they do, then they need to be more clearly defined. It's not any more complicated than that. Whatever they choose to do, I will still hit Iri1 every 14th of the month, and take whatever lumps are thrown my way. I will continue to report players for their exploits and toxicity, and they will continue to have no repercussions from it. I hate to use TCM as an example, I personally haven't played it and have no intention of doing so, but many players have moved on to that game because it provided players with different experiences under the same concept of DBD. If games like that continue to come out and DBD doesn't make adjustments, they won't need to a development team anymore. Players will move on their own. Go ahead and go to Twitch and use the search term InTheFog and see how many vetted streamers with hundreds of viewers are playing DBD or TCM. Streamers like GhostArcade, SpookyLoops, Ohmwrecker and more are moving toward TCM.
I must say, I'm not intending to be crass. I'm not trying to take a stance against you personally. But overtly attacking this post numerous times for a suggestion is just a waste of time. If they want to do it they will. They probably won't. Allow the team to review the post and make their own decisions. If nothing comes of it, you won't be hurt by it. Either way it shouldn't personally affect you. I'd consider allocating your time and resources to something more productive within the forum. Attacking ideas as comment number one and saying things like "It does not make a good suggestion in my opinion if you can not define those" when the game developers can't define their own game is a little harsh. I'm not speaking ill of the team, but just making an observation in regards to your comment.
0 -
"Ranked" and "Casual" Queues cannot exist for one simple reason: they would become meaningless in short order and in the end nothing good would come of it.
DBD has a very aggressive and competitive playerbase which is notorious for exploiting every scrap of edge they can get to make the "other side" miserable (go watch "The Downfall of bully squads" from Ardetha on Youtube, very interesting watch).
If Queues were separate, not only would that make queue time longer but it would also cease to function shortly when good players start going against other players that can match or surpass them on the regular, and what do you think will happen then?
Former "ranked" players, after getting beaten too many times or simply wanting easy stomps, will go to the "casual" queue and start to steamroll people meming around or bringing unoptimal builds, which would make "ranked" queue times even longer which would make even less people play it and so on and so forth until only a handful of comp players remain in the "ranked" queue out of principle and the other 99.9% of the playerbase is playing casual queue in order to hope for a game where they don't sweat, returning us to the current situation.
As unbalanced as the game can be, splitting queues won't fix anything, better to work on fixing the bad things instead of further dividing an already split community. Leave rule enforcing to tournaments.
3 -
That is a concise thought process, and I appreciate the input. I cannot disagree with that line of reasoning, but I also think it would be worth the attempt. At the very least it would refresh the game, even it was a seasonal thing. I like the idea of events, but I don't like the idea of being forced to play them full time if you want to enjoy normal gameplay. I do tolerate it, and enjoy it for a short time. I just feel like having the option to switch back and forth between modes is beneficial to everyone, especially if rank and time are taken into consideration in accessing such a playlist.
I do wholeheartedly agree, the entire unbalanced nature in general needs to be reexamined, and fixed before further development goes into a new matchmaking system, but I think somewhere in the near future it could have a place in DBD. I especially like the idea of actual tournament play, accessible to everyone who meets the qualifications, directly available from the source instead of compiling it through third parties.
0 -
Some issues:
- Overall increased queue times by splitting the entire playerbase into two queues
- Casual lobbies turning into noobstomp galore (fewer skilled players populating these casual lobbies means skilled killers have a far easier time if they want a bot match with BP rewards)
- Ranked modes increasing player toxicity because individual games actually matter
- Sharp increases to unfun killer playstyles (how many people are gonna pick up chess merchant just so they can stomp games with 1hr timeouts? How much do you want to vs blight nurse spirit and all of them camp and tunnel with the most OP builds and addons they can get their hands on?)
- Compounding issues when it comes to bugs that are fixed slowly without killswitches (look at Merciless Storm's full gen regression bug as a prime example)
- Issues with SBMM as it exists in the game now would still transfer to any ranked SBMM system (you yourself recognise that there's no clear indication that games are matched on player skill and I agree, but I think ranked would be equally unbalanced)
- Nobody can agree on what said ranked mode rulesets should be. Sure, we could use competitive DBD as a jumping off point, but that comes with it's own set of issues (one version of each perk in your team but you're four soloqs so who's forced to switch? etc etc).
But most importantly, a ranked mode would, in my opinion, never come with ruleset changes, because it changes something fundamental about the relationship between the devs and the game. Banning Ada or Ace or Midwich or Garden of Joy or treating different killers with different levels of restrictions means stating that this game is fundamentally unbalanced. It means that the devs believe some killers or survivors recieve better treatment than others, a fact I'm sure they would dispute - they've gone on record to say that they're happy with the state of the game, and were they not, I see no reason why they wouldn't change it.
But you ask the playerbase and they'll bring a laundry list of issues with the game - Trapper is very weak, Blight is very strong. Ada and Ace are very quiet and the promised survivor noise equalisation hasn't arrived. And BHVR adding restrictions to these issues would come off as agreement - an acknowledgement these issues are, in fact, issues. But it would beg the question - why not just nerf them? Why would BHVR admit there's a problem but do nothing to fix it beyond switching the issue off in the Ranked gamemode?
TL;DR - not only do I think a ranked mode would be bad for the game, I don't think BHVR would ever implement it in a way that would make anyone happier.
I did lastly want to touch on one thing I read in your replies:
I have only been playing for a few months, and have over 5k hours.
5,000 hours is 208 days, a little under seven months. Did you mean to say you'd "only been playing for a few years" or do you just happen to leave the game open 24/7 and didn't account for that in your more active playtime? Just looking for some clarity, that's all.
4 -
I definitely respect you opinion, you offer a lot of good reasoning behind it too.
Additionally I was waaaaaay off I think I was looking at GTA lmao. I have 1262 hours in the game, which is still excessive considering I picked it up back in like March. I will fix that in there right now 😅😂
1 -
Perhaps BHVR should properly define them...maybe with different game modes? I could type out numerous different things that both survivors and killers do that aren't intended to be in gameplay but happen. Body-blocking, face-camping, slugging, blowing gens intentionally, sandbagging, going full AFK for the length of matches...the list goes on.
And so your idea is that if that happens in this Ranked Game Mode you are banned from it?
You do know face-camping isnt against the rules right?
The intent of the forum is to suggest ideas, not define and develop the game for the team.
Sure, you can vaguely interpret the use of the forum in this way. However ideas must be able to withstand critique and the way you dismissed the critique I gave was awful. Obviously if you just want to give an idea and not respond to critique, you should just ignore it, making bad dismissals of critique only suggests the idea cant withstand simple critique.
bHVR should implement good ideas, not bad ideas and those ideas are going to be discussed here before that, even if you are unwilling or unable to defend it.
I must say, I'm not intending to be crass. I'm not trying to take a stance against you personally. But overtly attacking this post numerous times for a suggestion is just a waste of time. If they want to do it they will. They probably won't. Allow the team to review the post and make their own decisions. If nothing comes of it, you won't be hurt by it. Either way it shouldn't personally affect you. I'd consider allocating your time and resources to something more productive within the forum. Attacking ideas as comment number one and saying things like "It does not make a good suggestion in my opinion if you can not define those" when the game developers can't define their own game is a little harsh. I'm not speaking ill of the team, but just making an observation in regards to your comment.
What's wrong with me having criticism of what I think is a bad idea? Surely bHVR needs to equally read that then too. This is exactly a good idea and good use of my time and resources, as I want to game to be better and I don't want bad ideas in the game. This IS the most productive thing I can do, Giving critique and I even was very constructive about it by asking for you to define what the rules should be, even tho you didn't provide much clarity on a rule set and then tried to dismiss the critique.
And about your accusation that I have said, is a very dishonest reading of my first comment, when I SPECIFICALLY SAID that they don't define what Skilled or Casual play is. Its not the "game" that I say they don't define, its the concepts of Skilled or Casual play that I say they don't define, I in fact don't even say they cant, I just said they don't.
I hope that clears your misunderstanding up because that's a pretty bold accusation you are making.
0 -
My problem is how you're going about your criticisms.
"bHVR should implement good ideas, not bad ideas and those ideas are going to be discussed here before that, even if you are unwilling or unable to defend it" -- is a prime example. This is YOUR opinion, and you're attempting to sway mine. I have made my reasoning for defending my stance, and I stand by it. I have been incredibly open to suggestions and reasons it wouldn't work with other posts in my suggestion. I don't need you to tell me it won't work because you said it won't work. That's what I'm trying to tell you.
0 -
How are any of those my doing? Critique is going to happen, ideas are discussed on this forum. If you don't want to hear critique of your ideas or your defence of your ideas or be swayed by a reply or on how you dismiss critique, then you need to ignore replies. I don't see how this can be on my part here.
0 -
Again... I accepted numerous critiques in this exact thread above your comments. I don't know how much more clear I can be.
I offer these quotes from you for my reasoning in being combative toward your replies;
"You want two modes that removes everything you dont like to the other mode" - These are broad assumptions on my "wants" and strayed immediately from the topic at hand.
"You want bHVR to define what skilled and casual play is in DBD?"
I was very clear that yes, I do in fact want a clear definition of skilled and casual gameplay. That was what this entire discussion was about. Why are you questioning it?
If you don't want it, that's fine. I do. And I'd love to see more constructive critiques on why it would work or why it wouldn't without having my intentions called into question. The discussion is about the games potential features, not my desires.
I obviously don't like certain things like slugging 4 people to kill them on first hook or face camping but these things will continue indefinitely. If I can make any sort of positive impact toward alleviating this toxic behavior so everyone can enjoy the game more, I'll fight til the end for it.
1 -
Also I took your advice. I have ignored you so I cannot see your replies anymore. If you can see mine I suggest doing the same. Have a glorious day
0 -
If you don't want it, that's fine. I do. And I'd love to see more constructive critiques on why it would work or why it wouldn't without having my intentions called into question. The discussion is about the games potential features, not my desires.
Intentions for an idea matters, ofc that is going to get questioned and ultimately that is why that idea falls flat. That isn't off topic, that IS ON topic. If I see you suggesting an idea, but that idea having some implications Im gonna ask for those implications to be clarified.
Also I took your advice. I have ignored you so I cannot see your replies anymore. If you can see mine I suggest doing the same.
Good on you, I wont however cause I will be pointing out flaws in posts I see, not for you but for bHVR. Im not going to ignore people whos ideas I disagree with far from it, im going to engage with those ideas and give my feedback on them for the betterment of the game.
3 -
I tell you what: you will still get campers, tunnelers and sweaty meta slaves on a casual mode. Just because players want ez matches too at some point. More or less.
4
