Is the killer being slightly better than the survivors the healthiest way for matchmaking to work?
This discussion is inspired by Scott Junds latest video. Specifically the point he starts to make at around 6 minutes in:
Before commenting I want to reiterate that flaming content creators or attacking them personally is not allowed so please don’t do this. You may not like what Scott says here, but I think he raises an interesting point about matchmaking in the game that I would like to hear genuine opinions on.
So the point of Scott’s video is that recently he has been finding his matches harder. At the start of the video he states that usually he wins all the time but in recent sessions this is no longer the case, causing him to speculate (as other content creators have been doing) that something has happened to MMR. He then makes a point later in the video that he believes that him playing regularly against survivors who are less experienced than him results in good matches because his playstyle paired with less experienced survivors= a better time for everyone involved. He doesn’t have to “use strats”, he can go for chases, he can 12 hook and everyone gets to play the game. So is this vision of DBD truly what ideal DBD looks like? Is this DBD at its most fun?
Here are my problems with his take:
- I cannot get on board with wanting to face lower skilled players. I understand his point but it just doesn’t sit right
- Is this game really fun for everyone if no survivor escapes? 12 hook 4K’s are obviously better than 4 Hook 4K’s but survivors not escaping due to always being outmatched by the killer player doesn’t seem fair
- He may play his version of “fair” but how many killer players will follow his personal DBD code? It seems very naive.
- The point he makes about winning all his matches seems odd when he then admits later on he prefers facing lower skilled players. It’s a weird combination of a flex and an insult. If you’re winning ALL the time, you should be facing harder opponents. If he doesn’t want to sweat in those games then stick with your usual playstyle take the L, and go next. Refusing to match your opponents sweat levels is a you problem.
Now here’s where I do sort of see his point:
- Optimal, sweaty DBD absolutely sucks
- The game prioritising kills over how the killer achieves those kills will always be an issue. If killers were rewarded more for playing the way Scott says he plays then the game would be much more enjoyable. And you wouldn’t need to stomp babies to do it.
- It’s a repeat of a previous point but it is true- generally 12 hook games are more fun than 4 hook games. I just think it would be nice if high hook counts could be achieved playing against skill matched opponents. However Scott seems to think that’s impossible, and that the survivors need to be slightly worse than the killer. Is this true?
I’m curious to know what you guys think about the argument he made here.