Is the killer being slightly better than the survivors the healthiest way for matchmaking to work?
Comments
-
I don't think you will get a free win just because one side is slightly stronger than the other side.
I never said I consider this a good thing or a bad thing... I just gave reasons for one or the other side. In the end I don't care about this at all, I mostly play solo q and the games are miserable anyways, be it because of teammates that have no clue what they are doing or because of the killer playing like it is a tournament, so all I care about is chases, if they get better, because the other side actually knows what they are doing instead of just proxy camping all game long I consider this a win, even if there is only the slight chance that some people will play nicer, because they can, most people don't play nice regardless of how easy or hard the game is.
0 -
First of all, yes it is. Just because it does not contain a reason for everyone to play but only for a small portion it is a reason nontheless. Second if you loose your mmr should become lower, therefore getting a slightly worse opposing player, at some point you will get balanced matches, just because the number the other guy has is higher than your and you still get matched does not necessarily mean the game is unbalanced... Let me explain... So lets say killer has 2800 mmr and you have 2500 mmr going into the match, you are actually playing at that given number of 2500 in the sense of you are that good ok. So if you loose some games because the better guys were to good you will maybe end up at a lower mmr after some time your mmr will be 2200, the killer now will be 2500 mmr, and now you are at the point where despite the mmr difference the killer is actually at your skill level. All this thing would do is inflate mmr for some people.
Many people lose most of their soloq games and still keep playing and most people don't really care about winning or losing because it is mostly about fun, sure if you get stomped every match it might get annoying, but as long as the chases are good who cares.
Also as for the part of them losing and losing, eventually they will win, either because they get a busted map or because their mmr is low enough so that they go against someone of equal skill. Overall I don't know if in the long run the whole concept would even work, because what it would do is just make matchmaking become more inaccurate for some time until you have a somewhat equal standing again.
0 -
Would you mind linking that post if you could find it? Would be very nice of you.
About the impact, I don't even know about that, because before they apparently raised it was basically a given that everyone could reach the mmr soft cap rather fast and without many problems, so I would say matchmaking was so garbage because basically everyone was at the soft cap, therefore getting everyone that was queueing at the time.
According to some data miners way back the soft cap was 1600, base mmr was like 1200 and the highest even cheater bots could get was around 3k, going higher was basically not possible because they got no points anymore because matches were so unbalanced. However streamers who were playing really good as well as some good squads were apparently between 2000 and 2400 mmr, which means that even if we raise the soft cap (unless by a lot) I don't really think it will have that much of an impact. Even when the soft cap was 1700 matches were kind of similar to later, you still got some random comp players with 12000 hours every once in a while.
0 -
Did you even watch the video mate? That's literally what he said xD He doesn't change his ways of playing despite him not winning because he does not care about it that much, he only misses the chat interaction ^^ In the end he will probably just end up playing survivor more often and play a bit sweatier when playing killer.
1 -
I am just glad BHVR devs did not lose their mind yet to make matchmaking like that. Unless they wanna kill their game.
You need 4 survivors and one killer for one match. For every killer player, you will need 4 survivor players. So majority of players need to be survivors if you want to make game survive.
If matchmaking like that happen, kill-rates will rise because killer player will always get some survivor who has less skills. Right now, if you win your mmr will go to up. And after some wins, you will face someone who has equal skills with you. And this is where you will lose some matches.
If they make something like Scott's matchmaking, you will never get equal skilled players with you. This means you will keep win but you will never get good teams. And i highly doubt people will play survivor when it's only lose for them. Queues will be insanely long for killers because who would play survivor when you know it's auto-lose. I would not.
So system like that never gonna happen and should never happen anyway.
1 -
Are you one of those guys that think everyone always only plays one side?
You already go for the weak link in any game if you seriously want to win, so nothing changes in that regard...
That is the problem right now, you won't face someone like that necessarily because matchmaking can still be all over the place if there are not enough players.
Why exactly would never get equal matches with Scotts system? Loosing still means you will get worse players to go against, what I described above is what would happen and eventually you would have the same results, of balanced matches, in theory at least.
0 -
I feel like we're just going in circles here. What is being addressed is his preference that matchmaking pair killers with less experienced survivors. He states that he usually wins his games while being able to chill and chat but that recently that hasn't been the case, which prompted this very video. Him saying that he may have to "play sweatier," or "be a dick to survivors" as he succinctly put it, suggests that yes, he does in fact care about his win rate because he is willing to change his gameplay in order to maintain it. He *can* still play chill with stricter matchmaking, literally nothing is stopping him except he knows he will cop more losses doing so.
It's all well and good that playing against weaker survivors allows him to play nicer, but that doesn't mean much to the 99.99999% of the people who are not playing against Mr Jund.
5 -
It's the same uproar many streamers had when MMR was first introduced and it's such a bad take. Scott's video is just him complaining that he's going against people closer to his skill level and actually has to try instead of steamrolling much worse players like usual.
Yes, I'm sure you're able to have a more chill stream when you're constantly matched against worse players, but how do you think it feels for those teams of survivors who have no real chance of winning due to poor matchmaking? Oh, you're going easy on them and 12-hooking before getting your 3k/4k? Well most killers in that situation don't do that, especially streamers doing streaks. It also still doesn't change the fact that the survivors still had no real chance in chase anyhow.
The fact is that the best killers should be going against the best survivors; killer players like Scott and Otz should be constantly playing against organised 4-mans with the best items and perks because they're the kind of players that can actually play against them.
7 -
He said he could do that as he watched the replays and what not, so no he does not care about his winrate... But he does not want to play differently, as he does not care about winning so much.
0 -
But that's the whole point, he is not steamrolling them, they still get chases he tries to 12 hook them, steamrolling would be playing nurse and 4 man slugging everyone or something ridiculous... They would not have less of a chance if he plays sweatier, if he did tunnel, proxy camp and what not. But that's not his point, his point is that he likes to play nice so everyone can play the game, so this change kind of hinders him from doing so if he wants to still win, which he accepts by continuing to play nice instead of changing his playstyle.
Otz continuesly plays nice and sometimes even loses the streak over doing so, sure maybe others don't but many players and streamers don't want to just sweat every game because it is neither fun to watch nor fun to play.
At least the survivors got chased, they still could have outplayed him or at least learned something out of it, but if they don't get chased at all because they just get proxy camped at 5 gens and so on there is not even that chase despite you thinking t is worthless because they are going to lose anyway, which I don't agree with... Sure if they were much worse, but as far as I know he only wanted them slightly worse, so they can still do it, just because you are slightly worse does not mean you will go down in like 10 seconds in chase, only if you are complete garbage.
The last part kind of goes back to the problem that there are not enough full 4 mens to supply killer players of that level, as they are quite rare, especially on that level of play.
0 -
If the killer can reliably 12-hook then that shows bad matchmaking. A close game of DBD with people of similar skill doesn't last long enough for a killer to win 12 chases. If Scott is getting 12-hooks or close to that in many of his games then he's not going against people of his skill level, he's going against survivors who are worse than him and who don't have a real chance of' winning' that game. That's the issue.
If Scott genuinely doesn't care about winning or losing, he can continue to play chill and friendly, and he'll lose more often and drop in MMR until he reaches a place where he can maintain a 50% winrate while doing so. It shouldn't be an issue for him if he doesn't care about losses, surely. The problem is most streamers (and most players in general) see a 50% winrate as a bad thing, and a sign of a bad matchmaker. (This all ignores that in DBD I think it's balanced around a 60% kill rate rather than 50%)
Also, regarding survivors still getting chases, all of this relies on the killer always being 'nice'. If all killers were like how Scott claims he is, and always go for 12-hooks so the game can last longer and everyone gets BP, then I can see why such a system wouldn't be -too- bad, but most killers don't play like that. In a system where the killer is always meant to be higher MMR than the survivors, most killers will still just camp and tunnel and it would just mean that there's less chance of a survivor being a good enough looper to punish that.
4 -
Requirement for their matchmaking should be face to swf. 4 man swf probably make 20% of the playerbase so there is enough for those blight and nurses. Most of them can at least put a fight.
0 -
If the gap was enough for someone to win while playing nice at high MMR most people would 100% be getting free wins because the large majority of people just don't play nice (just look at tunneling right now or the gen kick meta post "meta shake up").
And for people who do play nice they'd just need to put in a tiny bit of effort to ensure a win, while survivors would be struggling whether they want to win or not, which is obviously unfair.
I also personally don't care about the game outcome, but I think it'd still be very disheartening to go against killers who are always stronger than me.
0 -
I don't want to play against very inexperienced killers or survivors when I play survivor/killer.
Like who don't even have their own characters tier 3 perks, don't know how to run/chase, miss scratch marks in certain maps often, don't try to look behind while being chased etc.
I just feel bad for those counterparts who should have queued up with players who have equal experience.
It doesn't feel like I am playing game when you certainly know counterparts skill perfomance is awful and matchmaking did something wrong.
Those who like going against players whose game knowledge is considerably low, I have no idea what to say.
Matchmaking shouldn't be bipolar and help players who are in same level get queued together even if it can't always be correct.
I think MMR softcap adjustment is good.
Also playing killers in high MMR will be more tough for sure. Without tunneling, playing strong killers, killer sided map or bad counterpart players.
Losing could mean the killer wasn't playing well. But it will also imply what balance issues this game got. (disparity between killers, maps, perks etc)
This is what BHVR should focus in my opinion.
2 -
Stricter mmr would help you if you let 2 go your mmr will not rise. Especially if you then lose game your mmr will go down and you should face even more weaker players. Scott just want easy 4K:s.
0 -
Play to get bp to get your character to P100.
0 -
They make up around 5-10 % ... According to some data realeased some years back, I don't really see much of a reason why that number should have changed.
1 -
Playing nice should be the way to go and not be connected to mmr.
MMR mostly uncovers the problems on both sides in terms of unbalance. I very much dislike most of the dbd youtubers and their opinion on the game. They want to entertain an audience and therefore have chill games. On top of that, they want to win a lot because losing causes a negative atmosphere. This doesnt work together when there exists an mmr - system.
I also dislike the opinion, that going against weaker opponents is better, because they have a more fun experience. What is fun for any player in a multiplayer game? In any game at all? Having success. I dont know how you guys feel but i dont feel like i do good when 2 gens are barely completed and 3 survivors are dead on hook. Leaving me to be chased, making all 4 dead on hook. Thats not fun.
A fun match in my opinion is a match, where the outcome is open. I dont know if i win or lose. Both sides have a good chance to win, both sides are equally good (that in itself is another discussion), and both sides bring equally strong stuff.
12 hooking everyone does not mean its always fun for them. Its just longer.
1 -
This whole thread would be a non issue if the game were balanced properly. High MMR isn’t fun because the game is balanced around survivors who don’t know what they’re doing. Even when it is possible to win, you have to play in a very boring way. I don’t feel at all bad for Scott or any streamer that has, for years, been advocating balance around bad players.
0 -
Take aways -
- The game is less engaging for him when he has gotten over the initial rush for new content.
- He doesn't want to 'have to play sweaty'.
- He's able to play 'nicer' when going against weaker opponents. This allows them, according to him, to have 'more gameplay' while he gets 12 hooks (a 4K). "I can make the game more fun"
Counterpoints -
If the game is truly less engaging for him because he's been playing it so long, then pick up another game or be okay with losing when going against opponents who are as skilled as you but are playing to win instead of playing to chill with chat.
He doesn't have to sweaty..... Unless he cares about winning. I've seen a couple of people say that he doesn't, but I think his owns pretty clearly say that he does.
While there might be people out there who on the whole would rather play against a Killer who doesn't tunnel and camp, but still 4Ks than one who does, even that will get old after awhile. The feedback loop for survivors would be atrocious - no matter how much better they get, they will still lose most/all their games. It will never matter how hard they try unless they make it into the top 1% of players. Then maybe they'll get to escape sometimes. That's a good way to get people to quit playing with any consistency.
This may be harsh, but it sounds like he wants to put in minimal effort while still getting top tier results on a consistent basis and if that's the case, sounds like he needs to do custom games against bots or his audience.
3 -
He also said he is not going to play sweatier even if it means loosing... So unless you just don't believe him when he says he doesn't but then again he is pretty much known for most of the time not caring for the outcome of the match.
Why is everyone assuming just because the other side is slightly better than you means you will never get out... Like what is this?
0 -
Given the state soloQ is I think people want to play more swf then before and many soloQ players have quitted.
0 -
Ridiculous video. Dude literally complains that 4k isn't basekit anymore. That what overparenting and spoon-feeding did to killer mains
2 -
Then why bring it up at all?
"Oh, looks like matchmaking changed and I'm getting opponents of my skill level more often and I'm not winning as much." That would be all that would need to be said unless, on some level, he does care about winning. The implication behind all that he said is "I want to be able to play 'chill' but still win and to do that, I need to be matched against people weaker than me." Because if he doesn't care about winning as much as you keep saying, then his opponents being as skilled to him wouldn't matter at all. He'd already be okay with losing matches on at a higher rate because he'd rather talk with chat.
Lastly, in order to tilt matches to favor a Killer 4K with 12 hooks (and before you say anything about it not having to be a 4K, that is the example he used - 12 hooking - MULTIPLE TIMES) , matchmaking has to be a bit more than 'slightly' in favor of the Killer. And, just in case it isn't overwhelmingly obvious, even if it were a 'slight' tip in MMR, what do you think that does a surv teams who go up against Killers more skilled than them that aren't playing nice? The escape rate would be painfully low and, yes, escape for survivors would be exceedingly rare.
3 -
The way I see it, it's a double edged sword.
The nature of a Asym game like this needs to have the power tilt toward the 1 opposing the 4, not too much and not too little. All 4 survivors together should be strong when coordinated, but killer should benefit more from mistakes than survivors, at least that's how I'd see it.
As far as coordinated SWF compared to SoloQ, it's a problem that sadly only comms would help with and most of us wouldn't like that knowing this community. And yes, I do think both sides have some very oppressive perks, but I agree survivor has more of them this current meta. I also think most killers can get away without tunneling someone out at 5 gens, others need the pressure.
Honestly I think the biggest problem to me is SoloQ feels more like a 1v1v3, where team based tactics aren't rewarded enough. Survivors have the tools to work around most killers but can't coordinate well enough. And it doesn't help the game doesn't give enough resources to learn how to play around the more mechanically complex killers so a lot of players don't know where to be or what to do.
Some of my best matches as solo survivor was simply taking hits for others or being patient with unhooks so the killer wouldn't immediately chase off unhook, or builds to rush down gens hoping the other 3 are doing the prior. And as killer, I have a lot more fun when the survivors are actually participating in these plays more than just rushing the gens and leaving, which honestly makes me feel like maybe getting someone out asap is the play which I dislike a lot. But we all know this stuff at this point, I think.
2 -
The people on his skill level typically are a pre made with full meta all around. That is the main issue and as scott has said that side of DBD is the most boring. I am sure he would be fine if he faced 4 players around his skill level who are just playing to chill. Where he would get fed up is facing people of his skill level in a premade with 4 med kits and map offerings. That is the key difference.
0 -
Perhaps, but that is just guessing..
0 -
Any points that hinges on one side's ethics and morals to be enjoyable for all is a mute point in a pvp game where such a diverse set of strategies is possible.
Differently put: If the game stops being enjoyable the second one side goes "nah, not in the mood for 'fair' today" by design it's not good design.
3 -
Yet that hasn't happened. The soft cap was raised a few weeks ago and all that he has noticed, by his own words, is that he is losing more often. Giving him less experienced survivors so he can 12 hook in peace is not the answer, for the numerous reasons that myself and many others have already given that I cbf covering all over again.
If he continues to play chill then his MMR will settle at a point where he isn't facing sweaty squads (provided matchmaking is working as intended - which clearly the devs are actually trying to make so). So again, nothing is stopping him from playing chill except the prospect of losing more often.
0 -
But those ARE the teams on his skill level. Scott along with many of the other big content creators are among the best players you'll find outside of tournament play, and for people to have a chance against him they'll need to be bringing the best stuff.
Matchmaking can't detect that you're bringing a 'chill build', or that you're 'memeing around', it can only see that players like Scott have a hugely high kill rate and thus it needs to find survivors with as high an escape rate as possible to be able to compete fairly, and survivors like that are generally going to be SWFs with busted perks, items and map offerings.
You can certainly argue that DBD at the highest level is unfun. You can certainly complain that playing as efficiently as possible is miserable for the other side, and I would agree with both those points, but then you should be putting pressure on BHVR to change that, not throwing mid-MMR players to the wolves so that streamers can relax.
5 -
Nooo how will I make funny content like "S key only trapper only 4k at 5 gens" if I'm not vsing 200 hour players compared to my years of experience playing the game nearly daily?!
0 -
Apart from all the mockery of streamers not having chill matches anymore, the harder matches could also encourage some streamers to go for Kills over fresh hooks if they weren’t before.
Not sure if this will set a good precedent or not as it definitely doesnt encourage multiple hook gameplay
0 -
You miss the point, scott can still lose to 4 good players who are not bringing the best stuff. Who said they would have to in order to beat him? If scott is playing wraith for example with a chill build which is typically what he does, then of course he can still easily lose to 4 good players regardless of what they bring. The point is if they are at his skill level then they do not need to bring all this meta stuff to have a chance.
What he would say is he does not mind facing 4 good players but ones which are willing to chill and not sweat super hard. Because that is how scott himself plays (he even admits he goes for hooks anyway and does not camp and tunnel etc) then it would be a challenging but chill match where either side has a chance.
0 -
But as he has also admitted MMR is still widely all over the place. He himself just said he still goes against babies etc. It feels like matchmaking will never work as intended and this raising the cap thing might work to just make games harder when nobody wanted that.
0 -
For me at least, it's less wild than it was and working better. I'm still losing plenty, but neither side is getting turbo stomped on anymore.
When you have as many hours as a professional streamer, virtually everyone that you play in public matches is going to seem like a "baby" to you skills wise.
The guy's probably not seen real baby players in his games for years. I've had players in my lobbies that blow up every gen they touch and don't throw a single pallet in chase. I "only" have 800 hours in this game and I still shouldn't have been matched up with any of these players. I have no doubt it will happen again, but it should (hopefully) happen less often now if MMR is doing what it should be doing.
0 -
Scott does mean players who hide in corners etc, even hens went against a survivor who it was their FIRST EVER GAME literally. Even at my much lower 2.5k hours I can see who are baby survivors and who are not.
When we use the term "baby" we mean players who crouch the moment they hear a TR etc.
0 -
Probably about 20% of my games (as Killer) are wins at 5 gens, I purposefully aim for 12 hooks unless someone bodyblocks posthook or taps a gen in my face, but they still lose at 5 gens. When I was first playing and learning, those were the worst (in terms of enjoyment) matches, where the opponent was so much better that I literally couldn't even pop a single gen.
The problem there is my build and mindset. I play with a middle of the line build, and a casual mindset. I am not playing for cash, so I only care about what happens mid match. That runs into an issue when I go against Survivors playing like they are playing for cash (or vice-versa when playing as Survivor with Killers playing for cash). Bringing BTL + juicy Toolboxes, planned Adren/Deliv pops, and so on. My build and playstyle isn't sweaty, but I can run into Survivors (whose MMR is high from sweating), and now I am ill equipped to (consistently) deal with them. You are almost punished for playing casually and winning, and I don't quite know how to solve that.
0 -
Everyone is arguing about streamers and people with huge win streaks as if that has ANYTHING to do with the average player. We go months with no one talking about mmr, then once a few people are having rough matches because their mmr cap was raise, everyone goes ballistic as if it means anything. Collectively as a community, we agreed that mmr means nothing.
A raised mmr cap just means that you'll get better players slightly more often that you used to. Problem is, these players are well above the mmr cap and there aren't enough players that high so they get matched with people around the mmr cap instead of what they should be getting.
That won't ever change and to think that making the mmr more strict will change that, is delusional.
Post edited by Rizzo on0 -
Fair enough. I guess I don't watch enough streamer content to have ever seen a top player Vs some real baby Survivors. I just assumed that only happened to players like me, with my MMR score presumably being much closer to the very new players.
0 -
The title doesn't seem to match your post at all. A more accurate title would be "Is stricter matchmaking better?" My answer is yes. DBD is far too lax with its matchmaking compared to other games. Though, I don't think it should be extremely strict since DBD is a casual game. I think they should make matchmaking stricter. It's currently still possible for an extremely experienced player to face baby players. Fix that and it would be good.
0 -
pretty much.
you can't have everyone having equal amount of fun in the matches because fun of one side excludes the fun of the other when people are playing with competitive spirit which is the norm.
if killer is better than survivors to the point he can afford to 12 hook and still confidently win, I guarantee that the killer is mopping the floor with survivors and they can't do anything. Nor hide, nor run.
and the reason people are 12 hooking in the first place is that they feel confident they can win this way, so the settle for more chill gameplay with bigger BP / grade reward, but the moment they feel threatened or survivors gather up and actually start performing well enough to outpace 12 hooking killer, that is generally dropped.
0 -
Its fine, I think if you yourself have only faced players of your level, then it can be hard to determine who babies are, but trust me when you see them you do know lol.
0 -
He definitely contradicts himself a bit here. First saying he does not ultimately care about winning and will just keep playing the way he does regardless of now sometimes perhaps not 12-hook 4k-ing with ease, but later going on to argue that he might well end up camping and tunnelling more in order to win. That he wants weaker opponents because it allows him to play in a relaxed, fun way (for himself anyway), neglecting again that he could still play the same way, if he were to just not care so much about having the tally screen show skulls on 3+ survivors.
Multiple things:
I promise the MMR adjustment (which by now seems all but confirmed, though it might not be here to stay (in fact it already seems changed again for Chucky's release)) won't change things all that much. Even if he were to not change his playstyle, strategies, levels of concentrating, skills and so on at all, he would still be winning some 80-90% of his matches. The matchmaking simply is still not nearly strict enough, and average players stand little chance against anyone even just semi-competent. And at his level of experience, there just are really few players out there to match him with at all. How many groups of 4 survivors each with 10k hours do you think there are queueing at any time in his region?
If it only was "slightly better" as alluded to in the title, sure. You could still bring up the same valid points about "what if a killer chooses not to play nice?" and so on in that case, but there could at least be some valid arguments in defense of a matchmaking that pairs survivors with slightly better killers. The issue is that in the average match of someone like Scott, there is a world of difference in skill. And not because Scott is the most amazing player, but because the average player he goes against is... amazingly bad. I have stopped watching most of every killer streamer that only plays pubs because it is mindlessly boring watching them beat up on what are essentially bot-level players compared to them. And harsh as it sounds, it's true. The type of fundamental mistakes they make on a consistent basis, how oblivious they are to anything that could constitute smart and win-oriented decision-making is really hard to even put into words. When Scott talks about solo survivor being a frustrating experience that makes him want to pull his hair out, he is referring to precisely this fact, that fellow survivor players make so many mistakes and inexplicably bad plays and decisions that you just lose your mind. As long as the matchmaking will keep pairing these kinds of players against killers that almost never have anyone escape, there can't even be an argument about whether it is good or not. It's not even a game.
I'm honestly a bit bewildered that players like Scott are not bored out of their mind playing against the lemmings they are, winning with ease going through the same motions most of every time. I guess it can be a sort of meditative experience, but to me and most people I play with, thinking about games, reflecting on one's own gameplay, challenging oneself and others, practicing, improving, those are the fun and ultimately rewarding aspects of playing. As he said, good players almost never lose in this matchmaking, which is particularly true on the killer side (because on the survivor side it requires 4 good players coming together, so basically you play SWF with 3 other good players or you will almost never experience this). Good players win 90+% of their matches with relative ease, so much so that if they want to, they can go on winstreaks of hundreds of matches in a row. If not thousands.
"Optimal", "sweaty", "tryhard" DbD doesn't actually suck. There is a competitive scene for this game with a lot of leagues and tournaments and 1v1 competitions, and believe me, basically nobody of the many people active in that scene is in it for the money. Because there really isn't a whole lot of money going around. They are in it because playing with and against good players and trying hard is actually incredibly fun and rewarding. You reach levels of micro and macro skill, mental and mechanical prowess that you never would if you were to just stick to playing public matches. Public matches getting to be a bit more competitive in terms of more often pairing players of comparable levels of skill, experience and "sweatiness" really isn't the doom scenario people can make it out to be. It is completely normal to not have 70% or even 80+% winrates in... most of any competitive multiplayer game, even those that hundreds of thousands if not millions of people play. DbD will survive people not winning with ease all the time but having to try harder if they want to win and still at times not succeeding.
The game definitely isn't balanced for the idea of winning with 12 hooks. Camping, tunnelling and slugging simply exist and have to be factored into its balance. And only few of the killers can even conceive of playing for 12 hooks against equal opponents. Blight, Nurse and Spirit obviously being the only ones that can feasibly do it with any consistency. Would the game be better if it were balanced around hooks, without camping, tunnelling and slugging being as effective as they are now? Potentially, but these things do add strategical depth to the game that does enrich it. Not only strategically, but they up the stakes, create risky and snowbally scenarios that really get the blood pumping. The game would be worse off without them I assume. As much as I love chases, without strategies like that matches would follow very similar, repetitive gameplay loops, without some of the craziest and most fun (and frustrating, sure) scenarios that can unfold and have a huge impact on or even outright decide matches in brief, intense bouts of interactions.
0
