Isn't a bad MMR mostly community's fault?
I remember that when SBMM was first introduced, matches were about fair. But this created other problems:
- A very long search for matches. If i remember correctly, it was about 10 minutes to find a good equal match. Personally, i don't mind long search, because it's better to play 1 equal and interesting match in 20 minutes, than 2 awful onesided matches. Like, i will better sit in the lobby than play match with baby Kate, who gave up at 5 gens, or stomp newbies at 5 gens without any joy.
- Killer role was literally, without any exaggeration, unplayable. I remember that I lost exactly more than half of the matches (or somewhere around 80%), and each of them was unbearable and very stressful.
After a short time, taking into account opinion of community, SBMM became what we have now: spread in the selection of opposite side/teammates is so large that it practically makes not so much difference from what if selection was random. As for me, matches are much better after the last time when softcap was raised. But I still get unequal allies/opponents from time to time.
I have no doubt that current balance is based only on unequal matches. If SBMM had continued to exist in its initial state, and players had played against equal opponents and with equal teammates, kill rate would have been somewhere around 40%, and even lower on highest mmr, what would lead to unavoidable big killers buff.
So, basicly, survivors don't want to lobby simulator and killers don't want to play only against sweat lords. But this goes against the fact that this is exactly how good matchmaking should work in realities of this game.
My question is: should we blame BHVR for poor matchmaking, if we ourselves have pointed out what it should be like, as a community. Or am I missing something?
Comments
-
While I see where you're coming from and even agree on most of it, I think the problem is they swung too far in the other direction.
They went form hour(s) long ques to get a pretty much exact match all the way to minuet at most que with a massive pool of skill. This is exacerbated by the softcap being dummy easy to hit for anyone with anything resembling a clue of how to actually play.
I don't think that's what people wanted (just my observation, could be wrong). Something in-between is probably the best we can get.
The softcap also needs to be raised (again) to actually have better divisions of the players and not just "average Andy who doesn't keep up with the game and doesn't know how Sadako works" being one side of the fence and the other being literally everyone else from "I at least know how the killer works" all the way to "I play the game for a living".
Additionally the fact that once you pass the softcap 1 time it will make you lose 3 wars worth of matches just to drop back down is silly imo. Someone can have a lucky streak and then be stuck facing players out their depth for basically the rest of their DBD career as long as they get carried sometimes. Just let them drop.
Post edited by MrPenguin on3 -
I don't get the sentiment that killers are entitled to not have challenging matches.
And furthermore, its okay for killers to constantly slaughter players worse than them?
BHVR agrees with you so, but I'm just trying to understand the rationale.
12 -
The softcap also needs to be raised (again) to actually have better divisions of the players
I agree. Other than that "earning" MMR should work other way, i'm doing another post with suggestion about it.
I don't get the sentiment that killers are entitled to not have challenging matches.
I have no idea where you read it in my post. Especially, when i said literally the opposite:
But this goes against the fact that this is exactly how good matchmaking should work in realities of this game.
Why don't you try to put aside your biases, reread the post and come back later, if you want a real discussion and not another us vs them boring swamp?
6 -
Killer role was literally, without any exaggeration, unplayable. I remember that I lost exactly more than half of the matches (or somewhere around 80%), and each of them was unbearable and very stressful.
You say matchmaking should work by giving killers what you also describe as unplayable matches. So I'm confused.
Calling me biased is just being dismissive, I've never advocated for killer being unfun to play.
7 -
You called killers who don't want to sweat "entitled" and them not sweating as "slaughtering survivors". This two statements are colored in a quite non-neutral way, and even though you might have meant so differently, it comes off as severely biased and antagonistic and I can totally get what @fussy might feel like this isn't the beginning of a fruitful discussion.
Maybe take a step back and really try to put the colorful biased-colored adjectives aside for the time being, you can still be mainly on the survivors side, without it coloring every statement (just like I with killers).
I remember that time, playing killer back then was literally a chore and drained my energy. It wasn't just challenging matches, each and every match felt like you played the championship finals, but it was just a regular Tuesday match. You never got a calm second, were constantly stressed and on the lookout, and everytime you cornered a survivor, they just DHed to safety, extending the chase further. It was soulcrushing and drained your spirit and more then once asked myself, why I was still playing.
9 -
Confused about what?
Game was in most stressful state for killers, because every match was unreal sweaty? Yes
Should it be like that? Yes. Same for survivors, every match should be equal and therefore challenging for both sides.
Will it cause some changes after? Yes, no doubt. Survivors will win waay often than now.
3 -
Nope, I don't think this has anything to do with us.
Truth be told, this system has never really worked. Solo Queue became even more susceptible to its shenanigans, for SWF groups it barely mattered and killers often got matched against survivors who were far above their skill level.
I remember many overwhelmingly negative feedback from the MMR testing sessions, and I still strongly believe the system needs to be scrapped entirely. It has caused way too many problems and it isn't worth salvaging.
5 -
@MrPenguin @WolfyWood @Akumakaji @Everyonehere back in the days i did a poll. So i will ask you the same thing: do you agree that we should sacrifice our search time slightly (not too much) in favor of more equal matches?
3 -
Yeah. I'd rather wait a few minuets for a good match than 1 minuet and have a bad one.
As long as its not pre 6.1 levels where my survivor ques were 20+ minuets. Ques that long just kill the drive to even play.
4 -
It's not the playerbase's fault BHVR made a MMR system that doesn't function like a MMR system
The system we have right now prioritises queue speed over actually fair matches, we also cannot see what our MMR is, and the MMR brackets are so absurdly vast that Joe-Shmoe 300 hours can get paired with people like Knightlight if Joe-Shmoe 300 hours wins a couple dozen games
They made a slot machine into their matchmaking system, SBMM and MMR fundamentally might as well not exist because of how BHVR made this complete and utter mess
3 -
I've seen back in the days a lot of killers who play nearly perfect, go from match to match against opponents of their level and lose many games in a row. And there is nothing surprising in this, game is very survivor sided in high level. I was very mid on both roles and was matched with the same/against level players, so i see nothing wrong with it initial state.
And after last softcap change i believe SBMM can be good. Question of my post is what should we sacrifice instead.
1 -
I would say I'm fine if the ques go up to 5min with the 5min being a rare occasion.
Anything over 5min or even 5min for every que is to much for me personally
1 -
Well, whole point of my post is about it. Didn't community ask for it, because they don't like long queue and sweat every game?
Because in this game with not that big playerbase impossible always to find equal players and do it fast in the same time. And seems like many people don't understand it.
2 -
Yeah, i agree. Something around 5 minutes will be perfect, especially if i won't matched with 100-500 hours survivors against 3000-8000 hours killers in my soloq after this change.
2 -
There should be a middle ground.
It did get tiring to play very competitively all the time, but I was enjoying being challenged. I don't recall losing a lot, but I thought the players were very good.
Now? I don't ever see good players and I haven't lost a game that I was trying in since October. It's boring and breeds stagnation.
3 -
It also highly depends on how long the average match is.
In lol I have between 2 and 5 min ques and the average match is between 20 to 36 minutes long that feels good.
If I am in the que for uo to 5 min but the average match is only 8 to 12 minutes we come into territory where it starts to feel not so good.
BTW idk how long the average dbd match is I never cared to check
1 -
I dont see how its anyone's fault but BHVR.
Had a match where there was someone with 5800 hours, 200 hours, 74 hours, and a private. None of them were grouped up either.
2 -
To be honest, this is another issue that I wanted to raise in another post, but it seems that different regions have completely different playerbase.
Because i'm watching some streamers, and they have challenging match once in a blue moon, winning almost every match, because almost all survivors are not their level at all, not even close. So same situation as you have.
At the same time me and streamers from my region sweat pretty often. Sometimes i can have 5-6 games in a row against sweat lords SWFs or even very strong duo/solo, sometimes only once per day, but it's way more often than i see on other's people streams.
3 -
Look, trying to show my point once again:
- Searching for equal players takes a long time
- People didn't like long queues
- BHVR changed it so queues are not so long, but players are not equal also, because you can't find it so fast
While i agree, extremes like in your example are completely on BHVR, but community prefer fast over quality. No?
1 -
Partially yes, partially no.
I feel a decent chunk of the system has failed because of how a number of players are. Killing themselves on hook, lobby-dodging, farming and even playstyles can create wobbly data, whereby players end up in areas where they should not be based on skill, yet are there based upon match results. However, this isn't to say all these things are bad on the player's behalf - afterall, if someone plays a certain style, that's hardly an error.
It's that the MMR does not account for all these scenarios. Neither - do I believe - it ever would. No matter how MMR is altered, the sheer volume of players, the attitudes they bring and the amount of randomness each trial presents, it will never be faultless.
There are things BHVR could be doing to improve the accuracy. An example would be removing Prestiges in lobby, as this is one of the main reasons why people skip (as a side, this is why I'm against players seeing other player builds in lobby, because it's pretty obvious what will happen). Another may be to prevent any player from changing anything in the lobby, thereby getting trials underway quicker (no need for the timer) and preventing mindgames from either side. Little changes like these can prevent times when players may jip the system.
So I have always thought the MMR issues are not entirely BHVR's doing. It absolutely should be altered from its present state, but at the same time there is a sizeable reason as to why this isn't working and currently there are tweaks BHVR could do reduce the margin of error by preventing some behaviours. They can't stop them all though.
0 -
Prefer quality over fast. And it doesnt need to get fast to the point of putting someone brand friggen new into my lobby.
The game has the population for quality, I think the patience problem is a separate issue. Ill take some lag if it involves putting me into a different region ... whatever.
The deviation in a lobby like this just is unreasonable and should never happen.
Killer role was literally, without any exaggeration, unplayable. I remember that I lost exactly more than half of the matches (or somewhere around 80%), and each of them was unbearable and very stressful.
And I really hope this isn't true. I would honestly need footage of your play. This is something wrong on an expression level if you are losing 80% of your matches as killer. You dont run into SWF comp teams a majority of the time, no one does, so that is not the issue here. Not even the highest MMR killer mains in the world do. So this is definitely an expression issue on your end.
Really upload some footage, I need to see a killer losing 80% of their matches and have it be something out of their control.
And you dont even need the strongest killers in the game to do this. Pig "mains" dont lose this many matches even with their camp/tunnel/wait play style. Even Meyer's mains dont have this issue...
Even the top players in the world, get absolutely dunked on in their survivor SoloQ matches. Just load up any stream and watch. Watch Hens, a comp tourney survivor player, get dunked on in SoloQ, 4 genned and tunneled out of the game sometimes. But then they load up killer and easily win over 70% of their matches.
You dont even need to be a killer "main" to be pretty successful playing killer.
Post edited by EQWashu on2 -
We shouldn't have to sacrifice anything. We should have a good matchmaking system that doesn't take forever to find a match.
Obviously we cannot expect it to be perfect, but we can expect it to be better. Which is why I believe MMR needs to go, and we can have Ranks back.
They were better than anything MMR has to offer, at least in my experience.
5 -
Killer wasn't unplayable at all IMO. I don't even think the community actually believes half the opinions they express. They're just parroting content creators most of the time, and content creators complained the loudest about tighter MMR on killer because they suddenly didn't look like demigods and couldn't 4k 20 games in a row while reading chat.
The matchmaking is ultimately BHVR's fault. The playerbase doesn't understand what they want. They're going to tell you fast queue times every time above all else. But they don't actually want fast queue times. Look at the forums every day. Every other post is about bad matchmaking. It's such a cop out to sit there and say "Well we asked the players" when the players don't understand how the system functions under the hood. Imagine a doctor saying "well I asked the patient what they wanted me to prescribe". A doctor will probably give you options and fully explain the downsides. I don't think that was communicated clearly at all re: matchmaking feedback, and then they took the feedback and ran with it anyway. It's especially weird to do that when players can't see the implications in a tangible sense, just hidden MMR and feelings.
5 -
I refuse to defend an MMR formula, where the players aren't allowed to see their MMR number.
Every other PvP game I play, shows MMR numbers. There's zero reason for this game to hide MMR numbers, unless the MMR system is making decisions that would be controversial if they were public.
6 -
1000% this. Every other game I can think of shows rank, MMR, something. It's about accountability at a certain point. Is the game respecting the player's time?
3 -
No? BHVR slapped together a very basic MMR system and called it a day but when you hear MMR or SBMM you expect to be detailed. Not simply "killed = lose mmr, escape = gain mmr". The fact that a large portion of MMR isn't based on chase time for both sides... It just goes to show how rushed this system felt. Also the fact that we're talking about mmr where a LARGE factor of games are based on the RNG of maps and map spawns.
2 -
Should i get back in time and record it for you? Or you wrote a ton of text without even understanding what i am talking about?
0 -
How the matchmaking feels varies so greatly. I have always believed the lobby shopping and resultant backfilling has never given their MMR system a decent shot on operating correctly over time. It gets one chance at a fair-ish trial for all, that's it, and one dodge borks it. This is because when asked this community always overwhelming says queue times over matchmaking, and no meaningful way of dealing with dodging is in place.
Because if this the sweatiness of the trials vary too. It depends somewhat on the time of day, but much more on region and mindset. Most players are indeed casuals, in particular the survs. But no one wants to be crushed each match, and most don't want stomps each match either (some do, admittedly).
How do we fix this? One is we tolerate a bit longer queues. Next is as @Pulsar said, a middle ground is needed. Imo what is required is a combo of the old emblem method and something beyond just kills & gate escapes. Separate queues won't work, as there's likely no real way of keeping the sweats out of a casual area and keep the tradition of "run what you like.". Somehow individual (and in the case of survs, teamwork) skill expression needs to be accounted for more.
1 -
"But muh competitive mindset!"
That ship sailed about 2 years ago...
1 -
Warning: big wall of text ahead, TLDR: the problem is the MMR system, but it is a tough problem to solve.
The problem is MMR and how its figured. How matches are figured out, and not the idea of MMR itself.
Basically, MMR is determined only based on kills and escapes. MMR (which is basically elo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system) works as follows:
You have 2 players with some rating before the match. You take that rating and run it through a mathematical formula to determine the probability of one side winning or losing. Then you play the match. Based on that probability, the player who loses, loses points, and the player who wins gains those points. You can find an elo calculator here: https://wismuth.com/elo/calculator.html
Basically just punch in a number for each player, and it outputs a probability for "player 1" expected score. When you use the chess version of it (the default) that is the probability they will win. So if you have 2 players who are rated 2000, the probability is 34% that either player will win and a 30% of a draw (meaning you have a 64% to not lose). If one player is 1500 and another is 2000, the probability of the 1500 rated player winning is 2%. That is how much of a difference the rating makes. Now, this is elo for sure, but MMR is just elo with some flavor added to the formula's in calculating stuff. USUALLY most games "secret sauce" is how they calculate k-factor. Which you can read about in the elo wiki page i linked above.
Because DBD is figured as 4 1v1's in a match instead of a 1v4 it means this:
A win for the survivor is an escape through the gates
A draw for a survivor is an escape through the hatch
A loss for a survivor is a dead
A win for the killer is a kill
A draw for the killer is a hatch escape
A loss for the killer is an escape through the gates.
Keep in mind that a lot of the following is speculation on my part based on things the devs have said in videos, streams and other places about the mmr system and not fully proven unless otherwise stated:
Now, enter DBD and the problem with it. There are 3 problems with it. The 1st problem is the most obvious, and that is how they match players. In theory, most games try to match you with players within 50-100 points of you (depending on player counts) this is because of that disparity you saw above. the difference between 500 points means a 98% chance of winning vs losing. 100 points is still big, but much smaller at around 23% chance the lower rated player wins and a 25% chance of a draw, 50 points is better because it brings it to around 29% chance the lower rated player will win with a 28% chance of draw. Still a tough match, but starting to get closer to "fair". Now of course this is balanced out by the lower rated player winning more points if they win, than the high rated player if they win. So in theory, if both players played an infinite number of games, their ratings should stay the same.
But, back to DBD. How does DBD match players? They do it with tiers and an mmr ceiling. So instead of matching players based on their rating, the player's ratings put them into tiers, and players are matched within their tiers. Not much is known about DBDs tiers, but the "MMR ceiling" is known relatively (but has changed before). So, keep in mind these numbers ARE NOT REAL here and are just an example.
0-500 mmr = tier 1
501-1000 mmr = tier 2
1001-1200 mmr = tier 3
1201-1400 mmr = tier 4
And so on. So this means that, if you are in tier 4, and are just barely there, at 1201, you could be matched with someone as good as 1399. Which if you saw in the probability calculations above, leads you to being very unlikely to win your game. The MMR system does TRY to keep you still within a small range of players, but their goal is to get you into a lobby in around 60 seconds. So if it starts taking more than 15-20 seconds, its going to stop doing that and just spread out across the whole tier to start getting you into a match quickly.
This is also exacerbated by the MMR ceiling, which is, the "highest" tier of players has a cap, and if your MMR is ABOVE that cap, you are just put in the highest tier. That cap, last people discovered, was known to be around 1700. This means that if your MMR is 1700, you are in the highest tier, and if your MMR is 2500 you are in the highest tier. So, you can be matched among players in those tiers.
So what exactly does the lead to. There are very few players at "high mmr" which i would see as being above 2k. If you go back to the chess world and look at the rating distribution you'll see: https://www.uschess.org/archive/ratings/ratedist.php (keep in mind the data on that site is from 2004, but chess ratings haven't really changed much since then and for our purposes rough percentages are good enough). You'll see that the 2000-2099 bracket contains 1516 players out of 65k. This is around 2% of the players.
Now you see why matchmaking has problems. Think about how many players there are in DBD. This site says they have 500,000 - 700,000 players roughly every day: https://activeplayer.io/dead-by-daylight/ There's no telling if that is accurate or not. But lets say that DBD has 500k people playing at any given time total to make the match easier, that means that if you are a 2k rated player, there are around 10k players in your rating. Now factor in that these are players all around the world, regions, playtimes, ping etc. and all kinds of stuff. And its likely that every time you match, there are probably only a few hundred players who you are capable of being matched with for a fair match, or potentially even less if you play in less active regions.
This means that if you were 2k rated, and they tried to get you in a "fair" match. You are probably waiting a solid 5-10 minutes, if not longer, depending on timezones/regions etc., just to get into a match. For online games, especially ones with short matches like DBD, this is unacceptable. You can wait 5 minutes for a match in DotA because matches are an hour long, so the wait time to match ratio is pretty short. But a DBD match can be over in 5-10 minutes. Waiting 10 minutes, just to play a match that ends in 5 is not good for the health of the game.
This means that, matchmaking likely spreads pretty quickly, and starts matching you with whoever in that tier. This means that people who are just barely in the highest tier, are now put into a pull of players way above them. Look back at that rating distribution chart. There are 4.5% of players that are in the 1700-1799 range. Now remember, a 100 point difference means that you have a 23% chance of the lower rated player winning. Now add up all of the players above that range. There are 8110 players in the 1800+ range, that is 12.3% of the players. In DBD terms, this means that if matchmaking starts taking longer than 20-30 seconds, you now 3x more likely to be matched with/against players that are more than 100 points of rating above you, meaning that your chance of winning goes from being 45-55% to being far below 23%. If you look at that distribution, the average elo of the person you'll be matched with at that point will be around the 2000-2100 range. Which punching that into the elo calculator means your chance of winning your match is now only 8%.
This is why the matchmaking "feels horrible" because if you aren't among the top of the top, but are still in the top 5% or so, you are more likely to get matched with people in the top 0.5-1% than you are with people who are near your rating. And if you are among the top of the top, it is even worse for you, because there are so few players in your range, you are likely to play people FAR FAR below you. This is why you see content creators like Otz, and Tru3ta1ent and Ayrun and hens and so on, win like 95% of their matches. Because of the sheer number of hours they have in the game, they are really really good, and their MMR is likely very high, probably in the 2500-2800+ range (chess grandmaster range). So statistically, that is about right based on the players they are getting matched with that they win basically all their games.
Now, i said that this is the 1st problem MMR in DBD. This is why matches feel so wild, depending on your time of day, the quality of your matches can vary widely.
The 2nd problem is how the results of the game are calculated. For survivors, the system does not see the match as a 1v4. It sees it as a 1v1. And for the killer, it does not see the match as a 1v1, it sees it as 4 separate 1v1's. To put it simply, lets say you have a match of players all around 100 rating points of each other:
Survivor 1: 1800 mmr
Survivor 2: 1850 mmr
Survivor 3: 1890 mmr
Survivor 4: 1825 mmr
Killer: 1875 mmr
Now Let's say that the match is a 2k/2e. And Survivor 1 and 3 escape, and survivor 2 and 4 are killed. Well this means that the killer lost 2 1v1's and won 2 1v1's. And 2 of the survivors lost their game, and 2 of them won their game. Then running these through the elo calculator it will work like this:
- Survivor 1 gains 12.1 points and the killer loses 12.1 points
- Survivor 2 loses 9.3 points and the killer gains 9.3 points
- Survivor 3 gains 9.6 points and the killer loses 9.6 points
- Survivor 4 loses 8.6 points and the killer gains 8.6 points.
All totaled up here are the new elos:
Survivor 1: 1812.1
Survivor 2: 1840.7
Survivor 3: 1899.6
Survivor 4: 1816.4
Killer: 1871.2
So the killer lost rating for this game despite it being a draw (this can happen in elo though and is normal) and the survivors gained and lost points appropriately.
But again, brining it back to DBD terms, this just looks at the kills and escapes. It doesn't care that this match was like this because the killer hooked Survivor 2, face camped them for 3 hook states, then had NOED and slapped survivor 4, and hooked them right next to the NOED. All it cares is that the match was a win or a loss.
Similarly for survivors, it doesn't care if one survivor hid in a locker in the basement all game and did nothing before going through the exit gates, all it does is count as a win because they went through the exit gates, and the teammate that finished 5 gens or ran the killer for 5 minutes sacrificed themselves at the last second to unhook them and let them get through the gates.
So this bears in mind, how do you fix these problems. It is tough for sure, but i would do a few things:
- Restructure the game itself to make matches last a bit longer. I'd shoot for around 20 minute matches.
- This means a ton of things, you need to make it hard for survivors to get out of a match early (tunneled),
- you need to slow the gens down (maybe you have to repair 6 gens now?)
- Or create some other kind of objective (gen parts).
- Because right now (for both sides) this game is a rush fast, just rush the gens, just rush through a single survivor's hook states as fast as possible.
- These longer games means it becomes more acceptable for people to wait maybe 3-5 minutes for a match and you can get closer and fairer matches.
- Restructure matchmaking rewards, so that survivors are a team and win or lose as a team. If 2 survivors get out, everyone gets a draw. If 1 survivor gets out, the survivors lose (but maybe they lose slightly less than if 0 got out) and so on.
This was long, but i wanted to close by saying a lot of this is speculation based on videos and things i have seen of the devs. And should not be taken as pure fact. It is likely that the system does not quite work this way, but based on what they have said about the system, this is how i SUSPECT that it works. If anyone points to anything that is wrong, or a dev comes and corrects me i will happily edit my post on things that are wrong.
2 -
In an idealistic scenario good matchmaking sounds great. The problem is that the game is extremely unbalanced. So bad matchmaking covers up the games balance issues and makes it function. The game isn’t balanced for accurate good vs good matches. This is why for example in comp in order to try and make it as balanced as possible there are dozens of made up extra rules. They pick one of the better killer maps rather than the average one you’re gonna run into in most game, as well as heavily limiting survivor perks and items.
3 -
It was interesting reading! Thanks for it!
I think "better MMR" could work even without making match longer (but i'm agree that game is too fast nowdays). I'm doing a post rn with example about how MMR should work, but long story short: you should gain matchmaking points not for killing/escaping, but for how useful you were for a team and how good you performed as a killer based on different metrics.
Yeah, agree, this is what my 3rd paragraph about.
1 -
How could the community be responsible for a really poorly developed SBMMR system? Nobody in this community ever asked for a detrimental kill/escape based matchmaking. Instead the community explained several times that this system lacks everything it needs to be used for matchmaking. As killer it is by far too easy to get an mmr that doesnt match your real skill level due to how handholding this game is towards killer players. On the other side, survivors could only get a higher mmr if they played regularly on a equal skilled 4-man, otherwise it matches you with people that barely understand how to walk. And if youre not in such an swf youre stuck with low skilled teammates getting trashed in most games, leading you to be stuck in low-mmr, cause devs never even considered mmr-resets. The funny thing is: the only reliable balance indicator is acutally those 1% high mmr matches, cause thats the only games with equal skill level through all players in the match. the other 99% is always a gamble of skill for each player.
The old emblem system just needed some tweaks. It had everything to analyse how skilled people actually were. Thats why games one week after rank reset were the most fair games to be played in entire dbd history.
Devs are completely at fault and lack the will to change it. And the game is in its worst balance state than ever. And mmr is one of the biggest factors in that, cause how do you even balance a game that has no skill-balance in matchmaking?
3 -
The fact that they see no issues with this is crazy to me. This feels like something that sitting in the queue for one minute longer would likely solve. Instant matches aren't fun when they are slaughter fests.
1 -
I don't think this game has MMR based matchmaking, meaning a system that tried to pair roughly equally skilled players. Instead it has EOMM (engagement-optimized matchmaking). The difference is that EOMM places you with and against players way above or below your MMR, which is why games are often a total stomp or you get stomped.
0 -
There's a big problem wherein it's much easier to be a sweaty survivor squad, and you can still have a laugh with your friends when you do so. Just because you're a half-decent killer doesn't mean you should be playing against those sweat squads, and when that's all you get it's a huge incentive to just go play a different game because it simply isn't fun.
You can theorise as much as you like about perfect MMR, but if people can't regularly get a fun match, they won't play, and then it doesn't matter how your matchmaking works.
0 -
Yes, its okay for Killers to constantly slaughter players worse than them, its how games work.
Is it okay in fighting games that the better player consistantly wins over worse players? Well obviously yes, if it happens consistantly its a matchmaking issue, not the ones from either player. Should the worse player get godmode to garantee the win instead of good matchmaking or what are you suggesting?
Im not sure what you are on about.
3 -
Not the community's fault.
Bhvr cane up with a system. The community said "this ain't it. Wait times are too long and matches are very stressful" - Then bhvr came up with a change - that fixed the wait times and created other problems. That's not the community. That's a dev thing.
1 -
i dont understand why people say we have good queue times now i cant play killer except at night because the queue takes minutes in the other hand if i play survivor the skill of my teammates sucks, this mmr is the worst since it was released because i have nothing
0 -
that sounds like if you want to win without trying my dude if you want a chill match you shouldnt have to go with the intention of winning
0 -
Replace 'sweat' with 'try' and observe how different your post reads, that is how I see these complaints.
DBD is a PVP game. It is not possible to play against other players and win without trying unless there is a large skill gap which is my point.
There is nothing antagonistic about it, I don't hate killer players (I play it too), I don't think killer players are bad, and I'm totally open to being wrong about the things I post about and always have been.
I also disagree with the sentiment that killers should be allowed to win most of their games without trying, as the power role, there are things that come with having that power, one of them is and should be dealing with more stress and pressure to succeed.
Being outnumbered should always be a tense situation (in moderation), if you could approach the average match without caring then what would even be the point of playing survivor?
I very much disagree with BHVR's approach to the current game which is that survivors should be happy with the journey not the destination but killers should be virtually guaranteed to reach their destination every game. Its binary, its boring. 'Its a horror game,' has lost its weight and I think BHVR should move on from this already.
If it works for others and BHVR is happy with it then that's fine I respect it, but I feel DBD could be so much more if they would let go of this mindset.
I think it would be worth it to nuke Lobby Dodging entirely first and see what happens after a few months, then go back and redo the algorithm after if needed.
I am hesitant to say they should mess with queue times first since it would affect everyone.
2
