Reaching High MMR
How many games with what percentage win rate would you have to see to think that person is definitely in high mmr by now? Obviously all speculatory as we don't know so definitely subjective.
For example, like 80% win rate after 100 matches. So what win rate after what sample size to dismay any doubt.
Comments
-
Considering data miners figured out that starting mmr is around 1000 or 1100 (depending on if you start fresh or already have a killer that is on higher mmr) and the soft cap (high mmr) is reached at 1600/1700, and given that you gain between 5 and 20 mmr per match I would say you could probably do it within a day.
The issue is because mmr is hidden we don't know which of the survivors living/dying gives the biggest win or loss as it is 4 seperate 1v1s,so technically it is possible to 3k every game and still lose mmr, just because that one survivors that lives is so low that you still overall lose mmr.
Just by how easy the cap is to reach I would assume that almost everyone that is semi decent at the game already is at the soft cap.
2 -
For starters its important that you play every match with the same killer. I get most of the time good survivor as Unknown (30-40 games with 80-90 winrate) but at the same time weak survivor with my old mains which i play once per month.
Now for your question: 30-40 games were enough for Unknown but i didnt start from the base value. So hard to say how much it would be for a completely new player.
Lastly the definition of high mmr is important. Im talking about the mmr cap, the point where my matches didnt get much harder anymore. There is still a long way to go and other player have vastly higher mmr. But you can play against those players when you reached the cap.
And even on this point you cant say this or that works against good survivor bc i still get matches with bad players.
On a side note" counting the wins is a bit difficult. Point gain depends on the rating of the opponent and as killer you can win with 3 or 4 kills. As survivor you get more points when others escape with you.
0 -
Some great points. I can’t speak on anything relating to data mining as I avoid those topics altogether from issues in the past.
As you pointed out though there can be a ton of factors that depend so were of course doing a lot of guesstimating. To be a bit hyperbolic for my point, even with those aforementioned factors, I’d assume if someone played 500 games with a win rate of greater than 80 there’s almost no way they wouldn’t be “high mmr”. So I’m essentially just asking super subjective opinions on what they personally think.
As you eluded to as well, I almost mentioned in my original post that I was meaning more high high mmr, not quite just the soft cap per se. I should’ve specified of course.
0 -
I actually wish we had an mmr decay so if we haven’t played period or certain killers they would slowly lower since we haven't “practiced” in a while. My ideal scenario would be mmr attached to rank and monthly resets but I suppose that’s another topic entirely. I was originally excited for “separate” mmr but I feel like it puts your non played killers like 80% of your highest. Of course a bit hyperbolic here, just getting the point that I wish we had “actual” separate mmr’s for them. Playing a killer I’ve literally never touched to first match into players with 3k hours each kind hampers the experience when learning them.
Anyway I’m ranting off topic a bit. Just getting everyone’s subjective opinions here to see what people think. What win rate with what sample size would you feel it would take to be upper mmr? Maybe not cap per se but definitely way past soft cap? I know we’re all guessing here, just seeing where people’s minds are at.
1 -
Because we have very little information on how MMR gains actually work, I could not be convinced by wins alone and I would always make it clear, that I only assume someone's MMR.
Actual gameplay, in my opinion, is more important than wins or losses. Someone could in theory be the best DBD player of all time and be at the lowest possible MMR because they simple never take a win and someone else might be in high MMR because they always play in the most competitive way despite being average at the actual gameplay.
We also assume, that popular content creators are in high MMR because we consider them very good at the game. I remember there being a conspiracy theory about 2 years ago, that some content creators might actually go out of their way to tank their MMR when they weren't streaming. But we still considered them good at the game and assumed they should be high MMR despite many survivors they played against being considered average at best.
0 -
OK so the mmr range ends somewhere around 3 K, even cheater bots cannot get any higher, most content creators that are good at the game average around 2 k-2.4 K while probably some comp swf will be even higher.
So where on that range do you mean?
1 -
We can assume that most of the popular content creators are in high mmr, because data miners checked their mmr and said they are mostly around 2k mmr. It was phrased as "Those who do it for a living are mostly around 2-2.4k mmr". So it goes a bit further than just a baseless assumption. Ofc this does not necessarily represent as of right now, but it somewhat indicates it.
1 -
Post above... The quote function is really broke. These days, I had to press it 3 times despite always sending me to the bottom to write again…
1 -
Some great points here that I agree with most of them all.
I was never really in the tin foil cat camp that people were deranking back then but I think it had more to do with time zones and when they were playing. For example, in my time zone playing during the middle of the day is significantly easier games. There are way more casual players and a very noticeably lower amount of swf. So this is to say if I was doing a win streak during the day time it would be substantially easier than doing it at night which is prime time for me when all the sweat squads, higher skilled players or people just looking to sweat are on. I think the time zone differences were what was going on because as you said, you could tell a significant skill different in players people were going against in their games even though they were all supposedly still "high mmr".
0 -
For hypotheticals based on what you're saying let's say 2k. We're obviously just guessing lots of things here, just getting opinions.
Not referencing any data mined information here, just letting people use whatever information or thought process they want to use for their opinion.
0 -
Thanks. I didn't know that. But to be honest, I'm a little skeptical with data miners too. Basically they could claim a bunch of random stuff and we wouldn't know, if it was untrue.
What matters to me, more than anything, is not the MMR but how good someone plays and there are content creators that definitely play pretty good.
Yeah, I noticed that too.
0 -
I mean those guys literally tank bans for the sake of their curiosity xD I would find it weird to first figure out stuff and then lie about it ^^
There have been several sources for that and they all seemed to be trustworthy within their community, so we might as well assume it is true.
1 -
Sorry, quotes don't work correctly. I would have replied to this in my previous post but the forum really doesn't seem to like that.
Anyways, I agree that it's unlikely these streamers actually deranked. But I can definitely see where these assumptions where coming from. I believe it was Otz's perkless + 30s afk experiment where we saw some survivors that really weren't impressive. Not to talk down the point he was trying to make but some of them obviously had way less experience than he did, so it was kind of natural that he'd win against them. I guess, this showed more that skill plays a big role in your performance as a killer.
There are also content creators that I have seen make very blatant mistakes repeatedly without realising it and they're still considered top MMR or whatever. If you want an example, dm me. I don't feel like having to defend myself against a bunch of white knights, that all want to burn me alive because I said their favorite content creator doesn't play flawless.
I honestly play too little during the day to make a guess, how much easier or harder these games are for me, so I'll take your word for it and assume that it be might true for some regions at least.
0 -
I try to never reference any names specifically as I try to avoid any topics that could come near breaking forum rules so I just always talk in generalities.
I'm an RN for work so I fit all my 40 hours into 3 days a week which lets me game during the day quite a lot. I have the link on my profile for my stream if you want to see some recorded games during the day to see what I mean (not advertising, just an example for our conversation topic). There's day and night ones so you'll have to gauge by the upload time to know which ones are which. The skill level depending on time of day is so noticeable.
0 -
I should have expressed myself better. What I meant was, that pretty much anyone could claim they work with or are a data miner and could provide false information. If they cannot actually back it up, then I take this with a grain of salt.
I'll be sure to check it out.
0 -
It doesn't matter if you're competent at video games and play for a bit you WILL reach the soft cap and it's almost impossible to get under it. A large portion of the playerbase is "high mmr" so it means very little and that magic number is sacrificed for queue times.
1 -
Fair ^^
0 -
If I play killer seriously*, I start consistently getting cheaters after getting 20 to 30 wins in a row. I'm guessing that's on the higher MMR side.
On the survivor side, I'm average at best so high MMR is out of the question.
*) I've stopped playing seriously maybe a year ago. First, I play about one evening a month, if that. Second I see no point aiming for a win if all it gets me is going against more cheaters.
0 -
When playing survivor, you can be sure you're in high mmr when you feel DbD has 4 killers: Nurse, Blight, Spirit and Huntress.
0 -
It really shouldn't even be called MMR because it has nothing to do with how a true MMR system actually works. You basically get a grace period if you're new and then you hit the very low softcap and you're thrown in the mix with everyone. Most players that are even semi proficient at playing Killer will be playing the best SWF groups at some point or another.
Solo queue on the other hand would be much more difficult to soft cap due to losing matches that are outwith your control on a regular basis.
If MMR actually worked properly you would have massive bottle necks at certain ratings which would only effect certain players. Queue times would suck for some but be okay for others.
0
