Does 2k make killer MMR go down?
I'm wondering if the average kill rate is 60%, doesn't that mean that a 2k is technically a loss for the killer and makes their mmr decrease? Since a killer's mmr is based on their performance relative to other killers, not survivors. Oherwise the mmr system wouldn't work, because every killer's mmr would be increasing constantly if a 2k means their mmr stays the same.
Comments
-
Probably depends on the skill level of the survivors.
The MMR gained/losses is dependant on the MMR of the opponents in comparison to yours. The higher they are, the more you gain for winning and less you lose for losing. Same with the opposite - gain less for winning, lose more from losing if the opponent is of a lower skill than you.
So if you get a 2k, it probably would be dependent on the overall MMR of the match.
For example, you kill 2 higher MMR survivors then the chances of gaining MMR is higher. However if all 4 were lower MMR than you, you probably would have lost MMR after getting the 2k.If everyone is hypothetically around the same MMR, then the killer probably wouldn’t gain or lose anything (or at the most very minimal changes)
5 -
2k is a loss. yes.
2 -
Last we found out, the way the game determines it is that it is not a 1v4, it is 4 1v1s. So if you kill 2 survivors who are lower rated than you, but 2 survivors who are lower rated than you escape, in theory you should lose MMR rating, although only a little, because you "won" 2 of the 1v1s and "lost" 2 of the 1v1s. But they were against lower rated players, so you lose more mmr when you lose but gain less than when you win.
1 -
Is this confirmed? I thought it was solely based on kills/escapes?
Wait, maybe thats SBMM? Oh dammit…0 -
SBMM and MMR are pretty much the same thing. They just want to confuse you haha.
I don’t think it’s ever been officially confirmed, nothing about MMR really has. However the in game files state it is true. And given that pretty much every other MMR system in games does so it would be odd not to include this.
The things that effect your MMR are:
- Escapes and kills. If you escape you go up, if you die you go down. Killer MMR changes are based on each individual survivor.
- The skill level of the opponent
- The duration of the match up to a max of 10 minutes - the longer the match the more you gain
- SWFs also have their MMR changes adjusted depending on if their buddies escaped or not - they gain less if they died but more if they escaped
All of this is on the wiki and I think Scott Jund made a video detailing the data mines on it when MMR first come out.
0 -
Ah, gotcha. Thanks! I might dive into some of those vids shortly.
Also, very first game, got my walled FB save on a tunneled Meg. Wooooo, praise the Entity!0 -
Hahaha. Tunnelling and flash bangs, the two things we were discussing earlier lol
0 -
Because 2k is a lost
0 -
Why on earth is 2k a loss?
10 -
For some people anything which is not a 4K is a Loss.
@Topic:
Depends how good the Survivors are which escaped and how good those were who died. In general, if you win against stronger players you win more MMR compared to when you win against weaker players. And obviously, if you lose against a stronger Survivor, you will lose less MMR compared to losing against a weak Survivor.
6 -
a 2k is generally considered a tie
8 -
The survivors did 5 gens before you killed them and half the team escaped, you literally failed your objective as killer, it is a loss.
1 -
Because a 2K means the exits are open.
The killer has two objectives, kill survivors and prevent the exits from being powered. You failed to prevent the exits from being powered.
1 -
A tie means neither side wins or loses. This is an asymmetrical game where your win/loss isn't contingent on the win/loss of your opponent/s.
A 3K is typicaly a win for the killer, but also a win for one survivor.
A 1K is a loss for the killer as they've failed their objective, but also a loss for one survivor.
A 2K is a failure to complete your objective as a killer. It just happens to have an even number of wins/losses on the survivor side.
The idea that a 2K is a tie is an illusion born from the fact that there are an even number of survivors. If the format was 3 survivors v 1 killer, how could you discern a tie condition?
0 -
So does this mean that in order for a killer to win, it must always be a 3k or higher? It's the first I've heard of this. Wouldn't that mean if the game were to balance around the idea that killers should win 50%-60% of their matches that survivors have a 1/4 (25%) chance of survivng 40%-50% of the time? I'm terrible at percentages so I'm just trying to understand. (Also I was able to get the bird charm from one of your posts with the redeem code so thank you for that! <3)
3 -
Win conditions aren't concrete. What I should have said is a 2K isn't definitively a tie, or officially a tie.
There can be different types of 3K. Was it a 3K at 5 gens and someone got that hatch, or did the gates get openned and then the killer hooked and killed 3 survivors during EGC? Both are very different games, and the same goes for 1K, 2K and 4K games.
If you personally want to consider it a tie when you get 2 kills, that's your prerogative, but it's not a standard you can apply to all games for other players.
But yes, you're on the right track in regards to kill rates. A balanced kill rate should be somewhere between an avarage 2K and 3K. A 2.5K average would be 62.5%, which is roughly where the strongest killers currently sit.
1 -
Gotcha, thanks for clairfying. The odds of survival seem a bit dispiriting but I've also come to terms that this balance is what the Devs want. Good luck in your future matches!
2 -
This is an asymmetrical game where your win/loss isn't contingent on the win/loss of your opponent/s.
Utterly false. This type of mentality is exactly what makes solo queue be so excruciating in this game. People shouldn't rather be the only survivor to escape and count it as a "win" than be the only one to die and consider it a loss. But they do, precisely because of this senseless mindset. Btw, if DBD was 1v3 then the whole game balance would have been completely different to begin with, potentially leading to make us see 1k as a tie, for example. So there's no point applying current DBD standards to a version of DBD that never existed.
0 -
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen on this forum.
The killers only objective is to kill survivors. That's it. The only reason gens come into play at all is to give the killer more time to complete their only objective of killing the survivors.
This implies that an end game build that results in a 4k after the gates are powered is somehow a' killer loss'. Which is completely absurd.
Gens are not the killers objective. Survivors are.
11 -
Somebody has to live to tell the tale of the big bad killer . 2k is what we call GGs
0 -
Genuinely bewildered as to how the idea that a 62.5% killrate is "balanced" and causes an even win rate got so popular. The only way i can see that argument working is if you think it's impossible to get anything other than a 2 or 3k, or you think you can transfer kills from one game to another, otherwise it's impossible to get any meaningful data about winrate from kill rate (as long as you're using "kills per game" as a metric for who wins that game). I'd love someone to tell me what I'm missing here.
3 -
this is a loss?
0 -
this is a loss?
0 -
First off the win or loss for Killer is on a Survivor by Survivor basis. If you kill a better Survivor (than you according to MMR), it was a 'better' win. If a weaker Survivor (than you according to MMR) escapes, it was a 'worse' loss. Assuming all 4 players are equal MMR, then 2k 2e should be a tie. You would get positive points for the kills, and negative points for the escapes, all (theoretically) equal to one another.
There was a change that did reduce the weight of a loss for Survivors when their team died early, but I'm not sure how that played out (whether the equal MMR Survivor would have lost 10 points and Killer gained 10 points becoming S -5 and K +10 still, or S -5 and K +5).
Ultimately, the best way to enjoy the game is make up your own win condition instead, as Kill and Escapes are a very poor metric. I like having my wincon be a Devour Hope Mori'ing the lobby, or Killing the person that cleansed it, then letting everyone else go.1 -
The killer has two objectives, kill survivors and prevent the exits from being powered
Where does it say that?
Because I'm pretty sure the only objective given to killers is to kill survivors. The state of the exit-gates is not mentioned anywhere, I don't think.But yes, you're on the right track in regards to kill rates. A balanced kill rate should be somewhere between an avarage 2K and 3K. A 2.5K average would be 62.5%, which is roughly where the strongest killers currently sit.
You're confusing the outcome of the average match for the average outcome. They're not the same. Killers win more than they lose at the moment.
4 -
survivors completed all 5 gens and 2 or more escaped through exit gate. that is the objective of the game. this is how win-streaks are lost. just look at SupaAlf winstreak and momo's blight win streak.
0 -
That's definitely something we disagree about then. I don't see how preventing the exits from being opened would have the same priority as getting kills. In my eyes, a 2k is a draw, 2 survs are killed, 2 have escaped.
5 -
I get that win streaks are lost that way, since it's a draw and not a win. But yeah, I consider a 2k a draw and not a loss. Survivors objective is to escape, killers objective is to get kills. Killers and survivors each get two of those, which sounds like a draw to me.
2 -
The killer got two kills, two survivors escaped. So no, I don't see it as the killer failed their objective completely. It's a tie, since both teams scored two points of their objective so to speak.
2 -
Yes, even if you let them escape a 2k is a loss. You took the L willingly, doesnt take away the fact is still a lost match for the killer.
0 -
2k is considered as a draw by core game SBMM.
Community has various definitions of a loss, tho the most well known definition is that 3k+ gate escape is considered as loss
0 -
draws rarely exist in games. every game has objective and one side must complete objective to win. for example, in chess, the goal of the game is to checkmate king. draw in chess only occur when neither side checkmate the king. this is called stalemate.
in dbd, there is no such thing as stalemates. one side escape or dies. that is all there is to it. killer consider winning when they kill 3 or 4 survivors. As a result of what killer consider winning, everything that is not winning is a survivor win. this account 4 escapes, 3 escapes, 2 escapes.
0 -
I guess im crazy for considering a 2k to be a draw for both survivors and killers
6 -
I would say a 2k is a draw for the killer and the survivor team, but according to MMR, it's two wins and two losses for the killer, a win for two survivors, and a loss for two survivors.
How much MMR a killer wins or loses depends on the MMR of the survivors. If they kill a low MMR survivor, they don't get many points, but if they kill a high MMR survivor, they get more points. Same as if a survivor escapes.
Assuming all 4 survivors are exactly the same MMR, then a 2k should result in no change in the killer's MMR.
0 -
Really? I always saw 1k as a loss, 2k as a draw, and 3k as a win
1 -
This also makes more sense. But you know this Forum, Killers are not happy with that. So unless the Killrate averages at 75%, they are not happy, apparently.
1 -
Becausse kill rate are 60%+ meaning draw is 2.4 kills. But I would still call it a draw if you hooked 6 times or more. Or if you're last match was 3K or more.
0 -
2K is a draw in the MMR system, and as far as we know it means that you don't gain or lose MMR. Also, the MMR you gain or lose is based on your opponent's MMR, but if you gain or lose that MMR is only dependent on you winning (Escape through the exit gates for survivors, 3-4K for killers) or losing (Get killed for survivors, 0-1K for killers).
From the Wiki ( ):
Survivors gain points towards their MMR by escaping from ranked Trials and lose points for dying:
- Dying in the Trial is considered a loss towards MMR.
- Escaping through the Hatch is considered a draw.
- Escaping through the Exit Gate is considered a win towards MMR.
Killers gain points towards their MMR for killing Survivors in ranked Trials and lose points if they manage to escape:
- Killing 0 or 1 Survivor(s) is considered a loss towards MMR.
- Killing 2 Survivors is considered a draw.
- Killing 3 or 4 Survivors is considered a win towards MMR.
The strength of the MMR of one's opponents also influences the final amount of points Players gain or lose towards their MMR:
- If the opponent team has a higher MMR, but they lose, their losses towards their MMR are increased and the Player's gains towards their MMR are also increased.
- If the opponent team has a lower MMR, and they lose, their losses towards their MMR are reduced and the Player's gains towards their MMR are also reduced.
- If the opponent team has a higher MMR, and they win, their gains towards their MMR are reduced and the Player's losses towards their MMR are also reduced.
- If the opponent team has a lower MMR, but they win, their gains towards their MMR are increased and the Player's losses towards their MMR are also increased.
1 -
I would say it completely debends how you got that 2K if you had 8 hooks for example I say that is draw as you even could won with better luck etc. But you still won 2 survivors and lost to other 2 so isn't that definition of draw. But because kill rate is 60%+ then 2K sounds below average result.
So other way would be also look to you're previous matches if you're last match was 3K that makes it draw because you're doing 60% kill rate overall.
0 -
Is this loss?
4 -
Definitely disagree with that. 2 kills 2 escapes is a draw in my eyes.
0 -
That doesn't sit right with me either. I don't know, to me a 2 kill 2 escape game is a draw.
0 -
I see it very differently.
For me, it's a win if I enjoyed the round and am happy with my performance in relation to what I was up against. (Depending on the items etc.). As soon as it's just stressful and doesn't feel good, it's a loss for me.
If I kill the first survivor with Camp and Tunnel and the second with Noed because I adjusted my perks to gain time and 2 hooks, it wouldn't be a draw for me, it would be a loss.
That's why I always thought the number of hooks made more sense as a win calculation!
0 -
If 2K is a loss why do people complain about Killers wanting a 4k?
0 -
That doesn't follow at all (why would how one possible kill count is classified have any effect on how people react to other players opinions about a different possible kill count?)
It's also based on a false premise. People generally don't complain about killers "wanting a 4k," they tend to complain about killers playing for a 4k in very specific circumstances, such as searching for the 4th survivor without knowng where they are and without hooking the 3rd. Sure there are exceptions, but I find people complain about specific play styles or perceived attitudes towards the game
0
