Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on this and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
Hiding MMR is causing an echo chamber of misinformation
I haven't realized what a widespread problem this is until Otz released a video earlier today on Xenomorph. He recently came out with a tier list ranking Xeno about mid tier which apparently was "controversial", many people thinking Xeno is in a higher tier or better than it actually is.
Here lies the problem and this is a great example, because these people have never faced a top MMR survivor team that's able to properly counter Xenomorph. They never played against teams that place turrets in the most inconvenient spots (for the killer), survivors who know the map inside and out, survivors that know how to dodge the tail attack despite how "uncounterable" some people say it is. If you've played Xeno against a really good coordinated team you know what I mean, and you know Xeno is definitely not "top tier" like people claim it to be.
Most people haven't reached the hard cap on MMR, but this type of misinformation is spread and accepted in this "bubble" of thinking within the community. And don't get me started on the whole "MMR is a myth" topic, it's been datamined and there are clear soft/hard caps, most people might get to the "gold tier" of ranks but don't reach the absolute max MMR where you face the real sweaty teams.
To put this all bluntly, most people's opinions don't matter in terms of balancing the game because they've never faced the best, and they don't know this because they think they're playing against the best players. Maybe it's an issue with MMR and the whole matchmaking system too, but at least MMR should be shown to people for an ego check (for lack of better words).
Comments
-
I would expect most SWF and killers are above soft cap, it's not really that hard to get there.
You can see it quite easily, when you watch any of those hardcore series, where streamers buy new accounts. They get high prestige killers very fast (sure not skill, but it means higher playtime), which I would guess happens as soon they reach soft cap.
It can be definetly hard to get there as soloQ, because if you die → you get worse teammates → more likely to die again.
2 -
"it's not really that hard to get there" is a subjective thing to say, it may not be hard for you or some streamers but most people are not going to max their MMR, many people don't know what "sweaty" matches really are.
2 -
While true, this applies to everyone in the game, due to the lack of user end confirmation. Many killers also assume they are playing at a much higher level than they actually are, just like as happens with survivors as well. The most unfortunate part about this is that people don't have a stable foundation to compare with, as their ego will generally be the determining factor of where they think they are, with no concrete way of actually knowing. You either understand the game enough to be able to accurately estimate your placement, or rely on your self esteem and/or narcissism to fill in that gap for you. Unless you have been keeping count of every single kill and escape in every one of your games since SBMM was introduced, you just aren't going to have an absolute reference to work off of.
One of the most accurate statements I can think of regarding DBD as a whole is that the vast majority of the userbase has absolutely no idea where they actually stand in terms of skill/ranking, their presumptions of such are generated (logically or illogically) by themselves, and this is all by design (presumably in an attempt to cut down on the "As a red rank player…" comments and mindsets that preceeded the change, ironically.) Ego will forever be one of the biggest obstacles for balance in the game.
7 -
Yes exactly, you are 100% on point. The unfortunate thing is too many of these ego players spreading or accepting misinformation, and players as a whole just accepting these "facts" or opinions which cause divides in the community. I think showing MMR to everyone would at least alleviate part of it. Even if we go back to the "as a red rank player" times, at least we know who has the knowledge or skill to POSSIBLY listen to.
Not to mention I do think there are content creators who reverse boost and create false narratives, but that's beyond the point.
0 -
Most people's opinions do matter. Just because someone isn't as good at a game as someone else, that doesn't mean their opinion is invalid. They might be wrong about a fact, but that doesn't mean their experience isn't important.
6 -
I agree that both new and skilled players' experience should be taken into account to improve the game for everyone, and the game should ideally be balanced around all skill levels. But hiding MMR gives too many players an ego which leads to very narrow minded thinking, and it's impossible to convince a lot of people despite them being wrong on some facts.
0 -
i used to think most people were probably at high mmr
but now i actually think it's an actual pretty small % of the player base
i might not even be in it or at least not a the highest possible
Based on watching some content creators i actually think only a few are in the top MMR bracket as well
My reason for this is that you never really see people like scott jund who claims to be high mmr i rarley ever watch his killer gameplay and think "wow those survivors are strong / know what there doing" they usually seem very weak in comparison to what other creators play agasint
if we look at EU for a second
Otz never seems to play against other popular streamers / comp players that often if at all for example since MMR came out i think he and tru3 faced off like 2-3 times only
And you call me a tru3 glazer but he legit seems to go against former and current comp players near enough every game since he checks profiles alot
Not to mention Hens333 and tru3 seem to get matched up with each other quite often in comparison to other streamers, Same with knightlight he used to alot at least
Now take into consideration how bad the average player is compared and how much better / above average these streamers are it can start to paint a pretty clear picture on what mmr actually is
Quick side note that MMR will always try to match you up with players at your level
BUT it will not force it if match making time would be affected by a good margin
I like to call this "The Buffer"
Anyway I truly think that around 85-95% of people are in low-mid MMR and High MMR is a more exclusive club then people would like to admit
3 -
bad players shouldn't dicate balance
dbd is literally one of the only games where they do
2 -
I didn't want to say it, but I 100% agree, I want to go as far as saying most youtube/content creators don't create their content in high MMR, but of course if you mention anyone's favorite youtuber you'll just get attacked for doing so.
The survivors that tru3 goes against are miles ahead than what most content creators go against, maybe it's because of his particular region, maybe it's because some content creators do "reverse boost", maybe it's because they intentionally not try as hard in their games which naturally will lower their win/loss ratio and MMR.
Also this isn't to say I'm some die-hard tru3 fan, I just pay close attention to how survivors play in every youtuber/streamer game.
0 -
That's interesting. I'm concerned with the opposite thing, where people with high MMR become listened to much more than everyone else. I guess both things are issues though :/
2 -
I was programmed to have an ego.
2 -
Let's take the Xenomorph example. Many people say Xeno is top tier and some even say it's overtuned, in reality they just need to learn how to play against it with proper turret placement and learn where/how/when to dodge the tail attack. In this case these people shouldn't be listened to for balancing reasons, they shouldn't express their opinions as facts, they really should "git gud" first lol. And showing MMR will weed out these people a lot better
4 -
It's all subjective and largely dependent upon whether a killer is going up against a good SWF team or a group of solo survivors. I am a survivor main. I mostly play solo queue, but on occasion will play on a 4 man SWF. Take Ghost face or Myers as an example:
When I am playing in a good 4 man SWF against a ghost face or myers there is a pretty good chance we are going to have most, if not all, of us escape. The ability to keep each other apprised of their location makes their stealth much less of an advantage.
On the other hand playing solo survivor against a ghost face or a myers there is a very good chance it's going to be a 4k for the killer. Against a group of solo survivors a stealth killer is pretty much over powered.
That isn't a complaint. I don't think there is a middle ground to be had. The bottom line is the very thing that makes SWF team so much stronger against any killer (especially stealth ones) is the very thing a group of solo survivors will never have - comms. So, the moment you do things to make a killer stronger against teams with comms it is unavoidable that teams without comms become that much weaker.0 -
hmm, makes sense.
Just saying it doesn't take that many games, if you are good, or make sure your chance of winning are good.Funny is even soloQ games for me are quite good, but I have used to play tons of SWF games, so I am pretty sure about my MMR, which also means my teammates are not always terrible…
0 -
If you're talking about specific killers, sure, but that's beside the point of whether MMR should be shown, I just used the Xenomorph example to explain my point. Although you don't have to be in a good group to counter xeno yourself, you can literally just double up turrets and xeno has no chance to stay in its power. And dodging its tail is obviously an individual skill.
0 -
As well as the Id I assume, but where is your super ego, my friend? :)
2 -
I mean...unless you're doing some sort of packet manipulation, you don't know how many games it takes. Only 5% of the playerbase is above the softcap at any given time according to the devs. It's mathematically hard to get there.
2 -
Most people (almost everyone) isn't "Max MMR", they're just at the upper limit of their skill level.
Simply due to the devs balancing around a 60% kill rate, the "average" killer will be going up against "above average" survivors, because "average" survivors are only escaping 40% of the time or less. That's what happens when you weight one side of the game.
4 -
exactly. Developers usually balance games around the majority, not the minority. Being ‘the best’ doesn’t mean anything.
0 -
Well, it's possible new players are simply able to "change" their MMR way easier in early matches. That would explain why it seems so easy to do on those new accounts.
But only devs know how it works so we can only guess.
0 -
MMR is not strict enough for that to be accurate. Situations like backfill/lobby dodging also completely throw it out without some parties even knowing, and player agency is not high enough for outcome to equal skill 100% of the time (for either side.) I get what you're saying in terms of relativity, but its still an inaccurate implication unless matchmaking is consistently, explicitly strict.
0 -
That's missing the point though, being 'the best' at a game means you likely have better insight and knowledge of the game, and have a deeper understanding of what does or doesn't work. Right now a lot of content creators and users throw around the term "max mmr" assuming they're going against the best players, and thinking their opinion is gospel.
0 -
Many games evolve with their audience, as the audience tends to improve over time as long as it has player retention. With all of the ways balance has shifted in either direction, a claim like "the average survivor understands the importance of gen efficiency more than they did in 2018" would be considered understandable due to the inevitable growth of players that have been playing since their time, and that such level of veteran status did not exist at that time. Its why many games tend to develop higher average player expectations over their support cycles compared to their early release windows. People learn and adapt, regardless of how much/fast they actually grow. Its very rare for players to get worse over time, even if it does happen.
That said, you can't throw that evolution out the window purely to accommodate something like strictly casual players, especially since it disincentivizes them from following said growth pattern. Adversity is what makes us stronger, while catering/pandering makes us weaker. You need to focus on the majority, but not in a way that prevents them from growing with the game itself. This is why many people think focusing on good players (potential) is equally as important as focusing on the majority of players on the metric of skill alone. If the majority of players are bad at a game, you want to design the game around helping them get as good as the already good players, not covering for their weaknesses while encouraging them to remain less skilled or adept. All that does is end up punishing the good players for their determination and growth.
3 -
I think the survivors are the same caliber of the killers or less. I think that when all players know what they're doing, the killer should* lose.
0 -
No. If they're balancing at all, they're balancing around good players, who in this game are not the majority. But these devs are special, and balance around bad players SIMPLY because they're the majority. See why that logic is bad?
1 -
Because when nobody's high MMR (because nobody can see it), everyone is! That's why it's a screwed up system, and forces bad arguments on balance.
0 -
MMR isn’t real, BHVR just gaslit the playerbase into thinking it exists
There is no number that dictates your matchmaking, it’s all down to a roll of the dice and nothing else
0 -
That's pretty typical of an MMR system. Your rating will be more volatile on a new account, and I would imagine new accounts go through placement matches before they settle. So, a streamer could start a fresh account, win all their placements, and be at a higher MMR. Different from someone working their way up organically from a legitimate 0 hours.
0 -
I find it pretty weird that they hide it in general.
As fas as I know they do that so nobody feels preassured by this number, but in the end it just shows in which braket you are, it doesn't even mean you have to feel bad if you're in a lower one because against your opponents you can still do pretty good and after a while you'll get in a higher one. Even if you feel preassured to play increadible just because you're in a high braket I don't understand it, people that are in a high braket will probably not have this mindset in general, they wouldn't be up there otherwise normally (now's the problem on my arguments that I assume a mmr-system based on skill that we don't really have xD).
Even if some people felt preassured they could just have made it a toggle to deactivate showing it.
2 -
Is it misinformation though when we are talking about opinions? The opinion of those in lower MMR brackets aren't any less relevant than those in higher MMR brackets. Same with the opinion of those who play on PC and those who play on console and might have very different experiences with certain killers. Tier lists are just someone's opinion. Not everyone is going to agree with them because not everyone is playing from the same place.
5 -
It doesn't have to be strict.
Almost never will you get a match with all 5 players having the exact same MMR, let's say 1000 for example. That won't happen in the best of times, and like you mentioned, the matchmaker basically turns off for a fast replacement if someone drops out of a lobby.
You'll usually get 1 survivor at 800, 1 at 900, 1 at 1000, and 1 at 1200 or something, and it tries to match with a killer in about that range, but your killer might still be 1050, even though the average is 975.
Typically, what happens in most MMR systems is the gains and losses are weighted also, so if the survivors lose in this example to a killer higher rated than they are, they lose less MMR because they're expected to lose that match. Similarly the killer will gain less because they're expected to win.
1 -
I completely disagree that people's opinions don't matter just because they're not 'High MMR' when it comes to balancing or design. No game should be purely balanced around the top skilled people.
In an ideal world, this game should be balanced and perks/powers designed so that there is enough depth that highly skilled people can do things better than others and compete, but not so that the mechanic is frustrating, difficult to understand or feel oppressive to those who are of an average or lower skill.
If a noticeable and sizable amount of people are annoyed/frustrated with a killer design, it's not a 'suck it up buttercup' or 'stop spreading misinformation' situation just because high skilled people find it weak - it's an alert that BHVR need to balance numbers or change design so that the killer can skill express in a way that doesn't make the average player's game unenjoyable.
Skull Merchant is a perfect example of this. No she wasn't strong against a coordinated team before her recent nerf, but BHVR can't just keep that design around because it was incredibly frustrating for a sizable chunk of the playerbase. They also can't just 'buff' her because of this either to compete with 'high mmr' because that makes her even more oppressive to those who aren't - it's a complete nightmare in balance and probably why they opted for reworking her entirely.
7 -
This. I've played just about every MMO under the sun from 2000-now. Balancing around the top % of players is exactly how live service games die. You can't tell a new player "I know this is unplayable for you, but trust me, it'll get better once you have 1000 hours in the game."
12 -
Yeah, it's like the Dunning-Kruger effect: I'd bet 95% of all players think they're at a higher MMR than they are, and 95% of those who hear that would think they're in the 5% who know they're at a high MMR. Most people will presume they're more competent than they are in just about any scenario, and because DBD's MMR/MMR criteria (hell, most of the game parameters in general) are so poorly defined, it's pretty much anybody's guess.
But it's very easy to imagine a newer player who is just getting their arms around the game and winning a bit but not having hit the soft cap might think that they're near the top, when they're lower-mid.
But ultimately, it doesn't matter all that much because SBMM is gonna throw everyone in the pot together most of the time anyway.
That's why I am not a proponent of showing people's MMR; because unless they tighten up SBMM, it's just a number with little meaning. What would knowing your and others MMR do, practically speaking? Not a damned thing. And it will give people even more incentive to sweat, lobby dodge, and act elitist.
I'm not interested in my own MMR beyond a mild curiosity because I don't think it would change my experience one iota, except that it might lead me to start chasing numbers, which is exactly what I don't want to do in this mess of a game.
Though it would be gratifying to know that a whole lot of people who think they're top tier would find out that they're just middle of the pack.
4 -
My point isn't that their opinion doesn't matter, but you have people complaining about things like Xeno being overtuned or too strong when in reality they just need to learn how to play against it. People get stuck with these ideas in their head and refuse to improve, and they blame the game, devs, etc. So in terms of BALANCING, no the less skilled players should not be listened to, they need to just learn. This is why misinformation is so rampant.
1 -
But you really do need to take into consideration differing skill levels. If feedback from beginner, low and even intermediate players is ignored by the devs, how many of them do you think will stick around long enough to really "learn" how to play the game?
Take a Killer like Legion. Most people would agree they are a strong Killer at low MMR, but they fall off very dramatically when the skill and knowledge of the Survivors they go up against increases. If BHVR decided to buff Legion, they would have to do it in a way that wouldn't negatively affect Survivors that are already struggling against this Killer. Because in a worst case scenerio, they might end up with a Killer that could win a few extra games at the upper MMR limits, but become unbearably oppressive at the bottom MMR bracket (where the most players are likely to be facing a Legion). So you make the experience a tiny bit better for a very small percentage of top level players at the expense of the vast majority of players playing your game. I think this is kind of where Trickster has landed. Still considered weak in tier lists, but nevertheless a horrible experience for most players to face.
So yes, if you want to create a fun game that could be enjoyed at all skill levels by as wide an audience as possible, you do need to consider what the entire player base thinks.
5 -
Stating that you're not saying their opinion doesn't matter, and then later on saying they shouldn't be listened to isn't making sense to me - sorry. As someone else in this thread has already said, this isn't 'misinformation' - this is people having an opinion on killer design and how balanced or enjoyable they find it to go against.
Otz saying Xenomorph is a 'C Tier killer' isn't an official sealed stamp of approval across the DBD community (nothing against Otz for the record, think he's a great guy). You could ask many high skilled, top tier, great killer/survivor players across DBD and it's highly likely they're going to have many different opinions on Xenomorph's balance state and how BHVR should improve it. Some of which they may share with the 'average' survivor or even a low skilled one. There isn't a homogeneous high mmr opinion in DBD when it comes to balance.
Regardless, I can absolutely see why a lot people find Xenomorph frustrating to go against - a significant chunk of the counterplay is on your team-mates setting up the turrets well in chase, which is something you as an individual cannot always control, especially in a solo q environment. However, against a well organised team of survivors that know what the counterplay is and are communicating - they're probably having a much more enjoyable time and the Xenomorph less so, but it's highly unrealistic to expect average DBD solo q survivors to be able to have 4 people who know how to pull that off to the same degree.
I'd rather they make the 1v1 chase skill in Xeno MORE apparent, and make the team-mate reliance/flamethrowers less so if I were going to have an opinion on that killer - so that the Xenomorph's chase power isn't hindered by really good coordinated teams and likewise the survivor being chased isn't hindered by their own uncoordinated one.
3 -
5% seems as very old information, that had to be from early versions.
It doesn't make sense for killers at all, or killers are not winning as much it seems/people claim. If you keep winning your MMR has to go up, right? So most killer mains should be at this point above soft cap, no?
I could understand 5% from survivors tho.
0 -
If you didn't realize it until a content creator told you, then maybe it wasn't really an issue.
4 -
MMR is relative. You aren't gaining a flat 20 on a 4k regardless of the opponent MMR. That's why MMR systems are a bell curve with most people in the middle. You won't indefinitely gain MMR on wins regardless of opponent skill level. You eventually have to consistently beat opponents at X MMR.
1 -
Doesn't have to be flat, but basically every 3k should increase your MMR to some extent, right?
So at that point it's simply about number of games and with 60% kill rates your MMR is going to increase slowly, but many killer mains get higher kill rates than that. So 5% seems simply too low to me.
0 -
Depends on the algorithm. Remember that it's a 1v1v1v1 too. You get three survivors below your MMR and one above your MMR. Let's assume you get a 3k, but only get the survivors below your MMR. It's very conceivable that you get no gain from that trial, or possibly even lose MMR on a 2k gate escape.
6 -
Not really, because every time you lose makes up for those wins.
If you gain 5, then gain 5, then lose 10, you haven't moved.
In an MMR system if 2 players played each for eternity, and their skills never changed, their MMRs would remain constant after the first 100 games or so (probably way less), even if one of the players won considerably more than the other. Because when the better player won they would get less points that would be counteracted by when the worse player won.
It's like how Magnus Carlsen has been a 2800+ rated chess player for 15 to 16 years (I don't think he's dropped below in that time) at this point despite winning far more than he loses. The amount he gains from winning a match is incredibly small.
1 -
The amount he gains from winning a match is incredibly small.
Yeah, but any killer equal to that is way beyond soft cap, so doesn't matter.
Not really, because every time you lose makes up for those wins.
Yeah, but 60% kill rate means you gain more than lose.
Also how many games killer mains lose? Sure, I don't expect occasional killer players to be near softcap, but players who actually focus on them? I would guess majority is above soft cap.
0 -
I might be misunderstanding what you are asking / talking about, but here goes.
Yeah, but 60% kill rate means you gain more than lose.Not once things have settled.
If you had an evenly matched survivor and killer, the killer wins 3 out of every 5 games. However the 2 games the survivor wins in this scenario are worth the equivalent of the 3 games the killer wins.
So to use some made up numbers, let's presume an MMR win is 5 if the players were just starting off (same MMR). The killer and the survivor split into their 60 / 40 win percentage with the killer going up and the survivor going down. Pretty quickly, the MMR will slightly expect the killer to win, so they start awarding the killer player 4 MMR for a win, and when the survivor wins he gets 6. Over the course of 5 games both players would have gained, and lost, 12 points. Neither has moved, despite the killer winning more.
Now until things have settled (i.e. not a lot of games played), play fluctuates a lot, but once numbers have settled the fact that one player wins more than the other is accounted by how MMRs award points.
Sure, I don't expect occasional killer players to be near softcap, but players who actually focus on them? I would guess majority is above soft cap.You would expect people who focus on a game to be better at the game. I don't see why that would be unique for the killer side.
2 -
He recently came out with a tier list ranking Xeno about mid tier which apparently was "controversial", many people thinking Xeno is in a higher tier or better than it actually is.Tier lists being controversial isn't exactly new. It comes up all the time with even players having tens of thousands of hours disagreeing about certain killers (especially when we start discussing C to A ranks).
Specifically in this video, the 'controversy' that Otz cites at the beginning with the posts he put on screen aren't calling Xeno S tier by any means, but disagree with some of the killers Otz has above Xeno.
It's also strange because if the match he showed, where he got a 3k, against a stacked survivor team, is evidence of a strong survivor team / weak killer, that speaks volumes about the game.
Here lies the problem and this is a great example, because these people have never faced a top MMR survivor team that's able to properly counter Xenomorph.Never is such a strong statement. How many games are we discussing? 10, 50, 100?
To put this all bluntly, most people's opinions don't matter in terms of balancing the game because they've never faced the bestIs Otz the best Alien player in the world?
What's our dividing line for whose opinions are worthwhile and whose are not?
Maybe it's an issue with MMR and the whole matchmaking system too, but at least MMR should be shown to people for an ego check (for lack of better words).The one reason I would like MMR to be shown is I think it show to people the randomness that exists in the game. As killer, when the survivors get a good result its easy to assume they were high MMR, and if they a get bad result low MMR, but I really expect what would be shown is how much variance exists in the game. I think people would be surprised that they are hitting similar MMR ratings but getting wildly different results.
1 -
I was referring to your assertion that:
Simply due to the devs balancing around a 60% kill rate, the "average" killer will be going up against "above average" survivors, because "average" survivors are only escaping 40% of the time or less.
the 60/40 split doesn't apply like that as directly as you are implying with that statement. There will always be people who win matches they should have lost, and ones who lose what they should have won. You can have a killer be very lucky as they constantly get matches with Go Nexters who keep inflating their kill rate, survivors who get stuck in elo hell for the same reason, killers who give escapes they could have easily killed, last minute throws, and the myriad of balance issues on top. All of that in addition to the aforementioned points about things like backfill and wait times ruining SBMM's accuracy.
I would argue that I have learned a lot about the game over the years, so I like to think my understanding is adequate, but my mechanical skill (especially as killer) is nowhere near adequate for the dedicated players that I face at 3am. Likewise, I sometimes have games where I stomp due to the opponent(s) either throwing or just being that bad. The sheer volume of mismatches leads that kind of assumption (at least in my experience) to be completely inaccurate. I don't know if I'd call it the ol correlation =/= causation distinction, or simply that the assumption is only as accurate as the matchmaking… and I'm sure there are plenty of other people who have an abnormally high number mismatches as well.
That said, all that combines to me having absolutely no idea where I stand, nor being able to place myself as above or below an average I can't even identify empirically. I understand what you mean with weighted mmr gain/loss (which is great when its actually visible so the player has feedback to compare their own aptitude rating with their opponent's) but without said feedback you will never know what level you were playing against without having to estimate or flat out guess. Thats why I don't think the assumption that "average" killers regularly go against "above average" survivors is necessarily accurate. The distribution is just not that linear.
0 -
That's why the devs need to start treating this game like they're developers, not an overbearing mother. The thing that causes the most pressure on this game is playing and knowing you're in a rigged match, because killer (and bad teammates solo) feels that all the time. Not this imaginary pressure about MMR or rank, which literally every game does except this one for some reason. To protect people's insecurity or something? This is sissy crap.
0 -
My main thing about knowing MMR is that it allows people to reflect more accurately. If you have low MMR but constantly play against people with high MMR, win or lose you have absolutely zero way of directly knowing. Even if you don't know your opponent's MMR, just knowing your own and point gains/losses per match would give you a relative perspective to your opponent: If you lose and your MMR barely dips, you know you were playing against an opponent with high MMR, which allows you to make assumptions around them being more skilled at the game. If you win and gain next to nothing, you'll be able to assume you pub stomped.
This info might not seem like it matters, but it can be very helpful concerning learning from your matches. If you know you lost to someone who is better than you, it gives context to actions and strategies they might have applied, considerations for things like their build choices, etc. This can help games a lot with off-meta exploration: I know my fighting game comparisons are ever so popular, but Street Fighter 4 had a great example of this, by having both general and character specific MMR ratings that were both weighted like normal. If you played someone using a garbage character with both a high general and character MMR, you knew they were a specialist with that character. If they had high general MMR but low character MMR, you knew they most likely weren't using their main, maybe trying out a different character or playing casually. If they had low general MMR but high character MMR, they probably like experimenting with other characters but are falling back to their main due to something like a losing streak or an off day.
All of that type of data can be used to read into your opponent's mindset during a match, but it also gives you context on why they might have done some of the things they did during the match. If a specialist does something that seems completely stupid, there's a good chance there might be more to the strategy than you realize due to less familiarity. Likewise if they play a little bit of everyone and its not their main, they might be just trying things out or playing less intelligently than they normally would at their best. Most of this has nothing to do with your average player's feedback loop of "win = better, loss = worse," but it can make a pretty big difference for people who try to learn from their matches and especially from other players they face.
0 -
This feels very true. I used to believe I was top MMR. Then I got even better and some problem perks got nerfed, and I realized how crap most of this "top MMR" really was. I'm more likely in mid to low MMR.
Good. I don't want to be in the oasis of sweat that High MMR probably is, I'm totally fine down here with my Survivors I can choose to go easy or hard on depending on how hard they play.
1
