We have temporarily disabled Baermar Uraz's Ugly Sweater Cosmetic (all queues) due to issues affecting gameplay.

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

beater15
beater15 Member Posts: 41
edited January 5 in General Discussions

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).

Post edited by beater15 on
«1

Comments

  • PetTheDoggo
    PetTheDoggo Member Posts: 384
    edited January 5

    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.

  • beater15
    beater15 Member Posts: 41
    edited January 5

    "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.

  • beater15
    beater15 Member Posts: 41

    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.

  • beater15
    beater15 Member Posts: 41

    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.

  • TwinsMain2004
    TwinsMain2004 Member Posts: 79

    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

  • TwinsMain2004
    TwinsMain2004 Member Posts: 79

    bad players shouldn't dicate balance

    dbd is literally one of the only games where they do

  • beater15
    beater15 Member Posts: 41
    edited January 5

    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.

  • smurf
    smurf Member Posts: 558

    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 :/

  • beater15
    beater15 Member Posts: 41
    edited January 5

    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

  • satx3241
    satx3241 Member Posts: 112

    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.

  • PetTheDoggo
    PetTheDoggo Member Posts: 384

    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…

  • beater15
    beater15 Member Posts: 41

    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.

  • Ryuhi
    Ryuhi Member Posts: 3,929

    As well as the Id I assume, but where is your super ego, my friend? :)

  • edgarpoop
    edgarpoop Member Posts: 8,487

    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.

  • AmpersandUnderscore
    AmpersandUnderscore Member Posts: 1,937

    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.

  • jajay119
    jajay119 Member Posts: 1,111

    exactly. Developers usually balance games around the majority, not the minority. Being ‘the best’ doesn’t mean anything.

  • PetTheDoggo
    PetTheDoggo Member Posts: 384

    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.

  • Ryuhi
    Ryuhi Member Posts: 3,929
    edited January 5

    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.

  • beater15
    beater15 Member Posts: 41

    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.

  • Ryuhi
    Ryuhi Member Posts: 3,929
    edited January 5

    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.

  • danielmaster87
    danielmaster87 Member Posts: 9,773

    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.

  • danielmaster87
    danielmaster87 Member Posts: 9,773

    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?

  • danielmaster87
    danielmaster87 Member Posts: 9,773

    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.

  • DragonMasterDarren
    DragonMasterDarren Member Posts: 2,883

    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

  • edgarpoop
    edgarpoop Member Posts: 8,487
    edited January 6

    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.

  • KatsuhxP
    KatsuhxP Member Posts: 1,009

    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.

  • AmpersandUnderscore
    AmpersandUnderscore Member Posts: 1,937

    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.

  • Thusly_Boned
    Thusly_Boned Member Posts: 3,025

    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.

  • beater15
    beater15 Member Posts: 41
    edited January 6

    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.

  • Jarky
    Jarky Member Posts: 632

    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.

  • PetTheDoggo
    PetTheDoggo Member Posts: 384

    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.

  • Mr_K
    Mr_K Member Posts: 9,282

    If you didn't realize it until a content creator told you, then maybe it wasn't really an issue.

  • edgarpoop
    edgarpoop Member Posts: 8,487

    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.

  • PetTheDoggo
    PetTheDoggo Member Posts: 384

    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.

  • crogers271
    crogers271 Member Posts: 1,976

    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.

  • PetTheDoggo
    PetTheDoggo Member Posts: 384

    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.

  • crogers271
    crogers271 Member Posts: 1,976

    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.

  • crogers271
    crogers271 Member Posts: 1,976

    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 best

    Is 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.

  • Ryuhi
    Ryuhi Member Posts: 3,929
    edited January 7

    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.

  • danielmaster87
    danielmaster87 Member Posts: 9,773

    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.

  • Ryuhi
    Ryuhi Member Posts: 3,929

    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.

  • LockerLurk
    LockerLurk Member Posts: 97

    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.