How can a system rate a player's skill?
I kinda like the idea of the new matchmaking system. However, I have a big concern.
How can a system be able to rank a player's skill? And what is defined as "good skill"?
Is a survivor, that runs to the main building/god loops every chase, skilled? Is a killer skilled, that get fast kills because he tunnels people to death or gets a 4k because survivors just farm each other? What about keys? Or moris? Or strong perks or add-ons, which give a lot of value in a match? (eg. Devour Hope can be a real game changer, if the survivors can't find the totem). Does the system count these things to "skill"?
Imo this hasn't much to do with skill at all. But I'm afraid, the system might count someone as skilled player because they escaped with a key or if they got a 4k because the survivors messed up badly, etc.
I think even as human it is already sometimes hard to tell what exactly "skill" is, and what just dumb mechanics are (eg. forcing a DS with jumping in a locker/sitting on a gen - is the survivor skilled because he escaped the killers grasp? Is the killer unskilled because he just ate the DS and dropped the survivor, even if it is on purpose early game?) How can a system tell this? Things like that are the main reason I'm really concerned about the new planned matchmaking system.
What is defined as "skill" by the system? I'm really curious and kinda doubt, that it will work properly. But we'll see I guess.
Comments
Honestly I have a feeling the MMR system is going to be based roughly on the current emblem system but with some tweaks to make it a bit more accurate.
So honestly MMR will just be the current rank system but with a higher cap.
I said this on a different discussion but I'm calling it now. The new MM isn't there to match ppl wit equal skills. It's there to predict wins and losses. Then make ppl physiologically happy with the results. Statistically the game will become close to 50/50. The devs said it themselves. Their system has gotten good at predicting whether or not the person succeeds or not. That doesn't imply skill.
Maybe you're right. But I guess then plays like forcing a DS will count as "skilled" for the survivor and "unskilled" for the killer, just as an example. It also counts in the emblem system, also as escaping with a key.
I don't think it should be like that.
Do we even want an accurate MMR rating? I mean like Scott Jund says -- do we want games with no weak links? Where everyone is about the same skill level? I mean it sounds good in theory, but in practice? I doubt it'd be much fun.
I get your idea, but somehow the system has to come to a conclusion, which means it has to measure something, I guess...?
And on the other hand, I think it is just not possible for a system to predict the outcome of a game. DbD is a game where 1 little mistake can change everything. How can a system predict something like that?
I really don't know what to think about this kind of MM.
As long as they keep toxic 4k tunnel facecamper killers and swf object of obsession flashlight bright skin people in their own matches and not with people who just want to take the game seriously, everything would be fine.
I also think like that.
If it would work perfectly, it would mean every game is a 2k - 2 survive. Which means, theoretically we'd already know how the game turns out, if everything would be as intended. Which is kinda boring I guess?
I mean at the moment there are sometimes games which are fun and you have in control and there are games which are actually frustrating. But isn't exactly this variety that helps to keep the game interesting?
If I'm not wrong, Matthieu Cote himself said a while ago, that the game is intended to be frustrating sometimes and that not everyone can happy every single match...