Patrick is wrong, in a polite way there are better ways
2K 2E will never be a good and balanced match especially in my eyes, it shows an outcome but nothing that happened to get there.
I understand hooks dont paint a full picture but they paint a better one. Hooks will always show more than kills, someone who can do many many chases (downs, mindgames, outplays) etc.. show more skill over the other players
Patrick's one and only arguments that had some standing was the "is it a win, or a loss" well how about a tie/draw?
This game is a 4v1, it will never be perfectly balanced and that's just how it is but holding an asymmetric game to a similar view to the 4v4 equal games is a mistake.
My idea, balance on hooks (mostly) individual hooks =1point and a kill=2points. This way someone who can 3 hook someone and get a kill gets far more than someone just face camping.
You can decide what is a win, draw and lose. In Patrick's example 8hooks can be a draw, anything more will increase your rank (the more hooks the more you go up) and anything less would be a loss (lesser hooks mean a bigger loss)
In an unbalanced game having a draw is acceptable, both sides can play incredibly well.
In this game 3hooks on 1 person is a kill, in hockey you dont score 3 times to get 1 point. Your "shots" are downs, none are rewarded, killers arent rewarded for getting a down. Yes you're downing (taking a shot in hockey) but it doesnt mean you'll score, however hooking someone should be a score, and a kill should be a bonus like in other sports that provide more points for a better "play"
Edit: dont ban me for a discussion, no disrespect here at all just a better view or at least in my eyes.
Comments
MMR was just a terrible, terrible mistake.
The Emblem System and its old, bloodpoints-based predecessor were not perfect, but replacing them with this...thing, was one of BHVR's worst decisions.
And BHVR is the master of awful decisions, as proved countless times.
Well that's because there is no draw, you win or lose its that simple. However like most games with SBMM it's a 4v4 and everything is equal not to mention alot of them have seasons.
But you say this SBMM keeps things equal but in reality thats not the case, within 1 game you can have both a killer and survivor increase in MMR same as you can have a killer and survivor decrease.
This SBMM doesn't work as well as youd think especially if you're in the higher bracket, I'm not even talking about balance issues but just the fact there is a soft cap on mmr so even if you win hundreds after the soft cap it wont matter, you'll simply be marked at that soft cap rating.
So in theory you could get survivors with 5000mmr versing a killer at 1999mmr just because the soft cap is 2000mmr (this means those 5000 ones are counted as 2000) obviously this is just an example bit this happens, not to mention backfill and the game forcing fast matches over SBMM in the first place.
Saying hooks dont work is a lie, very similar to the lie they said about kills/escapes being bad and they wont use it. Hooks would naturally have a better balance point as they show each stage (6hooks is 6hooks, unlike 1 kill which is 0-9hooks).
Issue is using things like hooks and other actual skillful actions as a ranking system would be more effort and more challenging. When it took the devs so long to put a kill/escapes SBMM I'm not surprised they didnt go for a more complex system, in there eyes it would be too time consuming and would prefer focusing on other things
The problem is people not really understanding what a matchmaking tool is
First off people are hyperfocussing on skill. Mmr isn't and was never meant to be a skill calculator. There is more to matchmaking then just estimate skill
At the end of the match mmr doesn't ask "how skilled was this person?" It asks "should this person face stronger or weaker opponents?"
For example a legion who can kill everyone and have 12 hooks? Should they face stronger or weaker opponents? Well obviously stronger they crushed them.
A bubba who one hooks everyone by facecamping them and get 4 kills. Nobody is going to deny that this didn't take a lot of skill. Still though, Should they face stronger or weaker opponents? Well stronger obviously, they need to face survivors that know what to do against a camper and rush gens as best as possible.
A claudette hiding all match doing nothing and escaping of their teammates sweat. You can't go lower in skill then that. But again. Should they face weaker or stronger killers? Cause for me it sounds that they need to face a killer that doesn't lose a 3v1 and will punish her if she doesn't pull her weight.
Nurse with 9 hooks and 1 kill. Should they face stronger or weaker opponents? Well they obviously crushed at chases but dbd isn't just chases. And with 9 hooks having only 1 kill means they did a horrible job with their hook distribution. They exceled at the micro but couldn't be worse at the macro so honestly they should face weaker ones untill they learn or care to target better
Second people are focussing to much on single match results. Classic example of the 5 gen chase into facecamp. In that one instance mmr is wrong. It thinks you should face a weaker killer when you obviously should face a stronger one.
Thing is that mmr doesn't work on single instances. It works on avarages. And in my experience and i think most peoples if i can believe the forums a survivor that runs for 5 gens most often then not is the survivor that runs out of the gate with bt, ds, 2 people bodyblocking and a person waiting to open the gate at a moments notice. Not to mention that only 1/4 survivors can be the 5 gen chase person.
On avarage that 5 gen chase person should escape way more often then they lose. So while in that one instance mmr isn't correct. It evens out.
And third people are getting angry at the wrong thing. Matches have become more difficult and they blame mmr for it. Thing is that that matchup would have been equally difficult without mmr.
Mmr just made those matchups more common for competant people. If you want mmr gone then what you are saying is that you want your difficult match to be given to a weaker killer and take their easy matchup. Or that you are okay beating an opponent cause their teammates were outclasses. You can't call that very skillfull too. Or does skill suddenly not matter anymore at that point?
Mmr is doing an adequate job at what it's suppose to. Not perfect mind you but pretty well. It just highlighted the balance problems at high level again and everyone is shooting the messenger while they should be focussing their complaints on that imbalance. Not the matchmaking
I’ve responded to most these points multiple times now and you’re either ignoring it or misunderstanding what I’m saying.
I do appreciate the constructive debate and I think it’s valuable to see both sides, but I honestly see no reason to keep going around in circles; this topic sort of bores me and I had no intention of getting into a big debate in the first place.
In simple terms, achieving the main objective does not accurately measure the necessary sub objectives, therefore it’s a poor measure of player skill and results in a poor matchmaking system which ignores highly important information.
I see this as such a no brainer that I’m surprised there’s such a large discussion about it in the first place.
It is absolutely possible to consistently escape whilst contributing the bare minimum, just as it is possible to contribute significantly more than the rest of your team, whilst failing to actually escape.
This is a big issue because matchmaking is pushing the wrong people in the wrong direction based off some arbitrary rule which ignores the reality of how the actual game functions.
It’s easy to look at everything in a vacuum and to deduce that “the objective is to escape therefore escaping is the only thing that matters when it comes to matchmaking,” but this is faulty, circular logic which - while sounding nice on paper - means very little in actual reality.
We are going to have to agree to disagree because we aren’t going to get anywhere.
Yeah I don’t get it mate. I can see why some people think escapes alone are good enough for matchmaking and at a cursory glance it can sound reasonable, but when you start to deconstruct it, you find a whole host of issues.
Even BHVR have said they’d like to take more things into account, but they aren’t confident enough in their ability to do it well I suppose.
*I’ve responded to most these points multiple times now and you’re either ignoring it or misunderstanding what I’m saying.
No, you have not answered my questions - you have repeatedly failed to respond to my request to define exactly what you mean by "skill" in the context of this game without using examples or circular definitions. This is the third time.
*In simple terms, achieving the main objective does not accurately measure the necessary sub objectives, therefore it’s a poor measure of player skill and results in a poor matchmaking system which ignores highly important information.
Like I have already shown, this is simply your assertion, and nothing more. AGAIN, you have failed to answer WHY you believe measuring "sub objectives" are necessary or even important, when the whole purpose of their existence are to simply fulfill the main objective. If their main objective ended in failure, then it means that whatever progress they were making in "sub objectives" simply weren't enough, and therefore absolutely meaningless in the end. Don't agree? Prove it.
*It is absolutely possible to consistently escape whilst contributing the bare minimum, just as it is possible to contribute significantly more than the rest of your team, whilst failing to actually escape.
If certain players are consistently winning the game while doing the bare minimum, why shouldn't they face stronger players? After all, if they are always winning with such little effort, imagine what they can do when they actually try. It's important that they are faced with stronger opponents who will challenge them to do more. On the other hand, if you are consistently losing despite believing that you are doing more than others, perhaps you need weaker opponents to reflect on why you are producing so little results - as I stated before, perhaps you are wasting too much effort in learning to do a 50m butterfly in 25 sec during a chess game. Efforts are meaningless unless they can provide consistent results.
*This is a big issue because matchmaking is pushing the wrong people in the wrong direction based off some arbitrary rule which ignores the reality of how the actual game functions.
There's nothing "arbitrary" about the win conditions - they've always been the same - what's "arbitrary" is what you assert as being "skills" without proving it, and then wanting these random elements of the game to raise or lower the players' MMR when they may not have anything to do with their ability to win the game.
*It’s easy to look at everything in a vacuum and to deduce that “the objective is to escape therefore escaping is the only thing that matters when it comes to matchmaking,” but this is faulty, circular logic which - while sounding nice on paper - means very little in actual reality.
Again, an assertion - nothing more than a baseless claim. No? Then you are more than welcome to prove your case if you want.
*We are going to have to agree to disagree because we aren’t going to get anywhere.
That's probably because you can't seem to answer simple questions.
It doesn't matter how MMR is calculated if the matching based on that MMR doesn't work. As killer main, during certain hours of day, I get survivors with 10 times less hours than me, who don't have any understanding of what looping is or capability to look behind and then the match is over with 1 or 2 gens done. Boring to me, frustrating to them. But time to match obviously takes precedence over proper SBMM.
Whatever you need to tell yourself.
This will be the fourth time. Define "skill" in the context of this game without using examples or circular definitions. We'll start there.
Been there, done that. As I said, I appreciate the debate however I’m just not into the discussion enough to keep re-hashing the same stuff, or to even get into a big back and forth about it in the first place lol.
Also when people start finger wagging it just makes me less interested if I’m already disinterested, but at least you’re constructive.
I think we’ve both made our cases clearly and we should just leave it at that. There’s plenty for people to read and mull over.
@EntitySpawn
"But you say this SBMM keeps things equal but in reality thats not the case, within 1 game you can have both a killer and survivor increase in MMR same as you can have a killer and survivor decrease."
Sure, but then the other three survivors should lose / win to even it out, at least in theory.
"Saying hooks dont work is a lie, very similar to the lie they said about kills/escapes being bad and they wont use it. Hooks would naturally have a better balance point as they show each stage (6hooks is 6hooks, unlike 1 kill which is 0-9hooks)."
And like I wrote, considering hooks creates awkward situations where every player can win, which screws over the math in the long run. That's exactly what Patrick mentioned in the QA. And he's perfectly right with it. When you have instances where all players rise up in rating, that means you create a rating inflation in the long run. The devs don't want that, so they choose a strategy where that issue should not happen.
"Issue is using things like hooks and other actual skillful actions as a ranking system would be more effort and more challenging. When it took the devs so long to put a kill/escapes SBMM I'm not surprised they didnt go for a more complex system, in there eyes it would be too time consuming and would prefer focusing on other things"
Yes, counting skillful actions would likely make a better system, but with the mentioned drawbacks. And the devs deemed the kill-based system to be good enough. Also, implying that the devs took all the time for just implementing the kill-based solution is not really fair. We had multiple MMR tests, and you can expect that different metrics where used in the different test runs. And the easiest, kill-based solution likely turned out best. Nobody of us knows which strategies were actually tested besides the one we finally got.
Racing a car needs you to step in it first :D So yes.
Auto-what?
Hey they were looking for an easy measure and they got a nice binary metric die/escape.
Is it representative of skill though? Probably not as players define it because the emblem system took into account contribution which is probably a better descriptor of skill overall than just die/escape.
The great irony is the old rank system was probably a better measure of ‘skill’ than the new SBMM.
You state Patrick is wrong, and there are better ways... this is an assertion of an objective fact from your POV, i.e. not an opinion.
Yet you failed to provide any basis to say why he's wrong, or what the better ways are? You posited scoring based on hook count, but you gave literally zero mathematical proof as to how this would work over a series of matches with survivors of varying ability, or even various scenarios.
By your metric, a killer who manages to down everyone quickly and hook/kill them all together (i.e. a strong player) would be ranked lower than someone who struggles to keep anyone on hook and has to go after survivors multiple times (i.e. a weaker player that couldn't achieve their objection quickly enough and risked the survivors escaping).
Therefore, the stronger player would then be matched against weaker survivors, whereby presumably they could keep repeating the exact same process, whilst the weaker player would go against stronger survivors, and thus encounter even more difficult games.
And when you extrapolate this, it leads to absurdities.
So please, explain with proofs, etc, how exactly your proposed solution is better and how you know more about this than the professionals who do this for a living, and have the data at their disposal to test their theories. I'm dying to learn from your fountain of knowledge.
They should also make it harder to depip so i don't lose as much mmr as i do whenever i get hit by a barrage of Nurse and blight all hacing the same Meta build and add ons, I just want to play this game without thinking of winning sometimes.
don't feed the trolls, they won't contribute to the discussion either way, they just want to argue.