The Ranking System Should Be Abolished
It simply doesn’t belong, as it’s:
Not a measurement of skill
Does not provide rewards
Increased queue times
Reduces connection quality
The current ranking system of Dead by Daylight is a hinderance to the overall quality of Dead by Daylight.
The system is more an assessment of time played than skillful play. The system increases queue times significantly, and in some cases indefinitely. And in its attempt to find a “balanced” match, it diminishes the connection quality in the process.
One could argue that Dead by Daylight would lose a sense of progression to it. However given that Rank 1 can be achieved within a few days, and that it resets on a very short monthly basis. There seems to be little reason to keep this system that’s actively deteriorating the game altogether.
Others would argue that it simply requires a rework. That it shouldn’t be removed just because it’s currently a poor system.
And if Dead by Daylight was aiming to be a competitive game, I’d be inclined to agree. But time and time again the community and Behavior have made it clear they want a more casual direction for the game. There’s nothing wrong with that, though if that is the intention then the ranking system serves as nothing else but shackles.
Comments
Everyone, eventually does, get to rank one. Every has the ability to get to rank one (which defeats the purpose of a "ranking" system).
The system is only gated one way: new players aren't supposed to be grouped with rank 1 players (yet they due). People derank to play against new players.
The current system is completely bonkers and should not be called a "rank" system at all. It is more like a leveling system (like WoW....everyone can be max rank, yet not everybody is.).
@Attackfrog
@Master
I think people who believe DBD has a ranking system should play Dota 2 for a month and see if they can manage to reach the higher ranks there as well. Maybe that'll teach them what a ranking system is.
It's really mind-blowing that if so many bad people reach rank 1 and admit not understanding the game fully yet, others still deny this experience, and if not that the facts.
DBD has the most deceitful seasonal grinding system there is.
Yes! Thank you! I play D3 periodically (usually when a season looks interesting) so that is sort of my Gold Standard to what a season and season ranking should be (I end up usually around rank #132999...give or take a few thousand).
There is a rank 1 and ONLY one rank 1. And it is 100% based on gameplay and achievement within the game (and how quickly it is accomplished). There is a real competitive feel to it (well, not for me)
Currently, DbD has 3 leveling systems (Bloodweb, player level and "rank"), but no actual way to rank players based on merit.
The key word has the ability to get to rank 1 here, since in any game anyone has the ability to technically get to rank 1. But having the ability and actually getting there are 2 completely different things.
That's not due to the ranking system at it's core but to swf and just people being jerks which happens in other games to. However in those other games there's penalties some quite harsh for people that derank to face new players.
What's laughable about it is a lot of the ones complaining about the rank system are also ones that abuse it and oppose systems that would punish derankers. If you look at how LEague handled it they punished people but the people here like i said oppose being punished for deranking to help fix the issue.
This is true but also refutes your 1st point because no not everyone gets to rank 1 and while you have the ability it doesn't make it happen.
Abolishing it how? So a past rank 1 survivor has the chance to go against a new player and soil their initial experience with the game? The current iteration of the system may suck, but at least it prevents new players from getting smashed initially for the most part
New players would be the exception and be isolated from most players.
I'm with you 100%. No rewards, No reason for scumbags to derank, No Lobby wait times. Keep new players in the kiddie pool till they have played x amount of hours and than let them swim with the sharks.
Exactly, every rank system is built such that the majority of players hover at gold/silver which would be corresponding roughly to rank 15-10 in DBD. Most of the players should actually never be able to pass rank 10 for example, but you can easily do that in a few days....
We had a thread today from a rank 20 killer that was complaining that nobody joined his lobby for an hour.
All that shows is that the current system is ineffective at helping new players.
How does that show that removing ranks, and then creating a system for new players would be bad?
What? I find it quite the opposite, that rank 1 survivors like to say rank doesn't matter, as they derank for "chill" matches.
The only people saying rank doesn't matter are people who routinely hit rank 1. To everyone else who sits in a particular rank bracket, rank clearly does matter and mean something. The ranking system isn't perfect but without it, we would have an incredibly screwed up matchmaking system. Think your teammates are bad already at rank 1? Imagine if people with 2k hours can suddenly be paired up with new players who still don't know what they are doing, or just people who are not that great at the game, just because they are close to each other/have good ping. That's ridiculous. A ranking system is absolutely necessary for matchmaking purposes to keep the game at least relatively fair. It's the only thing keeping relatively equally skilled people versing each other rather than demolishing those less skilled or being stomped by those more skilled. I do think it could be reworked to better reflect the skill involved in playing the game but suggesting we do away with it completely just seems ridiculous to me.
I was just trying to point out how the system that is supposed to protect the beginners hurts them actually
Lots of resistance on this and I wasn’t sure what exactly you meant.
I can see some people still defend the "ranking" system.
It's not a terrible system...if it weren't so misleading (especially for new players, who it is designed to protect).
It IS achievable by all players, should they decide to.invest the time. It is not achieved by all players (@powerbats, I do not know how to display the difference. You suggest that one negates the other but this is untrue. I am not sure how to best explain how this is true and negates the idea of "ranks", as they are portrayed in this game).
The point is: this game has no rank system. The system it calls "rank" is merely a third (and unnecessary) system to portray a player's time investment.
It is designed to protect new players, but due to the ease of abuse, it does the opposite: allows more hardcore players to bully them for more bloodpoints.
As an fyi: it's like the old WoW pvp realms where slightly higher levels could rank the low ranking zones. (I reference wow a lot...it shows my age lol)
ranking"system is a joke which reset every month , getting to rank 1 gives nothing so what the point of the ranking system?
I do understand but I think without it you'd get low skill players and lets not kid ourselves here there's some with 500+ hours that still suck. There's quite a few that can' get past rank 15 and quite a few have posted about it saying killers are op etc.
Now if you're realistically talking about playing with sharks and say you're maining a survivor only it's really around 1k hours or more that you really start to learn how to play. By then you should have the following general knowledge.
Be able to hit great skill check not 100% of the time but at least 50% of the time
Know where totem spawns are and be cleansing them.
Know where generators are for the most part and which ones have priority to be done ie don't 3 gen yourself or if you see it happening work on gens to counter it.
Know the map tiles and where the safe and unsafe pallets are, where good and bad looping spots are, where good and bad places to hide are.
Don't be stupid with Hag traps near hooked players ( we all bang our heads against desks on this one when we see it.)
Do safe unhooks like not running into the camping Bubba holding his chainsaw aloft and who eats Borrowed Time users for breakfast etc.
I could go on here but you get the point but without a rank system as it stands you'd get stuck with those horrible potatoes against say a Marth because you think they're good enough due to hours played.
Now it looks like we are arguing about which word we are describing. I agree with your bullet points. To me, that is more of a "leveling" system rather than a way to rank players. But whatever they choose to call it, I agree that there should be a way to place killers into matches with people of similar skill. Skill tiers/ranks/levels would make sense. The current system of rank/level/pseudo-skill is clearly broken because I consistently get matches against very skilled players at low ranks and various potatoes in high ranks.
I think it has some degree of success because, unless someone is a COMPLETE potato, you can't help but gain at least a little skill by sinking in 500 hours. It's just too easy to manipulate.
Honestly I agree, especially the fact that newbies can easily be paired up with other skilled players when the rank resets. This could lead to new people having strong disinterest for the game. Honestly if we're talking skill-based matchmaking, it should rely on the overall player level devotion.
But it doesn’t, often matches are quite unbalanced and worsened by SWF (high ranks queuing with low ranks). Not to mention how exploitable the whole system is.
I want to point out 1 mayor problem with completely abandoning "rank". Despite rank not working, matching players based on a seasonal grind still gives some degree of skill-based matching, or at least more so than none.
Since survivors have 4 players and killers have 1;
Killers having 100% power and every survivor having 25% power.
With a perfect matchmaking the above would be true, resulting in a 100% vs 100% power distribution.
If there is no matchmaking then if you are a great killer, playing against a great survivor, the chance of that survivor having good teammates is vastly decreased;
You'd have 27% (thus 4 of you being stronger than the killer) but the rest of your teammates are: 15%, 17%, 5% resulting in a total of 64%. Despite survivors being the stronger side, due to the lack of any matchmaking, a good killer will nearly always dominate against the survivors.