Dicerson
Dicerson
About
- Username
- Dicerson
- Joined
- Visits
- 8
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Kaitsja said:
A ranked mode would not make the game any better. It would simply result in split queues, which benefits nobody. If I wanted that, I'd go play Overwatch. People complain about balance in dbd but forget that their competitive multiplayer games are generally balanced top down.
Dbd does not balance from the top down. In top-down balance, the game is most balanced at the highest level of play and the people at the top inarguably know the most and what's best for that level of play. But top-down balance isn't perfect. It's based on the idea that buffs and nerfs will trickle down the ladder, which makes sense in theory until you realize that buffs and nerfs don't affect each skill bracket equally.
Here's an example from Overwatch. The devs released a hero to shut down a meta. This hero went on to dominate the game, quickly becoming the most picked with the highest winrate and basically being a tank despite being a support. After many many nerfs, they settled on a rework that turned the character into being heavily reliant on their team. The hero was still strong at the highest levels of play, but inarguably significantly weaker at the low and mid levels of play.
The rework did not have an equal effect on every skill bracket, because the changes were made with the highest level of play in mind.
Arguably, dbd is the most balanced it's ever been. The devs are working on maps to make them less survivor/killer-sided. Perks could still use some work, but the devs are getting there. Killer powers are generally pretty balanced, too. There's not much in the game that could be considered too strong.
I do agree that the game is heading in the right direction balance wise. Not every change is perfect, but they're definitely hitting more than missing in recent patches (although not with Sadako, IMO. Made her entirely reliant on her iri to really be any good)
However, the only real reason DBD isn't failing as a game is because it's the only particularly good option available at the moment. Most other games that could compete suffered severe mismanagement issues that led to shut down.
While it is certainly the case that top-down balance is perfect- it's better than pretty much anything else implemented by just about any competitive game in the history of ever (with exception, of course, to games which are perfectly symmetrical and static like Chess or certain older fps titles).
The game, as it stands, very frequently creates skewed matches, and as a result it is not uncommon for players on both sides feel like they're constantly losing (even if they really aren't, because brain psychology and the nature of asymmetrical games with independant victory conditions). MMR (and ranking systems in general) as a concept were invented because of this very issue.
Noone enjoys playing a game that feels unwinnable, noone enjoys the feeling of helplessness that comes from having to face insurmountable odds because the game matched you into someone several times above your skill level. Good players hardly notice when they're stomping, often only remembering the few matches where they get trounced by virtue of downright agonizing strategies that vary from difficult to unbeatable depending on map luck.
Even if it only happens once out of every 5-10 games, the amount of frustration generated by that occasional crippling defeat is enough to sour the experience of every single other match. The dread that it could happen at literally any time drives people away, and causes burnout to accelerate to an incredible degree. There is a very, very good reason why every single time a potential competitor title comes up, the DBD playerbaser flocks to that game in droves out of sheer desperation for something better.
Obviously, a split queue for casual/ranked isn't an endall solution. Like I mentioned in the post, its ultimately a stopgap measure that allows players to at least have some control and open visibility. It lets players who don't want to constantly risk having their entire day ruined by one bad game do something to actively avoid that outcome, by allowing the players whose mere existence leads that outcome play in an entirely separate queue.
For the more serious players, it at leats let them feel less bad about taking strong stuff because they know they aren't like to be crushing any baby killers/survivors. And a Drafting system would also give players a dramatic degree of control over the game balance itself, letting players decide on a personal basis what things are too unfun/unfair and therefore avoid having to deal with it. Thus removing frustration and generally improving the entire game experience.
There's a reason, as stated in the OP, that this kind of stuff is a convention. It isn't just a tradition, it was invented with a purpose in mind- and it fulfils it near perfectly. Even with active competition, games with accurate Ranking systems and fair Drafts are very very good at preserving their playerbase and lowering burnout. Especially if such systems are coupled by clear and obvious patch-by-patch improvements to the game.
-
@Peanits said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3515937#Comment_3515937
I think there may be some misconceptions here, so I'll do my best to clear them up.
The game does use an MMR system for matchmaking and it has not been removed. That said, not every match will be perfect. Matchmaking systems need to balance match quality and queue times carefully. If it prioritizes making the absolute perfect matches every time, you're going to wind up waiting a very long time for a match. While some may be okay with that wait, others don't care as much and would rather play sooner. It's a tricky thing to perfect and something we're always tweaking to improve. The vast majority of matches are already within a very close margin where your odds of winning vary by a few percent.
There are some extreme cases where this is not possible, though. For example, if there aren't enough players near your rating playing in your area at the time you're playing. In cases like this, the matchmaking system has to gradually expand its search range until it can find you a match, otherwise you may be waiting a very long time (possibly forever). This scenario is fairly uncommon, and while it's unfortunate, there's not much we can do there. The matchmaking system can only work with the pool of players that are available to it.
But as far as levels go, they mean absolutely nothing and have no impact on matchmaking. If an expert survivor happened to pick a new character this match, they aren't suddenly a terrible player. Especially since the progression overhaul, they even have access to most perks right away. The same goes for grades and prestige; they have absolutely zero impact on matchmaking and do not reflect someone's skill in any way.
The exception to this is the PTB. Matchmaking ratings are not used on the PTB since there are not enough players on the test build to create quality matches. Therefore, it's disabled and you can be paired with anyone.
I think a big part of what has alot of people convinced that DBD matchmaking is near to non-existant is a combination of two main things
The first thing is that there is a possibility that the maximum range is a bit too wide at the extreme ends. The main complaint I hear is from cases of extremely skilled players with thousands and thousands of hours matching into people who have maybe a few hundred- and such a fact shows well before the match ends, as such games tend to be terribly onesided in the favor of the veteran. I hear and see from alot of high end players that something in the park of 90% of their matches are basically trivial because they match into people who don't know what they're doing.
The second thing, and the thing that much easier to fix, is the fact that MMR/Ranking is not visible or apparent to players. The way you've phrased your post here implies that the MMR system is very granular with a wide range of tiers or brackets for skill; but that is about as far from common consensus on MMR as it gets from the perspective of the players (as propagated by the game's content creation community). Most players are convinced that DBD MMR consists of a very small number of brackets, the absolute highest end of which is extraordinarily wide and encompasses the vast majority of the playerbase- therefore resulting in these skewed matches being the norm.
If that is in fact the case, then the fault is clearly a flawed system for calculating MMR which does not accurately reflect the skill of the players and is falsely placing too many people in the highest bracket. If it is not the case, and the system is in fact granular as your post seems to imply, then the easiest fix would be to simply make MMRs visible to players. Their own, and those of their opponents post-match; including MMR changes from match results. This would give everyone a much better idea of how the MMR is actually working and do absolute wonders to mitigate complaints about the system- as if people can clearly see their relative granular rankings, they may be much more inclined to believe that the other players simply made too many mistakes and had a bad match.
Of course, this would also happen to expose any potential flaws in the MMR calculation since it would be glaringly obvious if the system is giving players too much MMR for wins relative to losses- or if the game is even correctly identifying what constitutes a win or a loss in the first place.