GhostRider1518
GhostRider1518
About
- Username
- GhostRider1518
- Joined
- Visits
- 78
- Last Active
Comments
-
Wide Open is going to be a pain and might be OP/broken, because played together with Lithe and Cross-Examination, you get 75% Haste for free, the pallet stays up, and you can easily lose the killer because you leave no scratch marks. And on tiles with high walls, it's going to be a nightmare. Which, considering a lot of maps have a ton of pallets, is going to be tough. Also, the time the pallet stays blocked by Wide Open is a bit annoying, because the pallet stays up and you can't do anything about it as a killer, while another surv can't use it during that time. They should shorten it to 45s max and it'll be fine. The killer perks are okay, well, maybe except for Silent Shadow, because there are better Undetectable perks for the early game, and for the endgame it's kind of a waste of a slot. And the Haste one after stacking tokens is a bit map- and killer-dependent, because you don't kick every pallet with every killer, and it depends on the map how many there will be, which might mean we won't charge the perk to 100%, but those extra % are always something.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4064483#Comment_4064483
That was just an example to counter the argument “data isn’t collected during the match.”
Now were making things up to get out the corner are we? Me and you both know that wasnt what was said. Its that the system reads activities but not why those activities happened. The variables.
this is literally what you said lol
"Measuring every variable is unreliable"
If you believe this is true, then why does the game engine calculate Chase Time, Generator Repairs, and Safe Unhooks with perfect accuracy in order to award Bloodpoints and Emblems in every game? The game has already created a reliable system.
You brought up the emblem system in response to "Measuring every variable is unreliable" not "data isn’t collected during the match." Now your trying to do damage control by lying to once again avoid from just admitting your system had major flaws.
Now, we need to figure out how to feed some of that data into 2 functions—or maybe even 3—related to MMR. This does not equate to a return to the old emblem-based system. And ever since this misunderstanding
You’re still using the same activity data to judge performance and influence matchmaking, that’s literally what the emblem system was.
Why are you resorting to childish tactics to get out of a tight spot? Is this supposed to be a serious discussion? Do you still not get it, or are you just pretending and trolling? If you're trolling, you've succeeded—you've made me laugh. The example with the emblems was just an illustration to show that this data is collected during a match. Look at the comments above. People wrote that this data isn’t collected and that a system for collecting it would have to be built from scratch, or that there are “nuances” that make it impossible. The emblem example is just an example of where you get blood points in every match. And you took it for granted. And no, my PROPOSAL wasn’t a 1:1 return to the old emblem system. In my SUGGESTION, the emblems themselves wouldn’t be taken into account at all. What would be taken into account is what those emblems are made of—the goals in the match. That’s the point. That’s the core of it. Goals and their activity would be taken into account. If you loop a killer for a long time—a small MMR increase. A small, insignificant, or minor MMR penalty. Where do you get the looping time from? From the data that’s already being collected for emblems, but you don’t take the emblems themselves into account. And if what you do during the match doesn’t matter, then the paths to victory don’t matter either. Including tunneling, slugging, and camping. You simply didn’t understand what I meant. I don’t know, maybe you’re not reading carefully, or maybe I didn’t write something clearly—I don’t know. And now you’re “blaming the AI, puffing yourself up with pride” to save face. Don’t do that. And is using the same data as in the old system a problem? If it is a problem, then why am I currently getting blood points for looping the killer, for dropping a pallet? If this is bad data, then according to your logic, I shouldn’t get anything. And again—no, that doesn’t mean a 1:1 mapping like in the old system. My SUGGESTION ≠ a return to the old eBmlemat system. But if that’s the case, don’t dodge answering those questions above; don’t ignore them. I’m curious about your answers. Did the AI write this too, or is the lifeline no longer working here? 😂
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4064365#Comment_4064365
Microsoft Word doesn't enforce line breaks and wide spacing in posts. Who told you that? Did I write something like that? No? Then please don't accuse me of something I didn't write, and please read carefully.Oh, wow, that's a take.
Let me break the point down.
-AI loves to break things up into bullet points (frequently equally sized in terms of text) and put large spaces in between them.
-You have posts that look exactly like that
-People accuse you of using AI
-You defend yourself by saying you use Microsoft Word
-I point out that doesn't make sense because Microsoft Word doesn't do those things
-You respond with the above that just misses everything.
@Valuetown already covered a lot of this really early after the point was brought up. They even did their best to do two different posts to separate the issues, you're the one who merged the discussions.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063693#Comment_4063693
I set up that formatting in Word for YOUR convenience, but no, that's not it.Then the Microsoft Word argument makes no sense. If like that formatting, that should have been your explanation, not that Word somehow did it, because bullet points aren't some unique Word feature.
Another thing is that you’re yet another person who sees the discussion but doesn’t read it carefully, yet really wants to chime in. This is JUST A SUGGESTION.Sigh, and people are pointing out why the suggestion (all caps or not) doesn't work. That's what makes it a discussion. Ideally if you believe in it you should be wanting as many people to 'chime in' as possible.
People nitpicking the text formatting, nitpicking the spacing, nitpicking when I respond, and nitpicking that this is my first and only post. Well, a very mature, substantive, and technical discussion...In large part because you've wanted to focus on the other things instead of the substance.
For the nitpicking - the first page of this thread was an actual discussion, the second page broke down, the what you call nitpicking didn't even really come up to the third page.
You can't say you want a mature, substantive, and technical discussion, and the moment people point out the problems you go 'It's just a suggestion!'. Mature, substantive, and technical discussions require getting into the substantive and technical details, being mature about it means not yelling and accepting the possibility that your idea might not be correct and welcoming responses that look at potential problems.
You talk about reading with comprehension, yet you yourself don’t read with comprehension. I never wrote anywhere that Word FORCES this kind of formatting. Microsoft Word does not force line breaks or wide spacing in posts. But that doesn’t mean I can’t do it in Word. I can, and that’s exactly what I did. For the sake of readability. So, once again, just read the whole thing carefully. Microsoft Word doesn’t force line breaks and wide spacing in posts, but I did it that way. I did it, not Word on its own. What don’t you understand? As for the discussion and suggestions: I wrote a post pointing out the MMR issue. You shared your thoughts and ideas. I wrote my proposal. I never claimed it was perfect or that it should be implemented immediately. Some people acted as if programming didn’t exist, math didn’t exist, and data collection didn’t exist. I presented a proposal that isn’t perfect, but at least takes data into account. Data that is already being collected. The example of how it works with emblems, active perks after a specific action, and block points is just an example of the fact that this data is being collected. Just an example. And neither the example itself nor my proposal was a call to “just throw all of this in right now and that’s it.” You wrote about BHVR’s mistakes with the previous emblem-based system. I agreed with that. It’s just that in my proposal, I never wanted to go back to that idea. It was just an example to show that this data is being collected. What’s the harm in linking this data to 2 or 3 features? And there’s no need to go back to the old, broken emblem-based system. Not only did you completely fail to understand this, but you’re also accusing me of AI. It’s been explained in Word; this thread and the discussion about AI are over. Let’s go back to the beginning of the post. And how do you expect to have a serious discussion based on substantive arguments when you’re all screaming “AI!!!” like children here just because someone has a different opinion? All right, if that's the case, maybe you could also include the answers to my questions? Let me just copy the whole thing—there’s no point in rewriting the same thing from scratch. Just so you don’t think, “If he’s copying, it must be AI!” 😀:
Let's try this another way... It seems to me that this whole recent discussion is pointless, because no matter what I do, it's always wrong—it'll always be “ChatGPT!!!”, “You're giving me downvotes!”, “You're typing/responding too fast!”. So let's try a different approach. What do you think BHVR should do about this? Raise the soft cap? Do nothing? Is it bad? Is it good? What should I do about it? Should I suffer through a pathetic 10-minute match, being treated like a punching bag by a team of noobs and tryhards? Should I DC as soon as I figure out what kind of team this is?Go to a corner of the map, stand facing the wall, and go AFK until they finish the generators and leave? Or just stop playing? (After all, the “golden advice” is “if you don’t like it, don’t play and don’t criticize”—but what about freedom of speech?). I'm looking forward to your suggestions and solutions. And honestly, after these discussions, I'm hoping for something wise, serious, logical, and sensible—not like that “golden advice.” -
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4064363#Comment_4064363
My original point still stands, which you've already admitted yourself: the system is fully capable of tracking all that data
It doesn't, The system only tracks activities not the variables of why those activities happen. Your point crumbled a long time ago. But your just fighting with pride and refusing to acknowledge the large flaws that were pointed out in what you’re proposing. Instead it looks like you’re trying to force whatever LLM you’re using to smooth over those flaws, but it can’t.
IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION. I don't expect anyone to take this specific suggestion and implement it right away
You saying this tells me you understand the system you propose may have flaws. So why are you defending the flaws that have been pointed out about it? is it because it crumbles your entire system? Its ok if it does. Very accomplished scientist write papers all the time that get trashed, criticized and rejected all the time. Dont let your pride make you try to turn a dead end into a highway.
I’m not defending those flaws (the ones you’re probably referring to). It’s not about pride or anything like that; it’s about logic and the realization that it’s impossible to create a 100% perfect system—I can admit that, and I understand it. What I am defending, however, are the points I defended a long time ago. You’re trying hard to make CERTAIN aspects of my proposal seem difficult or impossible, as if it couldn’t be done and as if it were some kind of magic. But it’s not magic—it’s math, algorithms, programming, and functions. I’ve given examples of how this is already happening—there are plays, goals in a game, and they’re being tracked. You insist that they can’t be transferred to the matchmaking system. Why? Because you misunderstood my entire suggestion and now you’re acting like the winner. I wrote earlier in the comments about emblems. It was said that BHVR has already BASED matchmaking on emblems at some point. Yes, that’s true, that system was also flawed. And that’s where the misunderstanding comes in. I’m still not talking about transferring 1:1 what’s collected for emblems. That was just an example to counter the argument “data isn’t collected during the match.” Data is collected during the match because there are emblems, there are blood points, and there are conditions for activating perks. Now, we need to figure out how to feed some of that data into 2 functions—or maybe even 3—related to MMR. This does not equate to a return to the old emblem-based system. And ever since this misunderstanding, there have been, let’s call them “attacks” on me regarding AI and response speed. Just as you yourself wrote—as if pride prevents you from grasping that you don’t understand. And ever since that misunderstanding, there have been—let’s call them “attacks”—on me regarding AI and response times. Just as you yourself wrote—as if pride prevents you from realizing that you didn’t understand, as if pride is forcing you to try to turn a dead end into a highway. All right, let's move on. Take a look at my comment above, read it carefully, and show me what you've got.
-
@Valuetown @top500spiderman Let's try this another way... It seems to me that this whole recent discussion is pointless, because no matter what I do, it's always wrong—it'll always be “ChatGPT!!!”, “You're giving me downvotes!”, “You're typing/responding too fast!”. So let's try a different approach. What do you think BHVR should do about this? Raise the soft cap? Do nothing? Is it bad? Is it good? What should I do about it? Should I suffer through a pathetic 10-minute match, being treated like a punching bag by a team of noobs and tryhards? Should I DC as soon as I figure out what kind of team this is?Go to a corner of the map, stand facing the wall, and go AFK until they finish the generators and leave? Or just stop playing? (After all, the “golden advice” is “if you don’t like it, don’t play and don’t criticize”—but what about freedom of speech?). I'm looking forward to your suggestions and solutions. And honestly, after these discussions, I'm hoping for something wise, serious, logical, and sensible—not like that “golden advice.”
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4064257#Comment_4064257
No one said it needed to be poorly presented. Indents and punctuation have made for ease of reading since time immemorial. Breaking things into segments with bullets and numbers isn't the typical, average writing format. It looks like AI. In a time when everyone is slowly forgetting how to write for themselves (you can see both AI slop and people of substandard writing ability in the forum at any given moment), if you don't want to be accused of it, then don't do.
OK, this is going to be a long block of text in the wrong format. Happy now?
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4064256#Comment_4064256
Reading through the thread I don't particularly care about the AI issue, though saying Microsoft Word is a really strange defense because since when does Word force bulletpoints and large spacing into posts, but its when you say you want a technical discussion and then make posts like this:
By admitting that the system I am referencing "was already in the game for 5+ years," you've essentially destroyed your entire case.You are confusing a static progression ladder with a dynamic mathematical matchmaking rating system, such as Elo or MMR. The static system was flawed because it used hard-coded "brackets" and forced unnatural gameplay on players to obtain Iridescent badges. I am not asking for the return of Ranks 1 through 20.The first sentence acts like a gotcha on @Valuetown, but then two sentences later you admit it was flawed and then say you don't want that system.
You're trying to strawman the argument by making it seem like people are arguing that these things could not be coded, when what people have been pointing out is that they can not be realistically coded in a way that could more accurately determine skill than the current system. If what you want is a discussion instead of doing a gotcha, if you think that system was bad you should have agreed it was, then moved onto how it could have been better.
I am asking you to recognize that the games own data,itsability to correlate multiple variables and weigh them based on context, already exists in the engine BHVR chose to ignore all that rich data and take the lowest math possible: win/loss (1/0) when implementing their hidden SBMM.And people have been asking how do you practically do that in a meaningful way given all of the nuance and subjectivity in decision making within the game? If you have a better system, great, let's run through it, but so far you seem to want to imagine there could be a better system and don't like that people are pointing out the realistic flaws that such a system encounters.
Microsoft Word doesn't enforce line breaks and wide spacing in posts. Who told you that? Did I write something like that? No? Then please don't accuse me of something I didn't write, and please read carefully. I set up that formatting in Word for YOUR convenience, but no, that's not it. Another thing is that you’re yet another person who sees the discussion but doesn’t read it carefully, yet really wants to chime in. This is JUST A SUGGESTION. I listed what the system collects, what YOU CAN do, BUT DON’T HAVE TO do. I gave my suggestion. And what did I get? People nitpicking the text formatting, nitpicking the spacing, nitpicking when I respond, and nitpicking that this is my first and only post. Well, a very mature, substantive, and technical discussion...
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4064256#Comment_4064256
You state: "Data is neither incorrect or correct... data is just data."
In the field of computer science, there is a fundamental concept known as GIGO, or "Garbage In, Garbage Out." If you use a defective thermometer to measure a room, the "data" exists, but it is invalid for the purpose for which it is being used. The 1/0 escape metric is a defective thermometer. It tries to measure a player's individual mechanical skill with a team-based binary outcome. The "data" collected is invalid because it is corrupted with variables outside the player's control. A bell curve constructed from invalid "data" is useless for competitive matchmaking.
What is "correct" data? Data is neither incorrect or correct (faulty measurements notwithstanding), data is just data.
So I exclude the very instance you are talking about, yet you bring it up anyway. There is no faulty data when determining if someone escaped or not. There is no "faulty thermometer" in the game's code. YOUR claim is that the data gathered does not have a high enough resolution. Those are two different things. One deals with genuine false data. One is dealing with the ambiguity. Your misunderstanding of the two is how you arrive at this conclusion.
The 1/0 escape metric is a defective thermometer. It tries to measure a player's individual mechanical skill with a team-based binary outcome. The "data" collected is invalid because it is corrupted with variables outside the player's control.
It is not a defective thermometer. You are asking a weather rock to be a calibrated, industry grade thermometer. Neither is defective. They read different resolutions of the same data.
By admitting that the system I am referencing "was already in the game for 5+ years," you've essentially destroyed your entire case.
You are confusing a static progression ladder with a dynamic mathematical matchmaking rating system, such as Elo or MMR. The static system was flawed because it used hard-coded "brackets" and forced unnatural gameplay on players to obtain Iridescent badges. I am not asking for the return of Ranks 1 through 20. I am asking you to recognize that the games own data, its ability to correlate multiple variables and weigh them based on context, already exists in the engine BHVR chose to ignore all that rich data and take the lowest math possible: win/loss (1/0) when implementing their hidden SBMM.
You are asking to apply the same (drum roll please, your favorite word is coming!) TELEMETRY data in the same exact manner as the old rank system did, which is exactly the same as the grade system for awarding pips. In the old system, a player could have died to the killer, but ranked up due to their contribution in the match. In the current system, that is no longer the case. This system was removed for a variety of reasons, all of which are only known by the dev team.
And this is my only thread on this forum, because only now have I had the time, the motivation, and the boredom of playing against people who are clearly better than me. Don’t you think a bot or AI would be more likely to spam posts and comments? By the way, if this is my first post, so what? Can’t I post if I haven’t written anything since the forum started? How am I supposed to start posting on the forum if I could never write a single post because I haven’t written anything before? It’s a vicious circle, illogical, and physically impossible. Unless you have a time machine. But I would really ask you to stay on topic, because arguments like “I'm writing this for you,” “you don't have any other posts,” have absolutely no connection to this specific thread and aren't relevant to the topic. So, since “the big forum boss is letting me post,” even though this is my first and only post on this forum, should I just pack up and run?
I genuinely don't know how you meander through that thought process while also having the hubris (it's more than just a dbd perk name) to simultaneously say this in the thread:
They wouldn’t understand the mental shortcuts. An example? I asked a question in a certain Facebook group about DBD. I wrote briefly, concisely, and to the point. The result? People completely misunderstood what I was getting at and interpreted the topic literally the opposite of what I wrote and what I meant.
How is it that you are not addressing the main point of that comment (the fact that the majority of your posts read as AI generated in nature), but rather addressing a supplemental point (which doesn't clear the idea that your posts may be AI generated, it is simply a potential point of evidence) in a way that completely misses the point?
Your example of “weather rock” is a great illustration of what I mean.
A weather rock can tell you if it is raining. It cannot tell you if it is cold outside. If you use a weather rock to measure the temperature of a room, you are not getting low-resolution data; you are using the wrong tool to do so.
The 1/0 system measures a team-based outcome (did your team get an escape for you?). It does not measure an individual mechanical skill set. Using a survival "weather rock" to measure an individual skill set in an asymmetrical game is not a problem of resolution; it is a problem of architecture. Furthermore, BHVR has access to the thermometer (i.e., the engine's detailed telemetry), but are actively choosing to use the weather rock anyway. You state that the original system was changed due to "a variety of reasons, all of which are only known by the dev team." This is a textbook fallacy known as Appeal to Authority. We are in a feedback forum discussing the mathematics involved in matchmaking. Shaking your shoulders and saying, "Well, we have no idea why; it is a dev team decision," is an admission that you cannot mathematically defend this system to begin with. Again, you're mixing up a Monthly Progress Ladder, where you go from rank 20 to rank 1, with a matchmaking system, such as SBMM or Elo. These are two completely different animals. My original point still stands, which you've already admitted yourself: the system is fully capable of tracking all that data. You're complaining I missed your "main point," which is that my posts "read as AI generated." I've already dealt with this issue multiple times. I use Microsoft Word to type up my posts because I'm a bit of a neat freak and I like to organize my thoughts using proper syntax, paragraphs, and bullet points, so people can actually read what I'm saying. I even made a joke about it last time I responded. If you're shocked that your posts don't look like a jumbled mess of words, with proper grammar, syntax, and a logical flow, then perhaps you're not used to reading posts written by humans. If you'd rather discuss why this game uses a weather rock instead of a thermometer, I'm happy to discuss that with you. If you're still upset about how I'm writing, then perhaps you shouldn't bother writing at all. What's your purpose here, then? Is it because you're intimidated by Word formatting that we're done here? -
@cogsturning said:
Using bullet points and numbers to structure your points into boxed units does look AI-ish. I'm not saying it is, but that's how it appears. If you don't want that accusation, don't do that.
So I can’t use Word after all? You’d rather have a plain, huge block of text? And you won’t accuse me later of “going to all that trouble for nothing—no one’s going to read a block of text like that”? OK, so starting with this comment, I promise to post a blank block of text—and please, no complaints.
Sorry for the downvote—it was a misclick. -
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063997#Comment_4063997
Ah, I see. You weren’t asking an AI for the answer; you were just making another sarcastic ad hominem about my writing style. Understood. Let’s move past the personal jabs and get back to the actual game data.
This reads identically to a Chat GPT response after reprompting it for a different answer.
You are mistaken in assuming that the data within the curve is correct.
What is "correct" data? Data is neither incorrect or correct (faulty measurements notwithstanding), data is just data. The application of data is what matters. The data may not be getting "correctly" applied to YOUR liking, but there will always be a bell curve. You just don't like the bell curve it represents.
You stated that rewarding Safe Unhooks would cause bad players to farm hooked survivors instead of doing generators while the Killer camps.
You're completely disregarding the way in which modern telemetry handles such concepts as Proximity and Negative Constraints.
If the Killer is 'Face Camping' the survivor, a proper performance system (and indeed the current system in DbD itself, the Emblem system), will take this into consideration. An unhook that immediately results in the death of the survivor will be recorded as an Unsafe Unhook, resulting in a significant penalty against the Killer attempting the unhook. The system will also take into consideration the Killer's Proximity to the Hook in the game world. The dynamic MMR system will reward players for pushing generators while the Killer is locked in place at the Hook. You're essentially arguing against the basic system that I'm not advocating for in the first place.
I'll admit that you're right regarding the Billy/Pallet example. The moment the actual micro-mechanics of the system come up in the form of how the telemetry system itself logs events, you immediately back down.
You realize the system that you are asking for was the previous rank system right? It got removed for reasons I already stated. Each emblem contributed to your pips, and if you had enough pips you would rank up. If you didn't get a safety pip, you would rank down. This system did not work to the dev's liking, so they changed it. You don't have to like the new system, but to pretend that the system you are asking for wasn't already in the game for 5+ years is just factually incorrect.
I'm not here to make you feel condescending towards you or any other individual reading this article. I'm here to have a debate regarding the architecture of the matchmaking system in Dead by Daylight. I write in such a detailed manner because that's the only way in which I can effectively discuss the data science that goes into the system. If you take the mathematical inconsistencies in the algorithm as condescending towards you personally, then I apologize for that. But I'll certainly not dumb down the data science in order to make the current 1/0 MMR system look more favorable than it really is.
Again, this reads exactly like Chat GPT apologizing to you for not being able to tell you that 2+2=5. If this is one giant Turing Test, I think now would be the time to call this thread (your only thread on your forum account by the way) a failure of the Turing Test.
Just make up your minds already: do you think I’m writing with AI or not? First you say I’m using ChatGPT or some other AI, but when I explained that it’s just Word’s formatting, suddenly “no one accuses me of using AI” anymore. Please make up your minds. I’ve already explained why I format this way (using Word) and why my replies are so long—read it if you want.
If your last resort in defending your arguments against mathematical facts is to accuse me of being an AI or using AI—because the text formatting annoys you—then we’ve officially reached the end of this technical discussion. What? Did ChatGPT write that too? “Yes, I confirm it, I was that ChatGPT. And yes, 2+2=5." 😁
You state: "Data is neither incorrect or correct... data is just data."
In the field of computer science, there is a fundamental concept known as GIGO, or "Garbage In, Garbage Out." If you use a defective thermometer to measure a room, the "data" exists, but it is invalid for the purpose for which it is being used. The 1/0 escape metric is a defective thermometer. It tries to measure a player's individual mechanical skill with a team-based binary outcome. The "data" collected is invalid because it is corrupted with variables outside the player's control. A bell curve constructed from invalid "data" is useless for competitive matchmaking.By admitting that the system I am referencing "was already in the game for 5+ years," you've essentially destroyed your entire case.
You are confusing a static progression ladder with a dynamic mathematical matchmaking rating system, such as Elo or MMR. The static system was flawed because it used hard-coded "brackets" and forced unnatural gameplay on players to obtain Iridescent badges. I am not asking for the return of Ranks 1 through 20. I am asking you to recognize that the games own data, its ability to correlate multiple variables and weigh them based on context, already exists in the engine BHVR chose to ignore all that rich data and take the lowest math possible: win/loss (1/0) when implementing their hidden SBMM.
If your next response is going to be another digging into how I formatted this and whether I am human, I will concede your entire argument on the 1/0 system.
And this is my only thread on this forum, because only now have I had the time, the motivation, and the boredom of playing against people who are clearly better than me. Don’t you think a bot or AI would be more likely to spam posts and comments? By the way, if this is my first post, so what? Can’t I post if I haven’t written anything since the forum started? How am I supposed to start posting on the forum if I could never write a single post because I haven’t written anything before? It’s a vicious circle, illogical, and physically impossible. Unless you have a time machine. But I would really ask you to stay on topic, because arguments like “I'm writing this for you,” “you don't have any other posts,” have absolutely no connection to this specific thread and aren't relevant to the topic. So, since “the big forum boss is letting me post,” even though this is my first and only post on this forum, should I just pack up and run?
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063997#Comment_4063997
- Coin flips are random → Escapes/Kills is not random
- Measuring every variable is unreliable
- Measuring the outcome avoids that problem
- Its really that simple. Your really just wasting your time typing in circles around those 2 simple problems with your system. You still have yet to address it. No dev on the team will read what your proposing and take it serious, its not logical.
You have managed to boil down a complicated system architecture discussion into three simplistic bullet points because you have no other way to argue the actual mechanics of the game. Let’s address your last arguments:
- "Escapes/Kills are not random"
While in a pure 1v1 game such as Chess or StarCraft, game outcomes are indeed not random. Dead by Daylight is a 1v4 game. In a Solo Queue game, your own escape is heavily influenced by RNG and factors outside your control. You have no control over whether a teammate will disconnect at 5 gens, whether a teammate will kill themselves on their first hook, or whether the Killer wants to give someone a Hatch. Judging a player on the unpredictable behavior of three random strangers is statistical noise. - "Measuring every variable is unreliable"
If you believe this is true, then why does the game engine calculate Chase Time, Generator Repairs, and Safe Unhooks with perfect accuracy in order to award Bloodpoints and Emblems in every game? The game has already created a reliable system. Your argument is against how the game is currently designed. Your argument is flawed because you are arguing against how the game currently works. - "Measuring the outcome avoids that problem"
No, it ignores reality and is a fatal flaw in your argument. Your simplistic system mathematically awards a player who hides in a locker for 15 minutes and escapes via Hatch (+MMR), while punishing a game MVP who chased the Killer for 3 gens and got hooked (-MMR).
I have answered these arguments many times before, yet you still do not want to accept the fact that you are dealing with a symmetrical game design issue. Your last resort is clearly "the devs won't even bother reading this," so I am done with this conversation.
If it doesn't make sense, you don't have to write anything. And as you yourself pointed out—IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION. I don't expect anyone to take this specific suggestion and implement it right away. It’s just an outline, a rough draft. I’ve outlined the problems, I’ve outlined what needs to be improved, I’ve outlined what we have in terms of data, I’ve outlined what it COULD look like, but that doesn’t mean it has to match my suggestion exactly, because it doesn’t have to. And the suggestion itself? It seems logical, since you’ve decided to discuss it. -
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063755#Comment_4063755
So you’re accusing me of using AI to write, and then you turn to ChatGPT yourself and use it as an argument?
?????????????? I understand that communication over text can be misconstrued, but if you honestly thought that I was turning to Chat GPT to fact check you versus implying your quoted text following that line was written by AI, I'm sorry that's just way off base.
That is not how human learning or data science works.2. The Billy Riddle Answered (Input vs. Outcome)You claim I dodged your scenario about pre-dropping a pallet against a Hillbilly to secure a safe unhook. I didn't dodge it; you simply don't understand how telemetry scores events
Listen buddy, I know you love the word telemetry, and I'm not going to explain the situation again and how it's not what you're thinking, just for you to refuse to acknowledge it, so I'm going to save myself the time. Please reread my previous messages more carefully.
The system awards Ace a massive telemetry spike for the Safe Unhook and Protection Hit/Distraction.Good algorithms do not need to score every micro-action; they score the resulting game state. The pre-drop enabled the safe unhook. The safe unhook generates the MMR value.
And ultimately the bad players will now prioritize unhooking safely to boost their MMR, when a correct play would possibly letting a camped player stay on hook for 50 seconds while 3 gens are done separately.
"within one standard deviation of their loosely assigned skill level."In statistics, you cannot calculate a valid standard deviation ($\sigma$) if your baseline metric for measuring the data is fundamentally flawed.
This is clearly wrong, since BHVR knows what "high MMR" is based on their quarterly stat drops; implying that there is in fact a bell curve to which a standard deviation would apply. Sorry you are incorrect.
They wouldn’t understand the mental shortcuts. An example? I asked a question in a certain Facebook group about DBD. I wrote briefly, concisely, and to the point. The result? People completely misunderstood what I was getting at and interpreted the topic literally the opposite of what I wrote and what I meant.
There is a fine line between underexplaining and overexplaining. I don't know the particulars of your interactions, so I'm going to not comment on why things happened the way they did. Also, why are you asking about DbD on a facebook group? lol
Ultimately nobody minds if there is back and forth on a topic or even disagreeing. What people don't like is when they are condescended, patronized, downplayed, and ultimately ignored by someone who thinks a little bit of self study is going to make them a subject expert.
- The AI Comment Clarification
Ah, I see. You weren’t asking an AI for the answer; you were just making another sarcastic ad hominem about my writing style. Understood. Let’s move past the personal jabs and get back to the actual game data.
- The "Bell Curve" Fallacy (Standard Deviation)
You stated: "BHVR knows what 'high MMR' is based on their quarterly stat drops; implying that there is in fact a bell curve to which a standard deviation would apply. Sorry you are incorrect."
You are mistaken in assuming that the data within the curve is correct.
If I ranked 1,000 players by flipping a coin for each of them every match, I can easily tell you that the data within the curve would perfectly represent a bell curve (Normal Distribution). I can easily tell you the top 5% of that curve and call it "High Coin-Flip MMR." However, the fact that this data follows a bell curve does not mean that the data itself is correct.
The fact that BHVR can plot their 1/0 Escapes/Kills onto a graph and find a median does not mean that the data within the curve is correct. A bell curve of corrupted data is still corrupted data.
- The "Unhook Farming" Scenario
You stated that rewarding Safe Unhooks would cause bad players to farm hooked survivors instead of doing generators while the Killer camps.
You're completely disregarding the way in which modern telemetry handles such concepts as Proximity and Negative Constraints.
If the Killer is 'Face Camping' the survivor, a proper performance system (and indeed the current system in DbD itself, the Emblem system), will take this into consideration. An unhook that immediately results in the death of the survivor will be recorded as an Unsafe Unhook, resulting in a significant penalty against the Killer attempting the unhook. The system will also take into consideration the Killer's Proximity to the Hook in the game world. The dynamic MMR system will reward players for pushing generators while the Killer is locked in place at the Hook. You're essentially arguing against the basic system that I'm not advocating for in the first place.
- The Retreat
"I'm not going to explain the situation again... so I'm going to save myself the time."
I'll admit that you're right regarding the Billy/Pallet example. The moment the actual micro-mechanics of the system come up in the form of how the telemetry system itself logs events, you immediately back down.
- On Being "Condescending"
I'm not here to make you feel condescending towards you or any other individual reading this article. I'm here to have a debate regarding the architecture of the matchmaking system in Dead by Daylight. I write in such a detailed manner because that's the only way in which I can effectively discuss the data science that goes into the system. If you take the mathematical inconsistencies in the algorithm as condescending towards you personally, then I apologize for that. But I'll certainly not dumb down the data science in order to make the current 1/0 MMR system look more favorable than it really is.
- The AI Comment Clarification
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063755#Comment_4063755
Goodness. you didn’t have to turn your reply into a solid wall of text just because someone accused you of using an LLM.
And yet someone had mentioned LLM earlier, and someone had told me not to use ChatGPT for writing 😀 That's why I explained it.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063704#Comment_4063704
Nobody said you can't draft your messages in a word editor. The issue becomes when you are writing paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs every hour on the hour, for someone with, ostensibly, a decent amount of computer science knowledge that would imply at least a bachelors degree and a full time job, thus limiting the time you have to dedicate to a forum where you are complaining about a video game. To put it simply, the math ain't mathin'.
I have this knowledge because I’m studying, so it’s constantly being updated. What I’ve presented here are the basics required at universities. As you may have noticed, I don’t post every hour, but every so often. If I were actually just sitting around posting on the forum, I’d be replying right after someone posted. And how many times has that actually happened? Maybe a few times when I happened to have a moment. But generally, look at the timing—I don’t reply immediately after someone’s comment. To reply LITERALLY right after a response, you’d actually have to use AI because it’s simply impossible to type that fast. I’m currently on leave from work, so I can devote time to studying, gaming, and a little time on the forum. But I don’t understand how that matters here? Does having a moment to spare immediately invalidate my opinion? If not, then please respond to the arguments and not my private life. And I write multiple paragraphs for two reasons: for your convenience—it’s probably easier to read a well-structured paragraph in Word than a wall of text, right? And the second reason is that, sure, I could write shorter posts, but given what’s happening online, people wouldn’t understand me. They wouldn’t understand the mental shortcuts. An example? I asked a question in a certain Facebook group about DBD. I wrote briefly, concisely, and to the point. The result? People completely misunderstood what I was getting at and interpreted the topic literally the opposite of what I wrote and what I meant.
So... is it such a big deal that I reply after, say, two hours instead of 30 minutes, and is it such a big deal that I write a lot to make sure everyone—or at least most people—understands me clearly? -
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063707#Comment_4063707
You are overcomplicating the entire data processing situation to an absurd degree.
I am explaining to you the complicated nature of what you are asking. I'm not complicating it, the situation is complicated.
Also, you are misusing computer science terms to back your lazy algorithm.
What computer science term have I misused? I've also not written a single algorithm nor given any suggestions as to an implementation.
Let's discuss the actual situation from a computer science viewpoint without resorting to the term "fallacy."
Let's see what GPT says about this one…
The Misuse of Computer Science (The "NP-Problem")
You are claiming that the calculation of player performance based on telemetry data is an "NP-Problem." This is mathematically incorrect first and foremost. An NP (Non-deterministic Polynomial) problem is a problem that has a massive combinatorial explosion. This is like calculating all the perfect moves for a game of chess.That is exactly what the system would need for an actual meaningful MMR metric that includes nuanced plays in every match.
We are asking the server to perform no such calculation. We are asking the server to perform a calculation based on the end of the game. This is a weighted calculation. This is a basic algorithm that has a time complexity of $O(N)$ to perform. Using existing variables such as chase time or gens done, applying a coefficient to these values is basic arithmetic. This is exactly how the game Valorant calculates the player's combat score. This is an NP-Problem. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the algorithmic complexity.
So you are indeed making the blunder of calculating stats in a vacuum, something that I and other posters have repeatedly argued is not the optimal way to calculate a weighted MMR metric for an asymmetrical game like DbD. Sticking on a generator for additional points while the rest of your team is either being slugged or on hook should award you zero MMR unless it's the last generator and maybe at least one person has adrenaline. This SIMPLE example demonstrates why taking just weighted averages is enough to game the system so that MMR is ultimately more about min-maxing the system rather than min-maxing your gameplay.
The system does not need to reward Mikaela for her mistake. It just needs to reward Ace for surviving. You are trying to create a problem that event logging solves by default.
You refused to answer my question about the Billy player's situation, where prethrowing a pallet that would award 0 points is indeed the correct and a high-level play that should award something in the MMR system. As I stated, the Mikaela predropping and Ace capitalizing versus someone prethrowing to ensure a safe unhook for both survivors looks identical to the system in regards to the pallet, but the nuance is more complicated than you are willing to concede to the system you wish were implemented.
The 80/20 rule states that 80% of proficiency is due to 20% of the effort. In a game like DBD with 30+ maps, almost 400 perks, and Killer powers that must be used in a very specific way, a 180-hour Killer has just completed the tutorial. A player with 550 hours each has optimized their Killer's pathing and synergy.
Killer is the power role. Based on just raw ratios alone, a killer player can be on par with one survivor player with only 1/4th the hours, since there are 4 survivors per match. That means in this situation, these survivors have the equivalent killer knowledge of a 137 hour killer player. All of this is moot by the way because survivors need to memorize way more in order to be on a similar power level to a killer player. There are 42+ killers that each individually need to be learned; not to mention the addons, perks, maps, etc. For a killer player, they just need to know how to use their power and understand how to loop tiles, with less of an impact on perks that early, since anything under 500 hours is tutorial mode. You are making it sound like a survivor with 500 hours is some 20k hour comp player "maximizing their killer pathing and synergy." THAT is just factually incorrect.
The fact that the system prioritizes "fast queue times" above all else means that you are conceding that Dead by Daylight does not have a competitive Matchmaking Rating. It has a glorified bracket system that prioritizes fast queue times above all else. You cannot argue for the mathematical integrity of a matchmaking rating while simultaneously admitting that the system prioritizes fast queue times above all else.
You are the only one in this entire thread claiming that the MMR system is designed for competition in the sense of winning and losing. I have only ever stated in this thread that its sole purpose is to create competitive matches, meaning players are generally within one standard deviation of their loosely assigned skill level so that genuine new players aren't being matched with people that have been playing since 2016. The only instances in which I am arguing for the alternative are for a system's replacement, which I've already discussed above.
You are continuing to shift the goalposts and, in the process, introducing some truly fascinating mathematical theories. Let's address them systematically.1. The 1/4th Math (A Logical Breakdown)You stated: "Based on just raw ratios alone, a killer player can be on par with one survivor player with only 1/4th the hours... these survivors have the equivalent killer knowledge of a 137 hour killer player."This is mathematically and logically absurd. Experience is not a shared pizza that gets divided by the number of players in a lobby. If a Survivor has 550 hours of playtime, their brain has processed 550 hours of map layouts, looping mechanics, killer powers, and tile RNG. You do not calculate $\frac{550}{4} = 137.5$ simply because it is a 1v4 game. By that logic, a CS:GO player with 1000 hours actually only has 200 hours of experience because it's a 5v5 game. That is not how human learning or data science works.2. The Billy Riddle Answered (Input vs. Outcome)You claim I dodged your scenario about pre-dropping a pallet against a Hillbilly to secure a safe unhook. I didn't dodge it; you simply don't understand how telemetry scores events.You are obsessing over the micro-input (dropping the wood) rather than the macro-outcome. If Ace pre-drops that pallet, blocks the Billy, and safely unhooks Mikaela, the system does not need to calculate the philosophical intent of the pallet drop. The system awards Ace a massive telemetry spike for the Safe Unhook and Protection Hit/Distraction.Good algorithms do not need to score every micro-action; they score the resulting game state. The pre-drop enabled the safe unhook. The safe unhook generates the MMR value. It is incredibly simple.3. "Stats in a Vacuum" and Dynamic WeightingYou argue that doing a generator while the team is slugged shouldn't award MMR, claiming this proves my system would be gamed.Again, you are ignoring how modern algorithms function. Telemetry is dynamically weighted based on concurrent game states. If the system logs that 2 teammates are in the Dying state, the algorithm dynamically applies a negative multiplier to Objective points and a massive positive multiplier to Altruism/Healing points.Ironically, Dead by Daylight already does this. If you work on a generator while someone is on a hook, your Lightbringer emblem points are actively penalized. The engine already knows how to contextualize stats outside of a vacuum.4. The Standard Deviation ParadoxYou claim the current system's sole purpose is to keep players "within one standard deviation of their loosely assigned skill level."In statistics, you cannot calculate a valid standard deviation ($\sigma$) if your baseline metric for measuring the data is fundamentally flawed. If your metric (1/0 Escape/Die) frequently assigns a negative value to the best player in the match and a positive value to a player hiding in a locker, then your entire dataset is corrupted. You are calculating the standard deviation of garbage data. Grouping players based on corrupted data does not create "competitive matches"; it creates random matches disguised by a hidden number.
So you’re accusing me of using AI to write, and then you turn to ChatGPT yourself and use it as an argument? I’d like to point out that ChatGPT and other AI can generate inaccurate results, even when they cite sources. ChatGPT isn’t really a good example either, because if I’m not mistaken, its knowledge base is current as of 2021 or a little later. And there have been changes in DBD since then.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063163#Comment_4063163
Your response is a textbook example of throwing pseudo-intellectual jargon at the wall hoping something sticks. Let's dismantle the technical fallacies in your argument
You have thrown the word "fallacy" around more than Aristotle did; but for things that aren't fallacies. Labelling things you disagree with as fallacies is not very good faith.
The "Singular Equation" Fallacy
Asking me to provide the "singular equation" with perfect weights for every add-on and map tile on a forum post is a bad-faith argument. It is the equivalent of demanding I write the complete source code for a new search engine to prove that Google can be improved. We don't need access to BHVR's proprietary database to point out that if(escaped) then +MMR is fundamentally inadequate for a multi-variable environment.What? The reason I asked you to create an equation is because despite people telling you it would be increasingly difficult to create a weighted function to accurately (within reason) assess good and bad plays someone makes in a match, you continuously say "no it's not" and then proceed to "fallacy, fallacy, fallacy" their counterclaim without actually addressing any of their valid comments.
For example:
If Dead by Daylight is just a casual party game, why did BHVR spend massive resources to implement strict Skill-Based Matchmaking (SBMM)? They explicitly removed the old casual Rank system to force a hidden, competitive MMR rating onto the entire player base.
You cannot excuse a broken competitive algorithm by claiming the game is "casual." If it's truly a casual game, BHVR should remove the MMR system entirely and let matchmaking be random. But they don't. They insist on using an MMR system, which means as paying customers, we have the right to demand that the system actually does the math correctly.
Did it ever occur to you that BHVR didn't like the fact that every 30 days, everyone's MMR would be "soft reset," so they implemented a more lax but consistent MMR system to combat that? The fact that a rank 1 killer in the previous season who hadn't played in a few days after reset could now be matched with someone of much lower skill who just received rank 8 because they were both in the purple bracket?
BHVR should remove the MMR system entirely and let matchmaking be random.
Now THIS is a bad faith argument if I've ever seen one. Let's throw the baby out with the bathwater and let 1500 win streak blights play against 2 hour Dwight and Meg players fresh out of the tutorial. Everyone here knows that there needs to be some sort of matchmaking rating value applied to accounts. You posit that "if an MMR system exists, it should work 'correctly'" whatever that means being ambiguous. The MMR system in this game is nowhere near perfect, but it was never designed to be. It was designed to minimize new player frustration and to keep wide bands of players in similar brackets to maximize fast matches. You do not have to disagree with that and you are within your right to complain, but saying "it's not right" is only based on your own interpretation of what the "right" system is for this use case; which is clearly not the same for BHVR's.
The NP-Problem Bluff
Calling a weighted matchmaking algorithm a "Non-Deterministic Polynomial problem" is honestly embarrassing. We are not asking the server to solve the Traveling Salesperson Problem or predict protein folding. We are asking it to take existing, already-tracked telemetry data (Chase Time, Gen Progress, Safe Unhooks), apply simple algebraic coefficients, and output a composite score. This is basic linear algebra used by every competitive game on the market, not some unsolvable mathematical anomaly.And as you so expertly ignored, those stats in a vacuum mean absolutely nothing. Do you know why console Mikaela players predrop pallets and run for saves the nanosecond someone gets hooked? They award bloodpoints, which directly feeds in to the emblem system. Whether or not those plays are correct is not factored into giving those points, they are given if the action is performed. You demand a system that ''does the math correctly." I don't think anyone would want a system to award someone who makes generational macro mistakes, thus the system would need to calculate many different factors (exponential factors and their overall weights if they do exist) when determining whether or not points should be awarded. That is how this problem in an NP-Problem. And before you try to claim "nirvana fallacy," I am merely stating the complexity of the problem. If you would like to implement a solution that would genuinely solve nothing but skew the actual skill level rating of players as a whole, go for it.
The Dropped Pallet Strawman (Nirvana Fallacy Again)
You used an extreme edge case—a Mikaela accidentally dropping a pallet that later saves an Ace—as proof that "nuance" is impossible to track.Firstly, this is not the nirvana fallacy nor a strawman. I'm giving you an example of the complexity the system would need to account for. Secondly, I never said this is proof that nuance is impossible to track. I asked who would be credited for it. Who would be given MMR and who would have MMR taken away and for what actions. Is MMR dynamic throughout a match or, for your envisioned system, is MMR calculated at the very end after thousands of weights are calculated? Again, you cry "fallacy, fallacy, fallacy" when all people are trying to do is interrogate your main points to see if they hold water.
Your example with the pallet dropped by Mikael, which saved Ace, is completely off the mark. It's as if you haven't played the game and don't know who does what in such a situation. How does it work now? Do you know? When you drop a pallet during a chase, you get points, YOU GET THEM. If Ace uses the dropped pallet in the chase (because the killer didn't destroy it), he doesn't get points for dropping it, but for the looping time, which is slightly extended - the killer has to destroy the pallet, which gives Ace a moment. It's simple and that's it. You just have to use it. Where do you see the problem?
You didn't read my message carefully enough. I said if Mikaela drops shack by accident completely out of chase. She is awarded no points with the current system. For your response to be true, dropped pallets will now have to award points regardless of their use, which everyone who has played this game knows that would be an objectively wrong way to assign points, let alone an MMR weight. Her mistake resulted in a good play. However, what if she knew a pallet like that would be helpful? For example, throwing a filler pallet directly in front of a hooked survivor so the Billy can't immediately rev back to hook and down the unhooking survivor? That would be a good play, but to the system, it is a similar situation but the intention behind the throws are polar opposites. The Billy example's survivor should be awarded MMR but the Mikaela, in my opinion, should not be.
It's amazing how selective your technical knowledge is. On the one hand, you demand complex anti-camp and anti-tunnel systems, trusting that the server can calculate the Killer's position, chase time, and perk activation down to the centimeter and millisecond. You see your Emblems and points for ‘Pallet Stun’ or ‘Safe Hook Rescue’ on the final screen – proof that the game has full telemetry of every event in the match. But as soon as I suggest that a fraction of this already collected data be used to modify MMR, you suddenly pretend that the server is “blind” and “unable to understand the nuances.” Make up your minds: either the game engine doesn't know what's going on in the match (so let's disable Emblems and Bloodpoints), or it knows perfectly well, but the developers can't be bothered to link these variables to the player matching algorithm.
I have never once demanded complex anti-camp or anti-tunnel systems. I only told you that they are not nuanced systems and explained to you the two factors that determine the meter's progress. I've never once suggested that the server is "blind" nor "unable to understand nuance." I said that the system would be more complicated than you are willing to accept.
And you are STILL ignoring what I said. The system put you in a match with players whose MMR average was most likely within one standard deviation of your own skill level to facilitate a fast queue time. And what's even more incredible is you're forgetting the 80/20 rule - 80% of the effort is done in 20% of the time. If we do a little basic math on that, 4 players with ~550 hours each versus a killer with 180 hours looks a whole lot less terrible than the "900 HOUR KILLER LOSES TO 11,000 HOUR SURVIVOR SWF COMP TOP 0.0000000001% MMR" (obvious hyperbole fallacy /s) title you have created your thread with.
You are overcomplicating the entire data processing situation to an absurd degree. Also, you are misusing computer science terms to back your lazy algorithm. Let's discuss the actual situation from a computer science viewpoint without resorting to the term "fallacy."
- The Misuse of Computer Science (The "NP-Problem")
You are claiming that the calculation of player performance based on telemetry data is an "NP-Problem." This is mathematically incorrect first and foremost. An NP (Non-deterministic Polynomial) problem is a problem that has a massive combinatorial explosion. This is like calculating all the perfect moves for a game of chess.
We are asking the server to perform no such calculation. We are asking the server to perform a calculation based on the end of the game. This is a weighted calculation. This is a basic algorithm that has a time complexity of $O(N)$ to perform. Using existing variables such as chase time or gens done, applying a coefficient to these values is basic arithmetic. This is exactly how the game Valorant calculates the player's combat score. This is an NP-Problem. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the algorithmic complexity.
- Solving your Mikaela/Ace Pallet Riddle
You asked: If Mikaela accidentally drops a pallet out of chase, and Ace picks it up later in the game, who gets the MMR? How does the system determine the intent?
The system does not determine the intent. You are asking the algorithm to read minds. This is completely unnecessary. This is how the performance system calculates the exact scenario that you are posing:
Mikaela accidentally drops a pallet out of chase. She wasted a resource. She gets 0 points and no performance bump. She continues to make these "generational macro mistakes" and loses the match. Her telemetry will be abysmal throughout the match.
Ace goes by the pallet that Mikaela dropped. He loops the Killer around it. He gains Chase Time/Boldness points for navigating map geometry correctly and being on the Killer.
The system does not need to reward Mikaela for her mistake. It just needs to reward Ace for surviving. You are trying to create a problem that event logging solves by default.
- The 80/20 Rule and "Fast Matches"
You used the 80/20 rule (Pareto principle) to argue that a 180-hour Killer was fair against a player with 550 hours each.
The 80/20 rule states that 80% of proficiency is due to 20% of the effort. In a game like DBD with 30+ maps, almost 400 perks, and Killer powers that must be used in a very specific way, a 180-hour Killer has just completed the tutorial. A player with 550 hours each has optimized their Killer's pathing and synergy.
The fact that the system prioritizes "fast queue times" above all else means that you are conceding that Dead by Daylight does not have a competitive Matchmaking Rating. It has a glorified bracket system that prioritizes fast queue times above all else. You cannot argue for the mathematical integrity of a matchmaking rating while simultaneously admitting that the system prioritizes fast queue times above all else.
Created in Word* - The Misuse of Computer Science (The "NP-Problem")
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063684#Comment_4063684
@UnicornToots is talking about you creating a numbered list for a singular item like LLMs, or using spacing and newlines identical to LLMs, or using em dashes like LLMs, or creating "section headings" as titles for your points like LLMs.
So what? Can't I just use Microsoft Word or LibreOffice for this? They're powerful, great word processors that make it easier for me to write long texts.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063612#Comment_4063612
1.Logging concurrent timestamps doesn’t prove what you think it proves. It shows that events happened at the same time, not that one event caused the other.
If Player A is in chase while others are repairing generators, the engine can record that overlap, but it cannot prove the chase created the generator progress. The killer may have already committed to that chase, the generators may have been nearly complete, the killer may have misplayed, or the map may have spawned strong tiles that prolonged the chase. The data only shows correlation, not causation.
So no, the engine doesn’t have “absolute mathematical proof” that the chase generated the objective value. It only has proof that the events occurred concurrently, which is a very different thing.
2.The emblem system doesn’t prove the engine can assign real causal credit, it just proves it can apply a simple reward heuristic.
Lightbringer points are awarded when events overlap, but that doesn’t mean the system proved the chase actually caused the generator progress. It’s a convenience rule for distributing bloodpoints, not a validated measure of skill.
3.The example you gave only works if you treat a single match as proof of a ranking system failing, which isn’t how rating systems work.
In one match, sure, someone might contribute a lot and still die while another player escapes with little contribution. But matchmaking systems aren’t designed to judge one match; they measure patterns over many matches. A player who hides every game and contributes nothing will rarely convert matches into real wins and will quickly stabilize at a lower rating. A player who consistently creates pressure, does generators, and helps secure escapes will convert more matches into successful outcomes over time.
Your scenario is just an edge case. Ranking systems aren’t built around edge cases, they’re built around long term signals.
You are defending an algorithm that mathematically calculates a 0% contribution as a higher value than a 90% contribution. That is not a functional ranking system; that is a broken spreadsheet.
That statement only works if you assume the system is trying to measure “percentage contribution” in a single match. It isn’t.
Matchmaking systems aren’t designed to calculate who contributed the most in one game; they’re designed to estimate which players consistently produce winning outcomes over many games. A single match where someone contributes a lot but dies doesn’t invalidate the system, because rankings aren’t based on isolated matches, they’re based on long term results.
So no, the system isn’t calculating “0% > 90%.” It’s simply not trying to score individual contribution in the first place. It’s measuring which players’ decisions consistently lead to successful outcomes over time.
You've moved away from discussing technical analysis and are now engaging in philosophical debate. Let's bring this back to reality in terms of how the game engine, and competitive video games in general, function.
- The "Correlation vs. Causation" Philosophy
You're stating that a survivor who is looping when generators are popping is simply "correlated" with the generators popping, but not "causing" them to pop, since the system cannot directly link the two events. This is not considering the underlying physics of the game: Mutual Exclusivity.
The Killer cannot be two places at once. The loop, by physically engaging the Killer's time and presence (the chase state), is causing them not to be present at the generators. In asymmetrical game balance, creating this physical space and time is "causing" generator progress.
You're stating that perhaps the Killer simply "misplayed" or "overcommitted" during this time. In Player vs. Player gaming, this is exactly "causing" a win: forcing your opponent into an overcommit or taking advantage of their mistake is skill.
You're applying a philosophical standard that no game engine could ever hope to live up to: "causation." The system takes input A: a 3-minute chase state. The system takes output B: 3 generators pop. This is "causation" in game balance.
- The "Edge Case" Myth
You're stating that a player who contributes 90% of a game and sacrifices themselves for a team win is an "edge case," but game systems are not built around "edge cases."
Have you ever seen or played a match of high-level Dead by Daylight? Altruistic sacrifice is not an "edge case" but is, in fact, the very basis of the Endgame Collapse. A protection hit, a gate open through hook state trades, or a sacrificial death on a hook to allow the other three survivors to escape is a standard strategy in almost every competitive match. The idea that the very basic endgame strategy is an "edge case" is a massive disconnect from how Dead by Daylight is actually played.
- Your Ultimate Admission
At the very end of your post, you do, in fact, state exactly what I've been stating since the very beginning of this thread:
"It’s simply not trying to score individual contribution in the first place."
Well, thank you for admitting that. In a symmetrical game mode where all five players on each team have the very same binary Win/Loss result on the winning team screen, it makes sense that an algorithm would not need to heavily weigh individual contribution.
Dead by Daylight is not that game, however. In Dead by Daylight, it is a 1v4 asymmetrical game mode where individual outcomes are not even related to team outcomes whatsoever. One player can die, while three others escape on their team. Because your system is not "scoring individual contribution" (your words), your MMR system is not even remotely related to reality. You are defending your symmetrical ranking system that was lazily implemented into an asymmetrical game mode.
- The "Correlation vs. Causation" Philosophy
-
@UnicornToots said:
Dude, can you write without using chatgpt to write for you?
Can you please not get mad at me for writing like ChatGPT? Does the fact that I write a lot automatically mean I’m an AI? Can you stick to the topic?
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063534#Comment_4063534
Your examples all depend on the same assumption: that the system can reliably determine why something happened in a match. It can’t.
In your 5 gen looper example, you assume the system can prove the chase caused the generators. Telemetry can’t isolate that. A long chase could come from survivor skill, killer mistakes, strong tile spawns, power matchups, or the killer overcommitting. The system only sees the duration of the chase, not the cause. That’s the attribution problem you keep overlooking. You still have yet to address this issue in your argument.
Your emblem argument doesn’t solve that either. Emblems measure activity for rewards, not skill for matchmaking. Dead by Daylight previously tied progression to emblem performance through the pip/rank system, and that system was replaced with hidden MMR because those metrics were easy to game and didn’t correlate well with match outcomes.
Your “survival is noisy” point also misunderstands how rating systems work. Individual matches contain randomness, but across large samples that variance averages out. Players whose decisions consistently lead to escapes or kills rise over time, while those whose decisions don’t fall.
And the hatch example doesn’t support your claim either. Hatch escapes do not meaningfully increase survivor MMR, so hiding all match and jumping into hatch doesn’t create the rating inflation you’re describing.
That’s the fundamental issue: your proposal assumes the algorithm can infer causation from telemetry. In reality it can only observe actions. Because those actions are influenced by many interacting variables, the system cannot reliably assign individual credit inside a team interaction. That’s why matchmaking systems measure results over time instead of trying to reverse-engineer credit from individual moments.
You keep bringing up this "attribution problem"—the idea that the system cannot reliably link a long chase to generator progress. This is technically false, and the game’s own engine proves it.
- The Engine Already Correlates Concurrent Events
A game engine does not guess; it logs concurrent event states based on timestamps. If Player A's status is In_Chase and Players B, C, and D have a status of Repairing_Generator during those exact same timestamps, the system has absolute, mathematical proof of what is happening. There is no guesswork required. - Dead by Daylight ALREADY Does This Math (Emblems)
You claim the system "only sees the duration of the chase, not the cause" and cannot assign credit.
Have you looked at how the Emblem actually works? If you are actively being chased by the Killer, and your teammates complete a generator during that chase, the game explicitly awards YOU Lightbringer points for distracting the Killer. The developers already wrote the code that links a player's chase directly to the team's generator progress. The system actively tracks the overlapping timestamps, understands that your chase created the safe environment for the generators to pop, and explicitly assigns you credit for it in real-time.
Your entire defense of the outcome-based system rests on the premise that telemetry cannot connect these variables or assign individual credit. But it already does. The engine already perfectly attributes the distraction to the objective. The primitive 1/0 MMR system simply chooses to throw that perfectly accurate telemetry in the trash.
- The Zero-Contribution Math (The Hatch)
You correctly pointed out that a Hatch escape is MMR-neutral (a value of 0). Thank you for bringing that up, because it perfectly illustrates how broken the current math is.
Let’s look at the exact values BHVR assigns:
Player A: Hides in a locker for 15 minutes, 0 gens done, 0 unhooks, 0 seconds in chase. Escapes through Hatch. Result: 0 MMR change. (Or if they sneak out an Exit Gate after the team dies, they get +1 MMR).
Player B: Loops the killer for 3 gens, completes 2 gens, gets facecamped to death to secure the win for the team. Result: -1 MMR penalty.
You are defending an algorithm that mathematically calculates a 0% contribution as a higher value than a 90% contribution. That is not a functional ranking system; that is a broken spreadsheet.
Outcome-based MMR works perfectly in symmetrical games (Chess, CS:GO, LoL) where the team's outcome and the individual's outcome are identical. It fundamentally fails in a 1v4 asymmetrical game where an individual's death is often the exact tactical requirement for the team's victory.
- The Engine Already Correlates Concurrent Events
-
@Abbzy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4062617#Comment_4062617
Yeah another thing is hours mean something but they arent the key thing that matters like I bet you that 1000 hours nurse main that has all those hours on nurse or like 800 from these 1k hours will be destroying teams that have on average 2k+ hours per survivor.
Hours matter but arent the key thing becuase DBD is asymetrical and many things shape the game like map, what killer is that like 1k hour nurse will have smaller problem on average against 10k hour survivor team than 1k hours trapper, perks, addons etc.
The key thing is skill but that is hard to determine in DBD especialy when mmr is supposed to be set on kills and escapes like in fps games its usaualy easy k/d ratio but in DBD its hard there is more things and two roles so its hard to choose what will be the measurement for that mmr.
Before you start spaming downvote like usual just read it first, thanks.
Thank you for reading my post, and don't worry, I have no intention of downvoting you. In fact, I am going to upvote you, because the irony here is that we actually completely agree. I always read carefully and with understanding, even 2-3 times.
You just wrote a perfect summary of exactly why the current system is fundamentally broken and needs to be replaced. Let’s break down your own points:
- "DBD is asymmetrical and many things shape the game"
You correctly pointed out that maps, perks, add-ons, and Killer choices (Nurse vs. Trapper) create massive variance. Exactly. Because Dead by Daylight is such a highly complex, variable-heavy game, using a primitive, flat 1/0 (Kill/Escape) metric is the worst possible way to measure skill. A complex game requires a complex algorithm. You cannot measure a multi-variable environment with a binary ruler. - "Skill is hard to determine... especially when mmr is supposed to be set on kills and escapes"
You hit the nail on the head. Skill is hard to determine when you only look at the final outcome (Kills/Escapes). That is the entire premise of my thread. A 1/0 system cannot tell the difference between a 1,000-hour Nurse who played brilliantly and a 1,000-hour Killer who just stood in front of a hook while the team altruistically killed themselves. - It’s actually not that hard to measure (The Telemetry)
You mentioned that FPS games use K/D ratios. But modern, competitive FPS games (like Valorant or CS:GO) also use underlying telemetry like ADR (Average Damage per Round), utility usage, and objective time to adjust your rating.
DbD can easily do the same. As I mentioned to other users here, the game already tracks your chase time, generator efficiency, and safe unhooks via the Emblem and Bloodpoint systems. The data exists. The engine already knows who the MVP of the match was.
So, thank you for your comment. You perfectly highlighted why an outcome-based MMR fails in an asymmetrical game, and why we desperately need a system that tracks actual performance and telemetry. Welcome to the team.
- "DBD is asymmetrical and many things shape the game"
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063386#Comment_4063386
The DodgeWhether I introduced the 5-gen looper scenario in my last post, the one before it, or yesterday is irrelevant semantics. You are bringing it up only to still dodge the actual question
i didnt bring it up you did when you said i ignored it in your last post. That was false. I didnt ignore it because it wasnt there that simple.
Your repeating the 5-gen looper scenario, but it actually highlights the core problem
Yes, a long chase creates time, but the teammates still have to convert that time into generators and escapes. If they don’t, the chase alone wins nothing. From telemetry the system can’t reliably determine whether the win came from the chase, the gen efficiency, killer mistakes, or map conditions. In a team game those contributions are interdependent.
Your “law of large numbers” argument doesn’t fix that. Averaging noisy data doesn’t turn it into a clean signal if the metric itself mixes multiple variables. Chase time is influenced by map RNG, killer decisions, teammate interference, and power design, so over many matches you’re still averaging a mixture of factors, not pure skill.
And the hatch example doesn’t break outcome based MMR either. A player who hides all match and relies on hatch will escape inconsistently and settle at a lower rating, while players who consistently contribute to wins climb over time.
MMR isn’t trying to reward the “MVP moment.” It’s trying to estimate which players actually win more over many matches, and outcome-based systems do that far more reliably than trying to reverse-engineer credit from intermediate stats.
- The "What if they fail?" Scenario
You argue: "If they don’t [convert that time into generators], the chase alone wins nothing."
You act as if a performance-based MMR would break in this scenario. It wouldn't. Here is exactly what happens in a properly designed system when a player loops for 5 minutes but the team fails to do objectives and everyone dies:
The outcome is a team loss. However, the three teammates who contributed nothing get a massive MMR penalty. The looper receives a heavily mitigated MMR loss (or a slight positive bump) because their telemetry proves they performed their role exceptionally well despite the team's failure.The ultimate irony? Dead by Daylight already does this exact calculation. In your scenario, the current game awards the looper maximum Boldness Bloodpoints and Emblems, while the teammates get nothing or less. The engine perfectly understands who contributed and who didn't. You are just defending BHVR's refusal to feed that existing, highly accurate data into the matchmaking algorithm.
- The Ultimate Irony: "Escape" is the Noisiest Data of All
You dismiss telemetry like chase time as "noisy data" because it involves map RNG, killer decisions, and teammate interference. But you are fiercely defending "Survival" (the 1/0 outcome) as the ultimate metric.
In an asymmetrical 1v4 game, Survival is the single noisiest, most RNG-heavy data point in existence. Whether a Solo Queue player survives depends on: Did a teammate DC at 5 gens? Did someone farm them off the hook? Did the killer decide to be friendly and give them the hatch? Did the killer bring a Mori?
You cannot mathematically claim that "Chase Time" is too noisy to measure individual skill, while simultaneously defending "Did you survive?"—a metric that is 90% out of the individual player's control in Solo Queue.- The "Hatch" Defense Fails
You argue a locker-hider will escape inconsistently and settle at a lower rating. You are entirely missing the point.
The fact that the algorithm awards them any positive rating at all for a zero-contribution game, while handing a negative rating to the teammate who actually progressed the objective but died on a hook, proves the feedback loop is completely detached from gameplay reality. A system should never reward a 0% contribution with a "+1".
- The "What if they fail?" Scenario
-
@GameDesignNerd said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063369#Comment_4063369
I think even i could do that, and I haven't even started learning Unreal Engine yet in school
I think so. Even in computer science studies, they teach us how to retrieve data, how to convert it into the right formats, how to use that data. These are really the basics of programming knowledge. And here? “Black magic,” impossible.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063338#Comment_4063338
You keep repeating that MMR measures the "ability to produce wins." I will ask you again, since you completely ignored this scenario in my last reply:
Are you actually reading your post? you never gave that scenario in your last post. So how did i ignore it?
You’re still trying to reward individual moments in a team outcome game.
There are too many variables for the system to reliably determine why something happened. A long chase might be survivor skill, but it could also be killer mistakes, map RNG, tile spawns, or teammate interference. Telemetry can record actions, but it can’t reliably assign credit for them.
Your emblem example actually works against your point. The game already experimented with performance-based progression through the emblem/pip rank system, where things like chase, altruism, and objectives affected rank. Behaviour replaced that with outcome-based MMR because those metrics were easy to game and didn’t correlate well with actual match results.
And the biggest flaw in your proposal is that it rewards losing performance. If a survivor runs the killer for several generators but dies, you’re arguing they should still gain rating. The moment a ranking system allows players to climb while losing matches, it stops measuring who actually wins.
You keep repeating the same claim without addressing the flaws in your system. Until you actually deal with those problems, the response isn’t going to change.
- The DodgeWhether I introduced the 5-gen looper scenario in my last post, the one before it, or yesterday is irrelevant semantics. You are bringing it up only to still dodge the actual question. I will ask it a third time:If a player loops for 5 gens, secures 3 escapes, but dies on a facecamp, who produced that win?You refuse to answer because acknowledging it destroys your theory. Under your 1/0 model, the MVP who generated the win gets punished (MMR DOWN), and the three players who safely held M1 on generators get rewarded (MMR UP). That does not measure "win probability." It measures survival by proxy.
- The "Variables" Excuse and Basic StatisticsYou claim telemetry can't determine if a chase is skill, map RNG, or killer mistakes. Welcome to the Law of Large Numbers. Over a sample size of 50 or 100 matches, map RNG and lucky tile spawns average out. If a survivor consistently logs 2-3 minute chases across dozens of games, that is statistical, measurable mechanical skill. Furthermore, forcing a killer to make a mistake and capitalizing on it is skill. A functional algorithm smooths out variance over time; the 1/0 system just ignores it entirely.
You write about these random events, about map RNG, tiles resp, or teammates getting in the way, as if that weren't already the case. It already does. And how does it affect the MMR result? Well, by demonstrating your skills, you take advantage of it. If Blight happens to be on a good open map, and the scouts make basic mistakes, Blight takes advantage of it. It already happens. Your problem is that you are trying to give examples of situations where the improved system would have a problem, would have to deal with them (but the current weak system already does), as if they only appeared with the new system, but they already exist. Your examples are already present.
- The Emblem Myth and "Gaming the System"You claim the Emblem system was replaced because it was "easy to game." That is historically partially false. BHVR implemented a hidden MMR to enforce a synthetic kill rate of around 50% and soften matchmaking parameters to reduce queue times, not to ensure fairness in gameplay. But fairness in gameplay isn't okay here either. You want to talk about a system being "easy to game"? Under your beloved outcome-based MMR, a Survivor can hide in a locker for 15 minutes, touch zero generators, get zero unhooks, wait for their entire team to die, jump into the Hatch, and gain MMR because they "survived." Meanwhile, the teammate who did 3 generators and unhooked twice dies and loses MMR. A system that rewards locker-hiding and punishes playmaking is functionally broken.
- The "Losing Performance" ParadoxYou state: "The moment a ranking system allows players to climb while losing matches, it stops measuring who actually wins."Dead by Daylight is a 1v4 asymmetrical game. Individual survival $\neq$ team win. If my death guarantees 3 people escape, my performance directly engineered that victory. In modern, highly competitive games (like CS:GO, Valorant, or Apex), underlying personal performance metrics actively mitigate your ELO loss—or even allow you to climb slightly—if you play exceptionally well but the match is a technical loss.Punishing the playmaker breaks the ladder. Recognizing their telemetry fixes it.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063184#Comment_4063184
Sadly, yes. Although I don't even think it's the new content that's doing it these days. If I had to wager based on how they operate, the biggest pull are streamers. I think that's why you're getting a lot of pushback on such a basic argument too. This is something we've been aware of for a long time (your added insight is very welcome, though—thank you) but why is it so taboo all of a sudden? Because better matchmaking affects things like kill streaks and that affects streamers.
Day 2051 of trying to remain mentally stable while figuring out DBD. 😵
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063187#Comment_4063187
100%. There's something there and we've all felt it. But the game has been pushed to a state where it does not want to be played. And nothing is being done about it. So we all feel exhausted.
True. Most of the whiners at matches have TTV in their nicknames, and they're the ones whining on Twitter. And bhvr listens to them.
-
@GameDesignNerd said:
Quality Match over Faster Match, always better and healthier for players. With how popular this game is, there's no excuse why I shouldn't be getting quality match making results over rushed and inaccurate MMR ranges. As for metrics, I have no clue why things like Gen repair progress or amount of altruism plays and even how long you are within close proximity to killer and lasting (essentially a chase or being found) do not impact your hidden MMR. These are skill metrics, not whether you have escaped or not. That's like doing absolutely nothing to help your team, and then getting hatch, which according to current metrics will increase your MMR because you escaped, while having to do absolutely nothing
That's exactly what I'm talking about. But here, people think it's “black magic.” That it would be a lot of work and you'd have to build everything from scratch. But that's not the case at all. The data is already there, and all you have to do is feed some of it into the MMR calculation functions, that's it. No black magic. Just simple math and programming.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063167#Comment_4063167
So what? After our discussion, I can tunnel, slug, and camp with impunity? Well, if it doesn't matter what I do during the match, what skills I demonstrate while looping, because only the final result counts, then I have to strive for that final result. So the anti-face camp, anti-slug, and anti-tunnel systems are pointless, unnecessary, and completely destroy the current MMR system. At least according to your logic, because in reality it's different.
You’re mixing up two completely different systems.
MMR is a ranking system whose job is to estimate win probability. Anti-facecamp, anti-slug, and anti-tunnel mechanics are gameplay balance systems designed to prevent degenerate strategies that make the match unhealthy or uninteractive.
Those systems don’t exist to measure skill, they exist to enforce rules about how the game should be played. Competitive games do this all the time. A ranking system measures outcomes, while the game itself restricts strategies that would make those outcomes unhealthy for the experience.
So no, your conclusion doesn’t follow. Saying MMR should be outcome-based doesn’t mean “anything you do during the match is fine.” It just means the ranking system evaluates the result of the match, while the game’s rule set limits strategies that would break the gameplay.
Those are two completely different design layers.
You are artificially separating two systems that, in any functional competitive architecture, must be unified. If your "ranking layer" and your "gameplay layer" are fighting each other, the design is fundamentally flawed.
- The Paradox of Conflicting Layers
You claim MMR only evaluates the outcome, while the gameplay layer restricts "degenerate strategies." But here is the massive flaw in that logic: because the primitive 1/0 MMR system only cares about the outcome, it actively rewards and incentivizes those degenerate strategies.
If the ranking system is completely blind to how a kill is achieved, the absolute most optimal way to climb the ladder is to bypass the intended gameplay loop entirely (e.g., hard tunneling one survivor out at 5 gens). A properly designed Performance MMR aligns with the gameplay layer—it rewards players for engaging in the core mechanics (chases, hooks, saves) rather than operating blind to them.
- You Dodged the Core Question
You keep repeating that MMR measures the "ability to produce wins." I will ask you again, since you completely ignored this scenario in my last reply:
If a Solo Queue survivor loops the Killer for 5 straight generators, gets facecamped, and dies while the other 3 survivors escape, who produced that win? The looper was the sole architect of that victory. Yet, your "outcome-based" MMR punishes the player who generated the win (MMR DOWN) and rewards the 3 players who just held M1 on generators (MMR UP). How does punishing the playmaker accurately estimate "win probability"? It doesn't. It measures survival by proxy.
- The Engine Already Does This
You speak about tracking intermediate metrics as if it would "break" the game. You are ignoring the fact that BHVR already built this architecture: The Emblem System.
The game's engine already flawlessly tracks Chase etc etc metrics. It already evaluates your mechanical skill and efficiency during the match. The telemetry is already there. Refusing to feed that existing, highly accurate data into the matchmaking algorithm isn't "protecting the ranking system"—it is just lazy data science.
In addition, your previous posts (and not only yours) suggest that the systems in DBD do not see what is happening in the match. But they see it perfectly well. There is an anti-facecamp system, there are blood points. This data is already being collected. It's not rocket science. Now all you need to do is transfer some of this data to another function. But ultimately, in the current system, “anything you do during the match is fine,” and that's exactly how it is. Since you yourself write that it doesn't matter how long you loop the killer, it doesn't matter if the survivor made 5 generators or 2, or if they looped through 5 generators, but since the system doesn't take into account what you did in the match, the killer camps, hacks, and gets a kill - they are better. This is not mixing mechanics, but your own words. If it doesn't matter that he loops the killer for 5 generators, then it doesn't matter if the killer tunnels, slugs, or camps. Ultimately, the result is that you either died or survived. Where is the mixing of systems here, as it is simply showing how it currently looks? Where is the mixing of systems here, as you say? Your “mixing of mechanics” looks like you've never even played a single match.
- The Paradox of Conflicting Layers
-
@cluelessclaudette said:
Telling a paying customer to "just quit the game" instead of demanding a functional product is the ultimate white flag in a technical debate.
nah, now you're being a hypocrite. You introduced the "I can walk away from a GM in a chess park" argument even though you're ignoring the fact no one advertises their chess elo or asks before playing. People just sit down, get matched, and played. Sort of like DBD. You can walk away from DBD too, or you can mentally detach the game from your expectations. You can do that too right?
I did a google search and I see the issue. You think MMR system equates to fair and competitive match making. It doesn't. According to sources, BHVR's MMR system has a soft cap and like most online games - prioritizes latency and low match queues to get players into a game as soon as possible. If this game truly had a "fair" MMR system, you would see posts complaining about match queues and lobby wait times.
This entire thread is just a heaping pile of poor logic and asinine replies to people. Not even sure why SWE and logic is being introduced here. You don't need to have a formal debate to discuss how bad this game is. It's been known for years this is a super casual game with a weak MMR system.
I have close to a 60% escape rate on DBD's stats but I am still paired up with some pretty clueless claudette (SABLE) players. Match making is a joke. It exists but it's a joke. I'd suggest you spend your energy, mental stamina, and life outside of DBD. I don't think it's bringing you much joy given the anguish on display here from your writing.
Cheers and take care.
You spent three posts fiercely arguing against me, only to do a quick Google search and accidentally arrive at the exact same conclusion as my original post: "Match making is a joke. It exists but it's a joke." Welcome to the conversation. That is literally what this entire thread was about from the very beginning. Thank you for finally agreeing with me.
Just to quickly address your last few attempts at an argument before you go:
- Complaining About Logic
You wrote: "Not even sure why SWE and logic is being introduced here."
We are discussing a software matchmaking algorithm created by developers. What else are we supposed to use to discuss it? Astrology? - The Chess Analogy (Again)
If I walk away from a chess board in a park, the police do not issue me a 15-minute ban from entering all parks. DbD issues a strict matchmaking lock (DC penalty) if you leave a match. And you lose points and exp. Because the game forces you to stay and punishes you for leaving, the developers have a responsibility to provide a functional algorithm. - The Soft Cap / Fast Queues
Yes, the system prioritizes fast queues and latency, which stretches the MMR soft cap. Again, that is exactly what I am criticizing. I am arguing that the math behind it is flawed because a binary 1/0 system cannot accurately pre-sort players before the queue expansion even begins.
Telling me to "spend my energy outside of DBD" right after writing a multi-paragraph essay complaining about your own clueless Solo Queue teammates is pure projection.
I accept your concession and your agreement that the matchmaking is indeed a joke.
And now I'm going to play a “casual game just for fun,” and just for fun and casualness, I'll be slugging, tunneling, and camping 😀 And whoever cries will write:
I'd suggest you spend your energy, mental stamina, and life outside of DBD. I don't think it's bringing you much joy given the anguish on display here from your writing.Take care!
- Complaining About Logic
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063164#Comment_4063164
BHVR historically has a lot of bad reasons for not doing things and they tend to be adopted by the community, sadly. Anti-camp is still nonexistent (it's anti-facecamp), but for years they wouldn't even attempt to try it because they said they did it in one PTB very early on and it didn't perform the way they wanted so apparently it was never allowed to be tested again. Matchmaking is the same—they tried better variables, didn't get the result they wanted, so now we're in a situation where the 60/40 often looks more like a 70-80/30-20 and that's that.
There's only so many times we can suggest things that would improve the game only to be ignored or patronized by staff until we just stop trying. Like I say often now, BHVR knows best at the end of the day. Even if the game fades into obscurity, BHVR knows best.
And unfortunately, that's how it will be. And people will be happy with a game that doesn't work because they're giving them skins and new characters en masse.
-
Looking at some people's comments, one gets the impression that either they don't know the basics of the game, or they don't play DBD at all...
-
@cluelessclaudette said:
I recently checked my official stats on the DbD tracker before BHVR conveniently decided to hide the detailed kill rates. I have around 900 hours total (roughly 700h on Killer). My kill rate was hovering right around 60%. I'm not a pro, I'm not a sweat, I'm just a perfectly average, statistically balanced player.
Not sure if this is sarcasm or what, but I think the MEDIAN DBD player has less than 100 hours played. Most people pick this up on game pass and play a few rounds, then leave.
MOST people don't even have 900 hours on a single video game outside of MMORPG and eSport players.
Third of all…..since when was DBD "ranked" or even meant to be "Balanced"? Freaking out over MMR in a game like DBD is like….complaining about some dude's chess ELO you ran into at the park. Does it exist? Sure? Does it matter? Nope.
People looking for some sort of MMR balance akin to Chess or League of Legends are disconnected with what this game is. Considering "SWF" breaks the game balance but BHVR also refuses native voice comms is a telling sign. This is a casual game. This post is not recognizing that inconvenient fact.
You are conflating "total accounts created" with the "active matchmaking pool," and using the "casual game" excuse to defend broken architecture. Let's break down why this logic fails:
- The "Median Player" Fallacy
Yes, if you count every person who downloaded the game on Game Pass, played two matches, and uninstalled it, the median playtime is low. But matchmaking algorithms don't sort inactive accounts; they sort the active, daily player base. In a 10-year-old live-service game, 900 hours is absolutely mid-core .
You misunderstood me. By “a perfectly average, statistically balanced player” with my nearly 900 hours, I mean that I am an average player IN THIS SPECIFIC CONTEXT, in this specific game. Not about the entire gaming world This is a forum about DBD, a post about DBD, we are talking about DBD. It's like in football - I would be an average player. Not the worst on the school team, but not the best in the world or even like Ronaldo. Saying that I'm an average soccer player doesn't mean that I'm an average player in every game, in every sport. We're not talking about being an average player in games in general, but in DBD.
But let's assume you are right and 900 hours makes me a top-tier veteran. If that is true, why does the matchmaking system frequently put me against squads with 11,000 hours? Why does the system sometimes match me with players who have 20 hours of playtime? Since I'm a veteran and the system works, this shouldn't happen. If the system was functional, it would recognize that massive gap. The fact that it throws us together proves the soft-cap is broken.
- The "Casual Game" Excuse
You claim: "since when was DBD ranked or even meant to be Balanced? ... This is a casual game."
If Dead by Daylight is just a casual party game, why did BHVR spend massive resources to implement strict Skill-Based Matchmaking (SBMM)? They explicitly removed the old casual Rank system to force a hidden, competitive MMR rating onto the entire player base.
You cannot excuse a broken competitive algorithm by claiming the game is "casual." If it's truly a casual game, BHVR should remove the MMR system entirely and let matchmaking be random. But they don't. They insist on using an MMR system, which means as paying customers, we have the right to demand that the system actually does the math correctly.
If it's “just a casual game,” then why are so many players sweating it out and trying so hard? Why have this forum, why make these balance changes if it's “just a casual game”? The excuse “it's just a casual game” in discussions about balance and player selection for this game is really not a valid argument. In fact, it's proof of ignorance and disregard for serious problems. Following this logic, one could say: why bother with anti-slugging, anti-camping, and anti-tunneling if it's “just a casual game” and people will play a few rounds and then leave? At the same time, people who play DBD a little more want these changes. Why? Why bother? Who are these changes for? I'll tell you: for people who play it a little longer.
- The Park Chess Analogy
Your chess analogy actually proves my point. If I go to a park and a Grandmaster sits across from me, I can visibly see that I am outmatched, shake his hand, and politely decline to play.
If the game was never meant to be balanced, then why the balance changes? Why nerfs and buffs? Do you even know what's going on in these patches, or are you only interested in new characters? DBD isn't “ranked” because it doesn't have ranks, and that's also a problem. It does have MMR, though. A poor MMR, but it has MMR. However, complaints about MMR and “chess ELO” should be directed at bhvr, not me.
DbD's matchmaking system blindfolds you, glues you to the chair across from the Grandmaster, and hits you with a temporary matchmaking ban if you try to stand up and leave. Because the game forces us into these automated lobbies and punishes us for leaving, a functional automated sorting system (MMR) is absolutely mandatory to protect the player experience.
- The "Median Player" Fallacy
-
@Junylar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4062946#Comment_4062946
but with the current stagnation, players will only keep leaving the game.
Doesn't look like it according to the stats. And the last DLC was sold out like hot cakes. So no, the players keep happily running around in circles with wide open mouths, crying in joy and excitement, and every time someone says something like "players will leave the game" - a few more thousand of happy enjoyers join the fun. This community is the most tolerant one in the multiplayer game industry.
Unfortunately, that's true. And because of that, this game won't improve, because the players are too docile. And bhvr knows it.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4062978#Comment_4062978
Your argument runs into a fundamental contradiction.
You’re saying a survivor who runs the killer for several minutes but dies should still gain rating because they showed “mechanical skill.” But ranking systems aren’t designed to reward isolated mechanics, they’re designed to rank players based on their ability to produce wins.
If a system starts awarding rating to players who lose simply because they performed one part of the match well, the ranking immediately stops reflecting win probability. At that point the optimal strategy isn’t winning, it’s maximizing whatever metric gives rating.
That’s why competitive matchmaking systems anchor ratings to outcomes. Individual stats are far too context-dependent in team games. A long chase might come from survivor skill, but it might also come from killer mistakes, strong map tiles, teammate interference, or the killer committing too long.
Once you detach rating from outcomes and start rewarding intermediate metrics, you create a system where losing players can climb. That doesn’t measure skill, it breaks the ranking entirely.
Your argument runs into a fundamental contradiction.
You’re saying a survivor who runs the killer for several minutes but dies should still gain rating because they showed “mechanical skill.” But ranking systems aren’t designed to reward isolated mechanics, they’re designed to rank players based on their ability to produce wins.
If a system starts awarding rating to players who lose simply because they performed one part of the match well, the ranking immediately stops reflecting win probability. At that point the optimal strategy isn’t winning, it’s maximizing whatever metric gives rating.
That’s why competitive matchmaking systems anchor ratings to outcomes. Individual stats are far too context-dependent in team games. A long chase might come from survivor skill, but it might also come from killer mistakes, strong map tiles, teammate interference, or the killer committing too long.
Once you detach rating from outcomes and start rewarding intermediate metrics, you create a system where losing players can climb. That doesn’t measure skill, it breaks the ranking entirely.
So what? After our discussion, I can tunnel, slug, and camp with impunity? Well, if it doesn't matter what I do during the match, what skills I demonstrate while looping, because only the final result counts, then I have to strive for that final result. So the anti-face camp, anti-slug, and anti-tunnel systems are pointless, unnecessary, and completely destroy the current MMR system. At least according to your logic, because in reality it's different. -
@Reinami said:
The MMR softcap is around 1700. That is really the problem.
This is a problem, and the MMR system itself is a problem.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4062800#Comment_4062800
Very well-put. The Rank system used to work a bit like that, but it was imperfect as well. I have a feeling their metric for matchmaking has always been really shoddy, regardless of how it appeared on the surface. It would be beneficial to get someone who knows how to create and maintain it on board, at least contractually.
Exactly. I have outlined methods that would improve the system. Not create a perfect system, because that is simply impossible, but one that is better than the current one. But bhvr's laziness, their greed for money, and the community's stupid attitude (here's a perfect example - “they don't collect this data during the game, it's too difficult”). And yet, every match they get points for blinding the killer, the anti-face camp system works xd), nothing will change.
-
@Valuetown said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4062992#Comment_4062992
You claim comparing DbD to CS2 or Valorant is a "false equivalence." From a data science perspective, that’s incorrect. Whether a game is 5v5 or 1v4, the goal of an MMR system is the same: to minimize the variance between player skill levels in a lobby. Asymmetry doesn't make math impossible; it just makes it more demanding. The fact that DbD is 1v4 is exactly why relying on a single binary outcome (escaped/died) is such a massive failure—it completely ignores the complexity of the team dynamic.
Please enlighten me on what your singular equation would be to calculate the immense amount of variance with perks, addons, items, item addons, killers, maps, map tiles so that your "gotcha" that all these things can be perfectly replicated can actually be held up with facts.
In software engineering, perks are not mysterious human nuances—they are explicit, known variables. The server knows your exact loadout before the match begins.
If you use Deliverance, the system already knows you performed a safe unhook earlier to activate it. It logs a conditional self-unhook event. If it didn't register, Dliverance would never have been activated. It's not magic.
If you use Babysitter, it applies a modifier to the "safe unhook" metric because you gave the unhooked player haste and hidden scratch marks.
If you use Unbreakable, the system logs the time spent slugged and the recovery state.
So your MMR calculator changes and is inconsistent between matches? That is inherently an unfair system and would not hold up at all. So you would need a system that does not change between matches, and like I said, if you can create the perfect system that will not penalize players for making good plays that the system incorrectly determines as bad, be my guest. You will not have a system that "solves" this problem. This is a non-deterministic polynomial problem. For all the variance in an ASYMMETRICAL game, you are trying to have an algorithm for something so ballooned with variables, it would make a Goodyear blimp blush.
The Time-Space Trade-off
You claim the issue is just "personal preference" between queue times and match quality. But you ignore the fact that the "search band" in DbD doesn't just expand—it collapses almost instantly. The system doesn't try to find a fair match for 2 minutes and then expand; it hits a "panic button" after 30 seconds and pulls a 900-hour player to face an 11k-hour squad. That isn't a "trade-off"; that’s an architectural surrender.It does not collapse. It does exactly as it's programmed to do. If you are one standard deviation away from "average MMR," the band will increase to include 68% of the playerbase. If your killer MMR is above average, a team's average MMR can consist of the best player and the worst player; such is the nature of averages. That is how the system is designed to put players in matches to prioritize quick queues. You don't have to like it, but that's the choice the devs have made.
The Hypocrisy of "Nuance"
Lastly, you conveniently ignored the point about Camping, Tunneling, and Slugging. The community constantly demands complex, context-heavy "anti-tactic" code to stop these behaviors (like the anti-facecamp meter). Yet, you argue that calculating a slightly more complex MMR system is "impossible" due to "nuance." You can't have it both ways.The anti-camp meter is hardly nuanced at all. It calculates the rate of increase based on killer distance from hook over a span of time, and if a survivor is nearby, reduce or stop the increase. You are conflating "nuance" with "multivariate." Nuance is something that seems like the wrong play but is actually the correct one. You are also missing the fact that some players will make mistakes that ripple into being good plays due to the nature of the game. One such instance would be a console Mikaela dropping shack for no reason, but that downed pallet ends up saving the Ace getting chased from a blight rush. Who's credited for that? Mikaela for inadvertently making a good play and/or Ace who used it?
Once again, you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say. NO ONE, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE, DEMANDS A PERFECT SYSTEM! ALL THAT IS DEMANDED IS A SYSTEM THAT IS A LITTLE BIT FAIR AND A LITTLE BIT EFFECTIVE!
That too much to ask of bhvr studio? If so, how did they manage to create a game like dbd? How are they still able to create new DLC? People, read carefully...
Funny, I remember you saying this:
I read exactly what you wrote, and I am disagreeing with you because your premise is completely detached from the reality of this specific game.
Nobody is saying make a perfect system, yet this is what you are advocating for with your argument. You want a system to track every single variable that could possibly happen in a match.
And all of this because you ignored the end of my post: the game put you in that lobby out of convenience for the majority of players involved. You got the short end of the stick. It doesn't matter if the system had everyone's MMR perfectly. If you want to wait 30 minutes for a perfectly fair match (in an asymmetrical game lol) that is your opinion. The majority of players; however, would rather just play.
Your response is a textbook example of throwing pseudo-intellectual jargon at the wall hoping something sticks. Let's dismantle the technical fallacies in your argument.
- The "Singular Equation" Fallacy
Asking me to provide the "singular equation" with perfect weights for every add-on and map tile on a forum post is a bad-faith argument. It is the equivalent of demanding I write the complete source code for a new search engine to prove that Google can be improved. We don't need access to BHVR's proprietary database to point out that if(escaped) then +MMR is fundamentally inadequate for a multi-variable environment. - Misunderstanding Data Science and "Inconsistent MMR"
You claimed: "So your MMR calculator changes and is inconsistent between matches? That is inherently an unfair system..."
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how dynamic variables work in matchmaking. The calculator (the algorithm) doesn't change; the input variables (your loadout) do. If I equip a Med-Kit, my potential healing output variable increases. If I use Unbreakable, my "time slugged" penalty variable is mitigated. A system that adjusts to the variables you bring into the match is the exact definition of fairness. It evaluates your performance contextualized by your tools. The current system ignores the tools entirely.
- The NP-Problem Bluff
Calling a weighted matchmaking algorithm a "Non-Deterministic Polynomial problem" is honestly embarrassing. We are not asking the server to solve the Traveling Salesperson Problem or predict protein folding. We are asking it to take existing, already-tracked telemetry data (Chase Time, Gen Progress, Safe Unhooks), apply simple algebraic coefficients, and output a composite score. This is basic linear algebra used by every competitive game on the market, not some unsolvable mathematical anomaly. - The Dropped Pallet Strawman (Nirvana Fallacy Again)
You used an extreme edge case—a Mikaela accidentally dropping a pallet that later saves an Ace—as proof that "nuance" is impossible to track.
This is the Nirvana Fallacy again. Yes, a statistical algorithm might misattribute credit in a freak, 1-in-1000 accident. But over the course of 100 matches, the Law of Large Numbers dictates that the Ace who consistently wins chases will climb, and the Mikaela who panic-drops pallets will fall. You are arguing that because a system might be wrong 1% of the time on a micro-interaction, we should settle for a system that is wrong 90% of the time on the macro-level.
- The Telemetry Paradox (Which you ignored)
You completely dodged my core question regarding Emblems and Bloodpoints.
The game already tracks the nuance you claim is impossible. The server calculates your (The game knows how many points you have in the match and what they are for) emblem by analyzing your distance to the killer, line of sight, and chase duration in real-time. It tracks your emblem by tracking safe unhooks and heals. The game engine is already doing the math. The data is already there. BHVR just refuses to pipe those existing data streams into the matchmaking logic, relying instead on a binary win/loss condition.
Your example with the pallet dropped by Mikael, which saved Ace, is completely off the mark. It's as if you haven't played the game and don't know who does what in such a situation. How does it work now? Do you know? When you drop a pallet during a chase, you get points, YOU GET THEM. If Ace uses the dropped pallet in the chase (because the killer didn't destroy it), he doesn't get points for dropping it, but for the looping time, which is slightly extended - the killer has to destroy the pallet, which gives Ace a moment. It's simple and that's it. You just have to use it. Where do you see the problem?If the server is smart enough to give me an Iridescent Evader emblem for carrying the team, it's smart enough to give me a fractional MMR bump instead of treating me like a beginner because I died on the final hook.
It's amazing how selective your technical knowledge is. On the one hand, you demand complex anti-camp and anti-tunnel systems, trusting that the server can calculate the Killer's position, chase time, and perk activation down to the centimeter and millisecond. You see your Emblems and points for ‘Pallet Stun’ or ‘Safe Hook Rescue’ on the final screen – proof that the game has full telemetry of every event in the match. But as soon as I suggest that a fraction of this already collected data be used to modify MMR, you suddenly pretend that the server is “blind” and “unable to understand the nuances.” Make up your minds: either the game engine doesn't know what's going on in the match (so let's disable Emblems and Bloodpoints), or it knows perfectly well, but the developers can't be bothered to link these variables to the player matching algorithm.
- The "Singular Equation" Fallacy
-
@saym said:
BHVR doesn’t seem to understand that MMR is the most important aspect of the game.
It probably doesn’t make them any money, but with the current stagnation, players will only keep leaving the game.
Please make MMR visible as soon as possible.
MMR and hitboxes are the two biggest problems with DBD.
-
@azaxydbd said:
this is why rank system with visible mmr and rewards should be a thing. also lobbies should be 5v5, 2 killers que up against a team of 4 on both sides, the ones with better score wins and get extra points or special points for special rewards.
The 5v5 lobby is the complete opposite of asymmetrical DBD. But this system could be improved. Not perfectly, but better.
-
@Wezqu said:
Well just to point out that this is time commitment of waiting to get match or get to play matches problem. If they would never let the system to queue you in different MMR lobby some people would end up waiting very long time. Thats is a problem in every online game that uses MMR system and most handle it the same way.
But not every game pairs experienced players with players who have just completed the tutorial. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM!
-
Your "Q.E.D." is premature because your entire argument rests on a logical fallacy: that asymmetry justifies data blindness. In reality, asymmetrical systems require more granular data to achieve balance, not less.
- The "Asymmetry" Excuse
You claim comparing DbD to CS2 or Valorant is a "false equivalence." From a data science perspective, that’s incorrect. Whether a game is 5v5 or 1v4, the goal of an MMR system is the same: to minimize the variance between player skill levels in a lobby. Asymmetry doesn't make math impossible; it just makes it more demanding. The fact that DbD is 1v4 is exactly why relying on a single binary outcome (escaped/died) is such a massive failure—it completely ignores the complexity of the team dynamic. - The "Context & Perks" Fallacy
You asked specifically: "What if you have Deliverance? Babysitter? Unbreakable?" and claimed a system can't understand this nuance.
In software engineering, perks are not mysterious human nuances—they are explicit, known variables. The server knows your exact loadout before the match begins.
If you use Deliverance, the system already knows you performed a safe unhook earlier to activate it. It logs a conditional self-unhook event. If it didn't register, Dliverance would never have been activated. It's not magic.
If you use Babysitter, it applies a modifier to the "safe unhook" metric because you gave the unhooked player haste and hidden scratch marks.
If you use Unbreakable, the system logs the time spent slugged and the recovery state.
A multi-variable system doesn't need to "think like a 10k hour player." It just applies mathematical weights to actions based on active modifiers. Ironically, the current 1/0 system is the one that gets fooled by perks. If a terrible player loses a 5-second chase, gets slugged, uses Unbreakable at the exit gate, and crawls out, the current system rewards them with a "Win." A granular system would see the actual telemetry (short chase, slugged, perk carry) and adjust the rating properly.
- The Time-Space Trade-off
You claim the issue is just "personal preference" between queue times and match quality. But you ignore the fact that the "search band" in DbD doesn't just expand—it collapses almost instantly. The system doesn't try to find a fair match for 2 minutes and then expand; it hits a "panic button" after 30 seconds and pulls a 900-hour player to face an 11k-hour squad. That isn't a "trade-off"; that’s an architectural surrender. - The Hypocrisy of "Nuance"
Lastly, you conveniently ignored the point about Camping, Tunneling, and Slugging. The community constantly demands complex, context-heavy "anti-tactic" code to stop these behaviors (like the anti-facecamp meter). Yet, you argue that calculating a slightly more complex MMR system is "impossible" due to "nuance." You can't have it both ways.
. You wrote “while knowing nothing about the current MMR system.” But what do we know about this whole “mythical” MMR? We know that it collects data in a binary manner. You escaped - MMR up. You died - MMR down. 4K - MMR goes up. 3K MMR goes up. 2K - MMR stays the same. 1k and 0k - MMR goes down. And that's it. I don't know anything about the actual state of my own MMR because there's no way to check it, we have nothing. So tell me honestly: what are windows, pallets, and generators for? If the system only counts the end result - escape/kill, then I can hide the entire match and according to the system I'm better. And according to the same system, my MMR is high enough, so I can face a better player. And the fact that I can't loop, I can't hit a skill check on a generator, doesn't matter, right? Right? And tell me, honestly, if that's the case, why do so many survivors sweat, take meta builds for looping and generators, when all you have to do is hide in the bushes to be better? Or the other way around: why have anti-slug, anti-camp, and anti-tunnel systems if, when I want to play against weaker players, I can camp 1 survivor - 1 kill - MMR down and goal achieved? Or why use anti-slug if I knock down 4 survs and do a full slug because they made 1 mistake, I'll do 3k or 4k even though I'm blocking myself with grass, I don't know how to mind game or loop, and according to the system I'm better, right? Right? So what's the point of these systems? Well, exactly... The answers to these questions are also answers to the fact that THE CURRENT MMR SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK AND NEEDS TO BE CHANGED! IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE PERFECT, BUT IT HAS TO WORK! That's it.
If BHVR can't handle the "nuance" of tracking an Unbreakable play, how can they ever hope to balance the actual gameplay? We aren't asking for a sentient AI; we are demanding that a multi-million dollar game stops using a 2016 boolean to manage its 2026 player base.
Once again, you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say. NO ONE, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE, DEMANDS A PERFECT SYSTEM! ALL THAT IS DEMANDED IS A SYSTEM THAT IS A LITTLE BIT FAIR AND A LITTLE BIT EFFECTIVE!
That too much to ask of bhvr studio? If so, how did they manage to create a game like dbd? How are they still able to create new DLC? People, read carefully... - The "Asymmetry" Excuse
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4062759#Comment_4062759
You ignored the part where you were supposed to tell what my MMR is based on playtime, not the example I mentioned which demonstrates vast difference in players. Its easy to criticize than make a system that has no flaws.
I didn't ignore your question; you just ignored the answer. I explicitly wrote: "nobody is saying 1 hour equals exactly 1 MMR point." Asking me to calculate your exact hidden MMR score based on your 7,200 hours is asking me to reverse-engineer a proprietary black box that BHVR actively hides from its player base. Playtime is a heuristic proxy—a statistical approximation we use because the actual MMR system is completely corrupted by the locker-hiding scenario you literally just provided. And I don't see you playing realistically. I can't give you your exact MMR number, but basic data science dictates that your 7,200 hours put your mechanical baseline in a completely different galaxy than a 700-hour player.
As for your second point: "It's easy to criticize than make a system that has no flaws."
That is a textbook Nirvana Fallacy. Nobody is asking BHVR to write a "flawless" system. We are asking them to write a functional one.
I DON'T WORK AT BHVR, I DON'T GET PAID FOR A SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T WORK. That's one thing. Another thing is that just because I don't create the system in DBD myself, it doesn't mean I can't criticize it. No one here is talking about a perfect system, but about a system that is fair, even if only a little, and that works, even if only a little. If I had created such a system at university or at work, neither my professor nor my boss would have accepted such an explanation. I pay for the game and for the characters - I have the right to demand. If we are going to trivialize everything in an ignorant way and say, "If you don't have any ideas, don't criticize!!! It's impossible because we don't want to!!!“, then all discussions about characters, nerfs, buffs, balance, or the ”holy trinity“ in DBD are pointless, they have no right to exist because ”You're not doing it? You don't have any ideas? Then don't criticize!!! You're so smart? Then give us the perfect solution instead of criticizing!!!". No one is talking about ideals, just about making the basics work, so I don't know where you're getting that from. Don't ignore the whole thing.Industry-standard matchmaking systems in games like CS2, Valorant, or League of Legends are not "flawless," but they track multiple variables, use weighted averages, and accurately separate beginners from veterans. DbD's system relies on a primitive if (escaped) boolean from 2016. Criticizing a multi-million dollar studio for relying on lazy, one-dimensional spaghetti code instead of implementing industry-standard architecture isn't just "easy"—it's necessary if we ever want the game to improve.
-
@EntityNea said:
@GhostRider1518 (apparently the quote broke)
are you just downvoting me without reading?
I explained that's why other games check your previous matches in order to determine future matchmaking. So you don't end up with 10 unfavorable matches in a row.I read exactly what you wrote, and I am disagreeing with you because your premise is completely detached from the reality of this specific game.
You keep explaining how other games use predictive matchmaking or streak-breaker algorithms to look at past matches and prevent 10 unfavorable games in a row. I completely agree with you on that point—that is exactly how a functioning architecture works in other competitive titles.
The problem you are refusing to acknowledge is that Dead by Daylight does not do this effectively.
Even if DbD's code attempts to look at your previous matches to break a losing streak, it is analyzing completely flawed, binary data (escaped/died 1/0) and applying it to a matchmaking pool with a massive, uncapped bucket (the low softcap). Because the system doesn't track granular mechanical skill, its mathematical idea of a "favorable" or "casual" match is entirely random. That is exactly why players in DbD do regularly experience 10+ miserable, unbalanced matches in a row, unlike in those "other games" you mentioned.
You are trying to defend DbD's matchmaking by describing how better-coded games operate. If DbD actually successfully utilized the sophisticated streak-prevention you are describing, this entire forum thread wouldn't exist.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4062800#Comment_4062800
You’re assuming more data automatically means a better ranking system. It doesn’t. The real issue is signal quality.
Metrics like chase time, generators completed, or saves are extremely context dependent. A 3 minute chase might mean the survivor played well, or it might mean the killer misplayed, the map spawned strong tiles, or teammates interfered. The system can’t reliably distinguish those causes, so those metrics measure activity, not skill.
That’s why most competitive MMR systems rely heavily on outcomes. Outcomes compress all of that context into a single reliable signal: did the player’s decisions actually lead to winning or losing.
The moment you start rewarding intermediate metrics like chase duration, players will optimize for those metrics instead of the objective. That’s a well-known design problem called metric gaming. At that point the system stops measuring skill and starts measuring who can exploit the metric best.
You are arguing from the perspective of a theoretical vacuum, completely ignoring how Dead by Daylight actually plays out in reality.
- "Activity vs. Skill"
You claim that measuring chases measures "activity, not skill." What other mechanical skills are there in DbD? Are we even playing the same game? The entire mechanical depth of this game is built around looping (windows/pallets), managing totems, and item efficiency (flashlights, toolboxes, firecrackers, med-kits). If a player successfully loops a Killer for 3 minutes using precise mechanical inputs while their team repairs generators, that isn't just "activity"—that is the highest expression of skill the game has to offer. And what are the main goals in DBD matches? Looping the killer and repairing generators = escape. Without generators, you won't escape, and without looping the killer, you won't be able to repair generators. What else do you want to measure as a goal? People optimize their actions anyway, whether it's for generators (genrush) or killer looping. This has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen regardless of the system. Why? Because this game features perks and the ability to build different combinations. When I test a new perk for looping, I create a full build for looping and optimize my actions for looping. If this is no longer happening, then why are people using perks like lithe and windows? Precisely for looping. Already, depending on which killer they encounter, people are pre-dropping pallet after pallet, doing nothing but destroying pallets, so I don't know why you're pretending that this is only going to happen when it's already happening. And if they optimize their own skills for looping (for example, training on custom maps), what's the problem? Isn't the point to keep getting better? Where's the problem here? - The "Optimization" Myth
You argue that if the game tracked chases, players would "optimize for those metrics instead of the objective." Have you looked at the current meta? Players already optimize for chases! The vast majority of loadouts are entirely built around chase perks, exhaustion perks, flashlights, and looping add-ons. The community already plays this way. The only difference is that the current 1/0 MMR system is completely blind to it. - You Misunderstood the Math
I am not suggesting that a long chase should equal a massive MMR spike. I am suggesting a slight, weighted bump. If you loop well, your MMR should receive a fractional adjustment to reflect that mechanical competence, rather than the system treating you exactly like a beginner just because you sacrificed yourself on the final hook. - The 1/0 System Measures Luck, Not Skill
Currently, the binary outcome doesn't measure a "reliable signal." It measures who had the best combination of map RNG, meta perks, team coordination (or lack thereof), opponent mistakes, and sheer luck.
If you truly believe that looping a Killer and buying your team the time to finish the objective has no bearing on actual skill, I have to ask: what do you actually do in your matches? Do you just sit in the corner of the map doing generators and never engage in a chase?
- "Activity vs. Skill"
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4062749#Comment_4062749
It's funny too because they already have data to prove that players will in fact wait for trials that are longer. While the last 4/5 years have shown that Survivors will take just about anything, it's also shown that Killers will wait for just about anything.
Exactly.
-
@top500spiderman said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4062759#Comment_4062759
Mechanical skill alone doesn’t determine whether you win or escape. It’s only one part of the game. You can be great at looping, but if you run the killer for four generators and still die consistently, your MMR will drop. That isn’t a matchmaking problem that’s the outcome of the choices being made in the match.
The system can only measure results. If someone repeatedly takes long chases knowing they’re likely to die at the end, the system will register those deaths. That’s no different than a killer intentionally letting survivors escape to lower or maintain their MMR.
This is also why using chase time to calculate MMR wouldn’t make much sense. The objective for survivors isn’t to stay in chase as long as possible, it’s to complete generators and escape. A player could extend a chase for two minutes by pre dropping every pallet on the map, but that often hurts the team by burning through resources and leaving the rest of the map unsafe later.
It would also create bad incentives. If chase time affected MMR, survivors would start optimizing for long chases instead of good decision-making. Players would force chases, pre-drop pallets constantly, and ignore stealth or generator pressure just to inflate their chase time.
It also ignores killer design. Some killers are built to end chases quickly, like The Nurse or The Blight. Survivors would look “worse” in the system simply because they faced killers designed to secure fast downs.
At the end of the day, survivor gameplay isn’t just about chase skill. Good survivors balance stealth, generator efficiency, positioning, teamwork, and knowing when to disengage. Chase time only measures one piece of that, which is why using it as a MMR metric would be unreliable.
If chase time determined MMR, the optimal way to climb wouldn’t be winning or escaping it would be farming long chases. The moment a ranking system rewards something other than the objective of the game, it stops measuring skill and starts measuring who can exploit the metric the best.
You are creating a false dichotomy. You assume the system must either be a simple binary 1/0 (escaped/died) or a one-dimensional "chase timer." In modern software architecture, that is not how skill-based matchmaking works.
A professional MMR system uses weighted multi-variable analysis.
If a Survivor runs the Killer for 3 minutes (chase metric), completes 2 generators (objective metric), and saves 2 teammates (altruism metric) but dies at the end, a competent algorithm doesn't just say "0/1 - Fail". It weighs those high-value inputs against the outcome. Currently, the system rewards a player who hides in a locker for 10 minutes and sneaks out the hatch, while punishing the player who actually did all the work. That is a bad incentive, and it's exactly what we have now.
As for your "explloiting the metric" argument:
The "Pallet Pre-dropping" point: A weighted system can easily account for this. If a survivor pre-drops 10 pallets in a 60-second chase, the "resource efficiency" variable would be low, balancing their MMR gain.
Killer Design (Nurse/Blight): This is exactly why we need granular data. The system should know that a 30-second chase against a P100 Nurse is statistically more valuable than a 60-second chase against a Trapper.
The objective of the game is indeed to escape, but the skill required to reach that objective is what the MMR is supposed to measure. Right now, the system only measures the result, not the skill. If you think a system that can't tell the difference between a mechanical master who sacrificed himself and a beginner who hid the whole match is "working," then you are settling for a massive failure in data granularity.
Your logic is self-contradictory. You admit that a player can "run the killer for four generators" and still claim that measuring that skill would be "unreliable".From a technical standpoint, if one player is occupying the Killer for the time it takes to complete 80% of the primary objective, that player is the primary driver of the win condition. In any balanced system, that should be rewarded.
The "bad incentives" argument also fails for two reasons:
Reality check: Survivors are already pre-dropping pallets constantly in the current meta. Acting like a better MMR system would suddenly "break" the game with pre-drops ignores the fact that it's already a standard low-skill tactic.
Weighted Math: A well-designed system would simply treat "Time in Chase" as one of many variables. It wouldn't mean you "farm" MMR just by running around; it means that if you perform the hardest mechanical task in the game (looping) which allows your team to finish the main objective (generators), the system acknowledges your skill.
Currently, the binary 1/0 system treats a mechanical master who carried the team but died at the end exactly the same as a beginner who did nothing. That is the real failure in data granularity. If you are good at looping, your MMR should reflect that skill slightly—not as a "free win," but as a recognition of your mechanical input into the match outcome.
It’s not about "farming long chases"; it's about the system finally opening its eyes to what is actually happening during the trial instead of just looking at the exit gate.
-
@EntityNea said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4062746#Comment_4062746
It's fair because everybody gets this break.
It makes the game more fun and interesting when you get a variety of matches. Some more difficult, some more casual.
And like I said, a system like that wouldn't pair you against people completely out of your league.
It would be a SLIGHT shift towards people either below or above you.
This would happen anyways in a matchmaking system, because if it found opponents exactly at your skill level, then queue times would take ages.
The purpose of the system deliberately giving you favorable or unfavorable matches, is so that it can make sure you don't get, for example, 10 unfavorable matches in a row by random chance.Which doesn't work anyway… Because you'll often encounter, for example, 10 or even more unfavorable matches.
-
@ONSAN said:
Does everyone who has been playing baseball since they were 6 years old necessarily become a professional? No, they can't. That's all.
That is a fun analogy, but you are completely missing the scale of the math here.
You are right—playing baseball since you were 6 years old doesn't automatically make you an MLB professional. But if you take a 30-year-old who has played amateur baseball every weekend for 24 years, and put him in a match against someone who just learned how to hold a bat a few months ago, the veteran is going to absolutely obliterate the newcomer.
No one is claiming that 11,000 hours guarantees you are a professional. What we are saying is that a 10,000-hour gap represents a massive, mathematically undeniable advantage in muscle memory, map knowledge, and mechanical efficiency.
If a matchmaking algorithm looks at the 24-year veteran and the 6-month beginner and says, "These two are a perfect match because they both won their last game," the algorithm is fundamentally broken. It is confusing a basic binary outcome (a win/loss) with actual mechanical skill.
Since BHVR's hidden MMR doesn't track granular skill, playtime remains the best heuristic we have to expose these absurd mismatches.
-
@tjt85 said:
Hours don't mean anything. You could have 8000h throwing pebbles around and trying to get a conga going. That said, I wouldn't put it past BHVR to include hours as a part of their MMR system. I find I get matched with similar hour players more often than not.
I find it pretty funny that the only mode where I can achieve a 40% escape rate is 2V8, which is the mode most people seem to agree MMR is almost completely absent from. I know that's not the experience for everyone, but no match-making whatsoever is apparently a better system for me than whatever it is they've put in place for 1V4. I don't think a game like DBD lends itself to accurate match-making, tbh. It will always be a wild crapshoot no mater what BHVR do.
(I would compare my Killer games too but I'm not ruthless enough in the regular mode to make a fair comparison).
I understand the argument about someone spending 8,000 hours throwing pebbles, but in data analytics, you don't design a core system around extreme statistical anomalies. You build it around the median, and median playtime strongly correlates with muscle memory and game sense.
But let's talk about your point regarding the 2v8 mode and the absence of MMR. You feel it's a "better system" because it replaces a rigged, frustrating algorithm with pure, unadulterated chaos. However, from a balance perspective, 2v8 without MMR isn't a solution—it's just a casino roulette. Let's break down the actual scenarios:
2 weak Killers vs 8 weak Survivors: The result is pure RNG. It could end with 0 escapes, 4 escapes, or all 8 escaping. There is no predictive logic or balance here.
2 weak Killers vs 8 good Survivors: The outcome relies entirely on Survivor hubris. If the good survivors make careless mistakes, nobody escapes. If they play optimally with zero mistakes, the vast majority escape easily.
2 good Killers vs 8 good Survivors: This is the ultimate roulette. The match is dictated entirely by which TIER of Killers are picked and the exact micro-mistakes made by either side during the chaos.. Here, the outcome depends on what kind of killers they are (which TIER killer) and on the mistakes made by the killers and survivors.
The reason 2v8 feels "refreshing" isn't because DbD is incapable of accurate matchmaking. It's simply because playing a chaotic party mode with zero matchmaking is temporarily less frustrating than playing 1v4 with a broken matchmaking script that uses average players as backfill.
We shouldn't accept that the game will "always be a crapshoot" just because BHVR refuses to code a granular, properly weighted MMR system. DBD is suitable for matching players appropriately; no one is talking about turbo precision, only about matching players correctly. This is necessary for game balance. Otherwise, nerfs and buffs on both sides are pointless, because what's the point of a survivor getting buffs if they're weak and encounter a skilled killer who's been nerfed? If the survivor wins, it's not because of their skills, but because of those nerfs and buffs. If they lose and the killer wins, the killer will win only thanks to those nerfs and buffs, not thanks to their skills. And then they'll write “noob, uninstall this game.” That's not what multiplayer games are about.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4062640#Comment_4062640
Spiderman here has a good point which nobody has addressed yet.
How many Hours = what MMR? I have 7200 myself, so what is my skill then? You really cant say.
One of my friends has like 700h plays awfully but Survives more matches than me when we Queue, Explain that.I can explain that very easily, and your example actually proves the exact point of my original post.
You asked why your 700-hour friend plays awfully but still survives more matches than you. The answer is simple: because DbD's matchmaking algorithm is a primitive, binary boolean. It only checks if (escaped == true).
If you, as a 7200-hour veteran, take the Killer on a 3-minute chase, loop perfectly, and sacrifice yourself on the hook so your team can open the gates, the system punishes you. It lowers your hidden rating. Meanwhile, if your 700-hour friend hides in lockers, avoids the Killer, and sneaks out the exit gate while you die, the algorithm rewards them. The system literally thinks your awful friend is the better player.
That is the exact "massive logic error" I am talking about. The code doesn't track chase time, altruism, or mechanical skill. It only tracks the 1/0 outcome of escaping. Your friend has inflated stats precisely because the architecture is broken and data-blind.
And regarding your first question: nobody is saying 1 hour equals exactly 1 MMR point. But in data analysis, playtime is a powerful heuristic. At 7,200 hours, your muscle memory and map knowledge are vastly superior to a 700-hour player. The reason we are forced to use hours to measure lobby fairness is because BHVR's actual hidden score is completely corrupted by the exact phenomenon you just described with your friend.
-
@ImWinston said:
- BHVR has attempted to tighten MMR in the past, creating a system that effectively matches killer and survivor players of equal skill, but killer players complained profusely, saying that every match was challenging (if you search YouTube, you'll find references to this period I'm referring to). After a month of protests from content creators, the improvement was "reverted" and we're back to the current MMR (i.e., no MMR).
Thank you for bringing this up. This piece of history is the absolute smoking gun that proves my entire point.
From a software development perspective, this is the worst kind of technical regression. It proves that the current broken matchmaking isn't just a result of incompetence; it was a deliberate downgrade. BHVR actually had a strict, functioning algorithm, but because top-tier content creators couldn't handle playing against their own skill level (which made it harder to farm easy clips for YouTube), the developers intentionally nerfed the architecture.
They literally rolled back a working patch to appease a vocal minority of influencers.
And what is the result? We are left with this "no MMR" system where statistically average, 900-hour players are deliberately fed to 11,000-hour veteran squads. BHVR is actively using the casual and average player base as disposable server backfill, just so Twitch streamers don't have to wait in queues and can have "chill" games stomping weaker opponents.
It is an absolute joke that a competitive multiplayer game balances its core matchmaking variables around the comfort of content creators instead of mathematical fairness.
I know about these changes, but that doesn't change the fact that the current system doesn't work. That system was also poorly designed, which is why there were complaints. But if they had done it right (it's possible, you just have to want to), I think both sides would be happy. Weak killers vs. weak survivors. Good killers vs. good survivors.