Comments

• Imagine complaining about chases, while being the only person chased for the whole game and still winning.

  Sore winners are the worst.

  in Killers are lazy nowadays Comment by Kalinikta February 20, 2022

• @knell said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2793855#Comment_2793855

  *All the basic elements of a MMR system are present in the emblem system; assessment, ratings moving up and down accordingly and matching based on what ranking that rating gave you.

  Do you see what's missing from the list of factors you just presented in the Emblem system? The win condition. Do you know the most important aspect of MMR? The win condition.

  *The formula used to calculate the MMR is based on your performance in matches, the result of your team and other statistical factors to ensure a fair experience. Consequently, the MMR evolves with each match you play. - Ubisoft, in For Honor https://www.ubisoft.com/en-au/help/for-honor/gameplay/article/match-making-rating-mmr-in-for-honor/000065548

  *MMR values are adjusted depending on the role selected, and the player's past performance with each role. - Dota 2, https://dota2.fandom.com/wiki/Matchmaking_Rating

  Like we mentioned before, your MMR rating will increase or decrease depending on the matches you win or lose. Oftentimes there’s additional elements that factor in how much MMR you gain and how much you lose. - eSports.com: https://www.esports.com/en/what-is-mmr-in-league-of-legends-and-how-does-it-work-265160

  Your DOTA2 example: "Matchmaking Rating, or MMR is a value that determines the skill level of each player. This value is used in matchmaking. Winning increases a player's MMR, while losing decreases it."

  Your League of Legends example: "People who are looking to climb seek to increase their MMR rating by winning matches or games, increasing points, while losing sets you back a few."

  Your For Honor example: "The formula used to calculate the MMR is based on your performance in matches, the result of your team, and other mathematical factors to ensure a fair experience."

  Both your DOTA2 and LOL webpage links immediately placed heavy emphasis on the win condition of the game in their explanation of their MMR before anything else. In fact, the quotes I highlighted were actually the first statements on the page. ...and you accused me of cherry-picking? Wow. However, I was actually surprised by the explanation given in the For Honor webpage, given that players' performance is placed before the win condition - and that for their matchmaking, they actually added even something else (Renown) - besides the usual factor like Location. First time I've seen matchmaking like theirs. I wonder how well it actually works.

  Just because I was curious to see if it was some Ubisoft thing, I checked out Rainbow Six Siege also, but they also had the usual win condition as their MMR factor. 

  Rainbow Six Siege example :"Several things can affect your MMR, such as: Whether you win or lose a match. The skill difference between teams during a match. Exiting a Ranked Match early. Inactivity during a match."

  But yeah, For Honor's MMR is the exception, rather than the rule. But the problem with the Emblem system extends way beyond that.

  The main issue is that Emblem system did not account for the wincon, but instead tried to assess the players' "performance" in any given match. Like I said previously, players were able to rank up despite losing, and rank down despite winning. That would never happen in MMR. Additionally, because the Emblem system did not rate players due to the win condition but instead by their performance levels, it allowed situations in which all 5 players ranked up, or all to rank down. Again, this would never happen in any MMR. and that is why Emblem system is not MMR in any semblance or form.

  But because you made some effort, as appreciation, I'm going to post a link to an article that reminded me of the situation here.  It's an article by Sirlin, who most people who are into game designs and balancing should already know.  For those who don't, he balanced games like Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix and also makes a bunch of interesting board games.  But what he's most known for are for his articles on game balance and game designs in general.  I'll post the overall link here: https://www.sirlin.net/article-archive and although it's completely off-topic, I suggest forum members to especially check out his Playing to Win article here: https://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win.

  But back on topic, the specific article I'm going to post is about the time when Sirlin suspected that Overwatch designers were adjusting the ranking system with more than just the win condition of the game, and wanted to warn them of the danger in doing so. He brought up TrueSkill and stated this:

  • "TrueSkill intentionally and explicitly does NOT use any individual performance metrics. Their argument is that no matter what game you're talking about and no matter what metrics you measure to determine how well a given player did, it's necessarily imperfect compared to using only win/loss. The point of trying to guess if a player did well or not is how much they contributed win/loss, but the win/loss stat is the most accurate measure, they say. You'd introducing error by adding ANY other metric.
  • In addition to introducing error, you're warping incentives. For example, if you measure "damage done" as one metric, then it means players will attempt to maximize "winning AND damage done" rather than just "winning," which is not great. You can also very easily accidentally do a lot worse: you might accidentally give incentive not to play support heroes in a game where you really need support heroes on your team. (It seems this is already true in Overwatch.)"

  And he goes on to touch about few other things, including topics like "ELO Hell" that players might be interested in.  https://www.sirlin.net/posts/overwatchs-ranking-point-system

  It's similar to what I spoke of earlier about adding new variables to the MMR system. If you are incentivized for both "winning AND altruistic actions" players will try to maximize both. For example, if a survivor gets hooked, all three of the other players might become more incentivized to leave their generators and go for the unhook, despite the presence of Hex: Ruin. Not only does it promote unhealthy competition between the players ("No, I'll do the unhooking!"), but ultimately may create situations in which yes, you got some MMR points for the unhook, but you lost the game because of that. And like I said, the ultimate goal in the game is to escape.

  *Lets get to the point, the current MMR system is flawed. The player base's misconception of a win? Let me ask you then, what is a win for the killer? 

  Killer's win condition?

  • Official website: The Killer's main objective is to please The Entity by sacrificing Survivors on Hooks found in the environment.
  • Tutorial: The main objective of a Killer is to sacrifice Survivors to The Entity.

  *Are you trying to uphold two different standards for the opposite ends of the match and then claiming that is a good way to measure whether they are equivalently matched?

  Yes, absolutely. It's an asymmetrical game with different goals - of course they have different standards.

  *That is the issue with the win condition as you state it, the killers win condition isn't the same as the survivors losing one.

  Why would it be an issue? It doesn't seem to like an issue to me.

  *The thing is it isn't a misconception of the player base, they simply look at what is the win condition for one side, flip it around and that is the win condition for the other. It is quite important that you use the same definition in a game that is defined as a 1v4 by its website, stores, etc. and it is not stated to be a 5 player game (feel free to point to your sources on this), to know who won that battle, the 4 or the 1?

  Why would it be important? Doesn't seem very important to me.

  *You claim the win condition hasn't changed, so... define it from the other end and how that relates to the system.

  Why would the Survivors' win condition have to mirror the killer's when their objectives are different? Doesn't seem like a requirement to me.

  *The game is a team game, it literally states it and to have a good MMR system both sides need to be evaluated on equal terms.

  Sure, we've already agreed that it's a "team" game in which players can choose to work together (or not) and escape together (or not.) Some players would choose to NOT work together and NOT escape together, and instead choose to ditch and abandon other Survivors - we've already agreed that this was not a problem for you. After all, you yourself specifically stated that teamwork was an "option" and not a "must." And given how the game itself never addresses team-based win condition, but speak only of individual escapes, why would the MMR require win outcomes about 4v1, when it actually makes more sense to do 4 sets of 1v1?

  *Using multiple factors is far from a negative in a MMR system, because it allows the developers to be faster in updating and assessing someone's ranking. The faster they are able to do so the fewer unfair matches we get and the more enjoyable it will be. This is a topic about how MMR works after all and that is just once again a general understanding within the industry; the faster and more accurately you can assess your players 'skill' the better the system is.

  ...like I said before, adding more variables actually makes more room for creating errors, and therefore less accurate. But sure, you show me some resources that state that it's faster and more accurate. This should be good.

  *Btw. waiting for it to be done... is not how feedback works. You give feedback based on what there is now, to out support or criticism in order to get things changed. He stated something and it is appropriate to state that we agree that it would improve the system, before they do it.

  But you aren't giving feedback. You were claiming that this game already has a team-based win condition just because Patrick is potentially considering adding in a "team result" variable into the MMR. It hasn't happened yet, and possibly never will. They'll probably only do it if they find that adding the variable somehow improves the accuracy of the MMR algorithm. So no, the game doesn't already have a team-based win condition.

  Wow who is reaching now, didn't account for the win condition? Is was one of the most rewarding single elements of it.

  Wanted to climb in the emblem system, one of the best ways to do so is to consistently win.

  All these statements are true. How did it not consider escaping? It then looked at the rest of your performance to see if you were on par, below or above that of your ranking. I don't think the emblem system was incredibly good, as it took to many things into consideration, as pointed out in the article you provided that has some severe dangers that people will start doing things to get the correct stats while not contributing to the final result. It still was a MMR system, just not a very good one and I for one am actually in favor that they replaced it.

  In all these games, you on an individual level are unable to win if the overall team doesn't. You state well people will become more altruistic and stop doing gens, but do you think that can and will result in 3 to 4 people getting out? This is simply a false narrative you are pushing. Just because you have the most damage dealt, doesn't mean that your team will win. I am still stating that the game should look at which side won, did the 4 or the 1 win in the 4v1 game.

  To bring it actually inline with your Overwatch article, even though all 4 survivors added value to the match to create the final result and made them win, even though it might have cost someone their life they are not being rewarded equally and even worse the one that died isn't rewarded at all, they go down in rating.

  "To generalize Elo to team games, there's two factors you'd use. First, if your team's AVERAGE ranking was lower than the opposing team's average ranking, then you should get more points for winning. Second, if your PERSONAL ranking is lower than your team's average ranking, you should get more points for winning than your higher-ranked teammates who also won."

  In the current system the survivors are judged individually based on their individual outcomes, your team can win while you lose and that is an issue. According to your article that is where the danger lies. Literally the teams win and MMR being separated per individual is the issue.

  This is what they state on how to get out of ELO hell as they state: "What I mean is, it's probably more important to have few deaths and to generally be on the payload than it is to achieve impressive stats that "in theory" allow your teammates to be on the payload."

  That is exactly the issue that we have currently in the game. If you keep playing in a fashion that doesn't result in your team winning, while you yourself are getting out. That means according to the article that you should have adjusted your play, to work with what you have and contribute in a way that makes your team win. You shouldn't have been rewarded for escaping, because your team lost. Literally the article you provided showcases that the individual win condition should be thrown overboard and replaced with the teams win condition.

  You have not defined the win condition for a killer, their goal is to kill survivors. Therefore one is enough? Why should both sides of a versus be using the same metrics to determine whether they are well matched and which side won? Because that is what makes these things fair and accurate. That is why I am suggesting and stating that the game should consider the win condition of 3/4 escapes as a win, a 2k/e a draw, a 0/1 escape as a loss.

  You claim that there is no team victory, but you are in a team of 4 versus a team of 1. This is just a false statement and so backwards. To get a team result, you tally the outcome of each individual. That is what that means. You don't care about your team, but that doesn't change the fact that the game is a 4v1.

  I don't believe that having multiple factors weigh in to determine the amount you gain or lose is a big deal. You are right that it shouldn't expand to much based on what is stated in that article and is why the Emblem system was so bad. It does have some strong points on how individual evaluations are dangerous in a team based MMR system, but the big elephant in the room is that the MMR system isn't accounting for the teams result equally for all those that contributed to it and is doing exactly what they state you shouldn't evaluating people individually.

  That article just shows that you are digging your own grave here and trying to jump through hoops to justify individual evaluations over that of a team. The entire article is that a team MMR system and survivors are on a team, should award everyone on the team according to their teams results. All you have showcased here is that the developers fell for the same flaws in the new MMR system, as they did with the old one.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 6, 2022

• @knell said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2793475#Comment_2793475

  *You are wrong, in the interview that was quoted by you the developers themselves stated that the win condition they upheld wasn't that straight forward. The emblem system represented this and was what they used. 

  That seems to simply be your assertion to fit your narrative. You are more than welcome to provide direct, concrete evidence that Cote's quote is referring to the Emblem system though. I doubt you can though - just more assertion, inferences, hypothesis, and stretched imagination.

  *The change in the match making system is an indication of a change in the win condition that they are using. 

  Change in the matchmaking is simply an indication that the old matchmaking system was not working, and therefore needed a new one - it has nothing to do with the win condition, nor does it imply any changes in the win condition.

  *Where is your proof that this was a lip service and not a reference to the emblem system? You want to use one line from a tutorial on the website, versus the developers as you yourself admitted multi facet statements on the forums, QnA's and interviews.

  This is your own opinion, not something else. You asked for the developers words and those were delivered. You want to deal in facts and the developers have stated what the win condition was not and that was clear cut and had a system built around it. 

  Ok, let's go ahead and pursue this line of thought further. Cote indicated that win condition was based on whether the players felt they had a good game, whether they had fun. By that logic, the players win as long as they felt like they had "fun" or "had a good game" and lost the match if they didn't. If the players felt that they had "fun" in the match by simply jumping in lockers throughout the match... by his definition, they automatically win. If they felt like they had "fun" in the match because they rescued a survivor right in front of a camping killer and the sandbagged survivor died in a hilarious way... they automatically win. Does that sound like a fitting definition of "winning" to anyone who understands basic game design? And what if everyone in a match felt like they had "fun?" Do they ALL win? How about the opposite where nobody felt like they had "fun?" They ALL lose? How do you matchmake players in such situations? Do we match players who most frequently have fun with other players who feel the same way, and match players who often don't have fun with others like them? Or should the developers figure out the level of intensity of "fun" that players are having to do the matchmaking? How should the developers measure "fun?" And you say that the emblem system is related to all of this? How? The emblem system had accumulated points for doing generators... what if I don't have "fun" doing generators? What if I don't enjoy doing chases or bothering to go rescue someone?

  The ridiculousness of it all is the reason why Cote's lip service in that quote can be discarded as nonsense. The fact that you are still entertaining that part of his quote when I've already given you the history on why they constantly avoid the topic... it's pretty sad.

  *Yet the goal of the emblem system was to analyze the performance and have a multi-facet win condition (not clear cut) to determine ones ranking in order to match make them.

  No, the Emblem system simply used "performance" in a given match to rank players, and had nothing to do with the win condition. Again, you are free to provide any evidence that points to the contrary, but I doubt you can find any.

  *Yes the survivors goal is to escape, as that secures a point for their team, that is how they are going to win. Like these statements that you use, aren't actually in conflict with a team win and in the tutorial they do explain that you are part of a team. The logic of a win in a 4v1 where the 4 are a team, literally a statement made within the game. I don't know if you understand the concept of a team and when they compete that the only result that matters is the teams and not their individual scores? That is also why they explain that instead of the moment the gates are powered and opened, you might want to consider going back for the save. Your team might not be in a good spot and it can be the best option to risk it for the overall outcome to secure the win. You claim survivors are not a team, but the game states they are. 

  Didn't we already agree on the definition on "team"? Why are you going back to this nonsense? We've already agreed that in term of this game, "team" is defined as just players choosing to work together (or not) and escaping together (or not.) And therefore has nothing to do with the wincon.

  Look, if the wincon of the game is actually team-based, you'd find something like this in the manual/tutorial/official website: "In order to win, at least 2 Survivors must escape through the exit gates. You lose if at least 3 Survivors from the trial are sacrificed to the Entity." But nowhere does it mention anything like that - and in fact, it indicates that the goal is simply for the player to escape. I understand that you and some of the others would personally (and apparently, desperately) prefer a team-based wincon, but as the game currently stands, it doesn't and it never has. Could it change in the future? Who knows. But not right now.

  *Patrick indicates that they are considering team results to be part of the MMR system, meaning that it is actually a win.

  Again, not right now. Perhaps instead of getting ahead of yourself, perhaps you should wait until it's actually been done. If Patrick finds that adding "team results" variable just doesn't seem to reflect the MMR accurately and therefore abandons that idea, then what?

  The win condition didn't change... but the match making system did and according to you that is based on wins.

  The survivors are not in a team, but this is literally explained on the site and in the tutorial, as well as referenced by developers.

  Again, the emblem system did not consider whether players won or lost, but so-called "performance" that players within the match. So no, "according to me" that particular matchmaking system was NOT based on wins.

  Again, if you want to define "team" as players choosing to work together (or not) and escaping together (or not), then that's fine.

  *The developers got backlash on the MMR system, because the new win condition is incomplete and not inline with what most people believed the actual win condition to be: 3/4k is killer wins, 2k is a tie, 1/0k is survivor win.

  I don't much care for players' past misconception about the game.

  *The matches have a single outcome, because guess what a MMR system that is based on wins adjusts everyone's rating based on who wins and who lost; if a survivor and the killer both win... there is a flaw in the definition of the win condition, because guess what they are competing and versing each other.

  In the current MMR system, there is never a situation where all 5 players win or lose together. That's all that matters in this game - there's nothing wrong with 2 players winning and 3 losing in a 5 player game.

  Who exactly is stretching their assertions to claim it wasn't a MMR system? All the basic elements of a MMR system are present in the emblem system; assessment, ratings moving up and down accordingly and matching based on what ranking that rating gave you. You claim to care about facts: those are the facts. The assessments in these games can include anything and weight them as the developers see fit, there are many games that especially in ones with teams use more than one variable and yes winning/losing weighs in. It doesn't even need the developer quote, just basic understanding on what a MMR system is.

  Maybe you should check out the definition of a MMR system:

  The formula used to calculate the MMR is based on your performance in matches, the result of your team and other statistical factors to ensure a fair experience. Consequently, the MMR evolves with each match you play. - Ubisoft, in For Honor https://www.ubisoft.com/en-au/help/for-honor/gameplay/article/match-making-rating-mmr-in-for-honor/000065548

  MMR values are adjusted depending on the role selected, and the player's past performance with each role. - Dota 2, https://dota2.fandom.com/wiki/Matchmaking_Rating

  How does it work exactly?

  Like we mentioned before, your MMR rating will increase or decrease depending on the matches you win or lose. Oftentimes there’s additional elements that factor in how much MMR you gain and how much you lose. - eSports.com: https://www.esports.com/en/what-is-mmr-in-league-of-legends-and-how-does-it-work-265160

  It is an industry standard to have multiple factors used to calculate ones MMR, you are the one asserting their biased upon the determination of what is and isn't a MMR system.

  Therefore lets be real your statement:

  the Emblem system simply used "performance" in a given match to rank players, and had nothing to do with the win condition. 

  Is literally a MMR system by this definition, you are so focused on the notion it is purely about win condition... but it isn't and it did account for the win condition. A MMR system is in the game to provide the best possible match up and whether you win or lose, the performance you had is paramount to determining your MMR. To me it sounds like you have never played other games that have MMR.

  Lets get to the point, the current MMR system is flawed. The player base's misconception of a win? Let me ask you then, what is a win for the killer? Are you trying to uphold two different standards for the opposite ends of the match and then claiming that is a good way to measure whether they are equivalently matched? That is the issue with the win condition as you state it, the killers win condition isn't the same as the survivors losing one.

  The thing is it isn't a misconception of the player base, they simply look at what is the win condition for one side, flip it around and that is the win condition for the other. It is quite important that you use the same definition in a game that is defined as a 1v4 by its website, stores, etc. and it is not stated to be a 5 player game (feel free to point to your sources on this), to know who won that battle, the 4 or the 1? You claim the win condition hasn't changed, so... define it from the other end and how that relates to the system.

  You don't care about facts and objectivity... just your own view on what a win is. The game is a team game, it literally states it and to have a good MMR system both sides need to be evaluated on equal terms.

  Using multiple factors is far from a negative in a MMR system, because it allows the developers to be faster in updating and assessing someone's ranking. The faster they are able to do so the fewer unfair matches we get and the more enjoyable it will be. This is a topic about how MMR works after all and that is just once again a general understanding within the industry; the faster and more accurately you can assess your players 'skill' the better the system is.

  Btw. waiting for it to be done... is not how feedback works. You give feedback based on what there is now, to out support or criticism in order to get things changed. He stated something and it is appropriate to state that we agree that it would improve the system, before they do it.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 5, 2022

• @knell said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2793385#Comment_2793385

  *Well, you are aiming at win and that is fine. The developers are the ones that determine a win and as pointed out they stated it isn't clear cut and a gradient. Which is inline with the criteria of the emblem system. Therefore the emblems used for the MMR was them standing by what they stated and it not just being lip service as you claim.

  Good job! MMRs are based on players' wincon of each match. In the case of DBD, as stated in the game's tutorial and its official website, the win condition for Survivors is simply defined as an escape. I've already explained in detail why Cote's avoidance on the topic of wincon is irrelevant and discarded. The emblem system on the other hand, as you previously stated, has nothing to do with the wincon, but rather only the accumulations of activities that players did within the match. That's why nobody would consider the Emblem system as being even remotely the same as MMR.

  *You claim there is only one final result for survivors and yet Patrick stated there are team results. That is an official statement, you discard it. They currently don't use it for the MMR, but they do have them. You know the meaning of result right? The outcome, whether it is a victory or defeat. Maybe you have difficulty understanding that we have two types of results, individual and team outcomes?

  Implemented into the game? They are tracking them, they are in the game. If 0, 1,2 3 or 4 people escape that is actually a possible outcome for a match in this game. What alternative reality do you live in where the match isn't a 1v4 and only finishes after either all 4 survivors die or escape and they talley the outcome.

  I claimed that there is only one win condition. Results? I'm sure there are plenty of results that can be calculated and tracked in a match - the number of generators I've completed, the number of chases, the number of flashlight stuns, the number of pallets I threw down, the number of tea-bags, the number of lockers I've hidden in... so what? None of that is the actual wincon of the game, and that includes any "team results" that they may be tracking. You're jumping to conclusions and equating the word "results" as a way to indicate how to win the game - because it fits your personal narrative, and can't face facts of what the game specifically entails as being the win condition in the tutorial and official webpage.

  You are wrong, in the interview that was quoted by you the developers themselves stated that the win condition they upheld wasn't that straight forward. The emblem system represented this and was what they used. The change in the match making system is an indication of a change in the win condition that they are using. Where is your proof that this was a lip service and not a reference to the emblem system? You want to use one line from a tutorial/on the website, versus the developers as you yourself admitted multi facet statements on the forums, QnA's and interviews.

  This is your own opinion, not something else. You asked for the developers words and those were delivered. You want to deal in facts and the developers have stated what the win condition was not and that was clear cut and had a system built around it. The current system and the old one are not remotely the same, that is also not the claim. Yet the goal of the emblem system was to analyze the performance and have a multi-facet win condition (not clear cut) to determine ones ranking in order to match make them.

  Yes the survivors goal is to escape, as that secures a point for their team, that is how they are going to win. Like these statements that you use, aren't actually in conflict with a team win and in the tutorial they do explain that you are part of a team. The logic of a win in a 4v1 where the 4 are a team, literally a statement made within the game. I don't know if you understand the concept of a team and when they compete that the only result that matters is the teams and not their individual scores? That is also why they explain that instead of the moment the gates are powered and opened, you might want to consider going back for the save. Your team might not be in a good spot and it can be the best option to risk it for the overall outcome to secure the win. You claim survivors are not a team, but the game states they are. Patrick indicates that they are considering team results to be part of the MMR system, meaning that it is actually a win.

  You make all these claims that are simply falsehoods:

  • The win condition didn't change... but the match making system did and according to you that is based on wins.
  • The survivors are not in a team, but this is literally explained on the site and in the tutorial, as well as referenced by developers.

  The developers got backlash on the MMR system, because the new win condition is incomplete and not inline with what most people believed the actual win condition to be: 3/4k is killer wins, 2k is a tie, 1/0k is survivor win and they base their playstyle around this win condition. The matches have a single outcome, because guess what a MMR system that is based on wins adjusts everyone's rating based on who wins and who lost; if a survivor and the killer both win... there is a flaw in the definition of the win condition, because guess what they are competing and versing each other.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 5, 2022

• @knell said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2793236#Comment_2793236

  *Based on anything a developer wants, there are many aspects to determining skill factors. Acting like it can only a single element is simply amisconception on your end to suit your narrative.

  Oops, you were so close, and yet you are still so far away. Please continue to go educate yourself on what MMR is, and come back to me with the proper answer. Or perhaps you actually do know the answer, but don't want to say it. Hm.

  *The tutorial is a manual and lessons on how you should play. Nowhere is anyone claiming the entire team has to escape to call it a win? It is not a must, yet it is one of the options.

  Good, so your definition of "team" is that it's a group of survivors working together until they become unnecessary to fulfill the win condition of escaping. That it is simply an "option" and not a "requirement" to play as a team during each match, and that players are free to NOT work together, and NOT escape together - basically that it's irrelevant to the wincon of the game. Great, then we are fully in agreement. If that is how you want to define the term "team", you should have said so from the beginning. I would personally would have just used the term "alliance" but it looks like it was just a terminology miscommunication. Glad we understand each other now.

  *You realize that there can be multiple ways to account for a win, one on an individual level and one on a match wide level.

  No, there is only one win condition for the survivor - to escape. If you believe that there is another win condition as the game currently stands, feel free to provide official references that indicate it to be so. Or perhaps you are confused and can't differentiate between the game's actual win condition, and personal goals that individual players set for themselves in the game.

  *This is also supported by the fact that Patrick indicates they track team results? Stating it is irrelevant to the the game works? Yet team results are part of the game, the discussion is that they should include it in the parameters. Nobody is claiming that it is, they are stating it should and we point out the developers stated it as an option.

  What did I just say about Patrick's quote? Until your "team results" actually becomes implemented in the game, they are just unsubstantiated theories and conjectures with no substance, and meaningless to the discussion of what the game is in its current state.

  Well, you are aiming at win and that is fine. The developers are the ones that determine a win and as pointed out they stated it isn't clear cut and a gradient. Which is inline with the criteria of the emblem system. Therefore the emblems used for the MMR was them standing by what they stated and it not just being lip service as you claim.

  You claim there is only one final result for survivors and yet Patrick stated there are team results. That is an official statement, you discard it. They currently don't use it for the MMR, but they do have them. You know the meaning of result right? The outcome, whether it is a victory or defeat. Maybe you have difficulty understanding that we have two types of results, individual and team outcomes?

  Implemented into the game? They are tracking them, they are in the game. If 0, 1,2 3 or 4 people escape that is actually a possible outcome for a match in this game. What alternative reality do you live in where the match isn't a 1v4 and only finishes after either all 4 survivors die or escape and they talley the outcome.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 5, 2022

• @knell said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2793135#Comment_2793135

  *A match making rating system assigns a number to find similar people of a similar skill level. The emblem system assigned you a number, based on an assessment of your abilities and skills to achieve specific criteria in the game. Perform well and your number goes up, perform poorly and it goes down.

  MMR assigns a number to find similar people of similar skill level... based on what? Good job, you're almost there.

  *You are the one clueless of the concept. A reference you cannot refute, the game telling us we are on a team, the developers talking about team results? Sorry, but you have not dismantled any of that, just used a single line of text as some holy text while ignoring the context and further explanation given.

  Yet the game tutorial never indicates that you must escape as a team. Why do you think that is?

  Patrick referencing team results for it to integrate into the MMR system is 1. about possible future development and may never be implemented, and therefore has no relevance to how the game currently functions, and 2. we don't know whether he meant to add it as a non-wincon variable, or to replace the actual wincon of the game.

  I've already pointed these out multiple times, and yet you keep failing to understand it. Any other references?

  Based on anything a developer wants, there are many aspects to determining skill factors. Acting like it can only a single element is simply amisconception on your end to suit your narrative.

  The tutorial is a manual and lessons on how you should play. Nowhere is anyone claiming the entire team has to escape to call it a win? It is not a must, yet it is one of the options. You realize that there can be multiple ways to account for a win, one on an individual level and one on a match wide level. This is also supported by the fact that Patrick indicates they track team results? Stating it is irrelevant to the the game works? Yet team results are part of the game, the discussion is that they should include it in the parameters. Nobody is claiming that it is, they are stating it should and we point out the developers stated it as an option.

  The tutorial does indicate you are part of a team. Which you claim survivors are not part of a team? In other words disproven. It states that you are to use the tools available to you, sometimes for the greater good. Once again an indication that it isn't just about you. The tutorial states that before you escape, you should consider the option to head back into the danger to save others? Why would they include these things if it wasn't relevant.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 5, 2022

• @knell said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2793104#Comment_2793104

  Then your comment simply indicates you have no understanding of what MMR is, and I request you do some research on it first before continually embarrassing yourself. No one with some basic understanding of MMR and the Emblem system would agree with you.

  The miniscule number of references you provided, I've addressed all of them, and explained in detail why they are wrong. Your lack of comprehension on the matter is not my problem. I urge you to find better references that I can't refute.

  A match making rating system assigns a number to find similar people of a similar skill level. The emblem system assigned you a number, based on an assessment of your abilities and skills to achieve specific criteria in the game. Perform well and your number goes up, perform poorly and it goes down.

  You are the one clueless of the concept. A reference you cannot refute, the game telling us we are on a team, the developers talking about team results? Sorry, but you have not dismantled any of that, just used a single line of text as some holy text while ignoring the context and further explanation given.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 5, 2022

• @knell said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2792675#Comment_2792675

  *You must be unable to separate your view of what a win is with what the developers stated and how it was implemented in the game. My views on a win and loss were also different a 3 or 4k is a killer win, 2k/2e a draw, 3e or 4e a survivor win.

  I don't care about your personal views - the only thing that matters are facts. You don't seem to be able to provide any.

  *The win isn't what you claim to be at that time, as it was what the developers said it was and how they used it within the game. You say where is this shown, well it is what the match making looked at. Now they changed it and it fits your definition, but not that of many people.

  Just a string of random assertions again, eh? Again, the Emblem system did not determine player's ability to win or lose. The best it did was to assess how much stuff the players did within the match, regardless of whether they won or lost. Basically, the matchmaking based on the Emblem system ranked players on their "performance" within the match, not whether they won or lost. That's why it failed as a matchmaker, and why MMR seems to do better (because it IS based on whether players won or lost).

  Look at chess, for example. You may make lot of smart plays. You may take their Queen. You may even take more pieces than your opponent. But despite all that, in the end, if your King get checkmated by your opponent, you still lost. Your "performance" doesn't matter - what ultimately matter is whether the win condition was fulfilled or not.

  *You could literally, lose a pip yet that isn't a definition of a loss? The emblem system in all intense and purposes functioned as the MMR.

  Losing a pip isn't a loss, nor is earning a pip a win. Because that isn't the win condition as defined by the game. The only thing Emblem system measured was to check off how much things you did within the match, and tried to rank you with other players who also could do the same - completely unrelated to the wincon of the game. Of course, as always, you are more than welcome to cite any official sources that states that the Emblem system is in any way related to the win condition of the game - but I doubt you can find any. You have consistently failed to find any so far.

  *Your argument, but it might cause people to play altruistic, is already the case. People that follow the tutorial are instructed to do so. If they succeed however they don't get the additional rating, while they took the risk. The whole idea of taking a risk is that it can pay out or backfire.

  It seems you didn't understand my explanation about adding new non-wincon related variables at all - you should reread it until you do. (Hint: It has to do with matchmaking accuracy - the entire point of the new matchmaking system.)

  *What does it have to do with defining a win condition? It is telling you to go save others. Maybe you don't understand the correlation between the game instructions and the win condition. You look at one statement in the full manual, but the tutorial did not end there.

  ...did I ever indicate that the tutorial ends with just outlining the win condition? Did I not just emphasize the importance of all other game mechanics? Game mechanics are important - they are just not the win condition, which you don't seem to understand.

  * It isn't about adding variables that do not fall in line with a win condition, literally team results in pretty much any game that has a team is the true win condition. We already established that survivors are on a team, by them literally saying so in the tutorial and the developers words.

  No, we did not establish that survivors are a "team" - but rather a group of players forming a temporary alliance so that they can fulfill the wincon of escaping.  Literally? Sure - let's take a look at it literally.

  Tutorial? "Survivors: How To Win - The primary objective of a Survivor in a trial is to escape."

  Developer's words? "It’s anti-social multiplayer where survivors have to collaborate and cooperate up to a certain point. The old saying is that you don’t need to be fast than the killer, you just need to be faster than your friends."

  What part of those make you think, "team?"

  Again, you seem to make a lot of assertions based on nothing.  Start providing some worthy evidence to back up your random claims.

  A matchmaking system which ranks people to use it to group them together is a MMR system. While you might not have liked the emblem system or find it a good one, it was a MMR system.

  You project your opinion on it to claim it did not hit the criteria of one is simply not true. Like the game literally calling survivors a team, not a temporary alliance. The developers reference team results...

  I have provided proof, quotes and references to the tutorial and website. Yet because they don't match your opinion you dismiss them as lip service with zero proof of it being the case. This is what we call cherry picking: Using fragments of the tutorial, interviews, website, statements, etc.

  You are a hypocrite.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 5, 2022

• @knell said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2792162#Comment_2792162

  *Moving from a ranking system to a MMR, literally a different ranking system. Rating people and placing them in order to match them up according to their standing, is ranking them. All they did is change the parameters from emblems to escapes/kills to determine ones ranking aka changed the win condition (for the system) and hid it.

  1. Wow, you must be really new. The ranking system was not in any shape or form a MMR system. A. Because the wincon only accounted for a small part of the Emblem system, doing well in the Emblem system did not mean that you won, and doing poorly in the Emblem system did not mean that you lost. Therefore it actually did not correlate at all with the actual win condition of the game. This does not happen in MMR. B. Whether or not you won, if you performed well with the Emblem system, you pipped, which eventually led to players ranking up. However, because it was possible for everyone in the match to do "well" with their emblems regardless of their wins/losses, it often allowed scenarios where everyone in that match would be able to rank up at the same time. Again, this does not happen in MMR, where there should never be a situation where everyone raises their ratings at the same time. There are few other differences, like MMR using (if I read correctly) the Glicko formula for this game - while Emblem system just adds random meaningless points.

  To put simply, the Emblem system did not determine the players' wins/losses in a match because it did not have any correlation with this game's win condition. MMR system theoretically should. And I guess I should emphasize that again, the win condition has not changed over the course of this game's life span- no matter how much you seem to twist some ideas around.

  *It changed the win condition to determine whether to increase, remain or decrease the standing you have for the match making system. Your personal view on what a win is hasn't changed, but the win condition for you to climb the match making conditions has. It has been simplified and clearly you like it as it is more inline with your style of play.

  2. Nope. Again, Emblem system did not determine players' wins or losses in a match. Again, you can do well in the Emblem system while losing, and vice versa.

  *It hasn't changed for you, them adding a variable to the MMR system to account for team results will still not change it for you. You can still play for your personal escape, just as you did under every other system that had different win definitions.

  3. Adding variables that are not part of the actual wincons always pose some problems, especially if the players know what these variables are. Let's take altruism for example - normally players are simply driven toward a single goal of escaping (the wincon). They take altruistic actions so that they can escape, or they don't take altruistic actions (and instead do a generator) so that they can escape. No matter which action they took, the end result of escaping or dying will indicate if that was the correct, more skillful decision.

  However, if some players, for some unknown reason, want to be in high MMR and knows that taking altruistic actions will raise their ratings, they may choose to display altruism even if it is obviously a bad idea (lowering the chance of them escaping). And if that is the case, and those players end up losing (dying), then it starts creating small discrepancies in the MMR system - where these players, even though they should have lost X amount of rating, instead they may lose X/2 amount of the rating for taking that altruistic action, even though it was a worse call by the players. Basically, it may cause competition between the variables, and allows the ratings to be higher or lower than they possibly should be due to the outcome of the new variable.

  *I have pointed out the different lessons that are taught to the survivors, which includes going back into the field to save others while they are at the exit gate and simply have to cross a line. You look at a single lesson given to survivors in the tutorial and act like it is the holy grail. There is more that is taught to survivors than that one lesson, look at the whole manual? Nothing that suggests that it is team based? Part of skill is indeed to know when taking risks to go for the save in the end game collapse or when to cross that line to escape is the correct choice. That is why they say you can do it, as it is not just one answer is always correct! By your definition the second part wouldn't be explained and shouldn't be part of a manual, as that would be them instructing you to lose? How does that make any sense, I don't see the tutorial explaining; you can go find the killer and just stand there at the hook and point at it while standing next to the killer. People can make bad choices, but they wouldn't tell people to do them in a manual.

  4. What does that have to do with the tutorial defining what the win condition is? Did I ever give an impression that all the other game mechanics are unimportant?  Or perhaps you don't understand the difference between "win condition" and "game mechanics" within the game. And you still haven't shown me any evidence that suggest that the wincon for this game is team-based - let's work on that, shall we?

  You must be unable to separate your view of what a win is with what the developers stated and how it was implemented in the game. My views on a win and loss were also different a 3 or 4k is a killer win, 2k/2e a draw, 3e or 4e a survivor win.

  The win isn't what you claim to be at that time, as it was what the developers said it was and how they used it within the game. You say where is this shown, well it is what the match making looked at. Now they changed it and it fits your definition, but not that of many people.

  You could literally, lose a pip yet that isn't a definition of a loss? The emblem system in all intense and purposes functioned as the MMR.

  Your argument, but it might cause people to play altruistic, is already the case. People that follow the tutorial are instructed to do so. If they succeed however they don't get the additional rating, while they took the risk. The whole idea of taking a risk is that it can pay out or backfire.

  What does it have to do with defining a win condition? It is telling you to go save others. Maybe you don't understand the correlation between the game instructions and the win condition. You look at one statement in the full manual, but the tutorial did not end there. It isn't about adding variables that do not fall in line with a win condition, literally team results in pretty much any game that has a team is the true win condition. We already established that survivors are on a team, by them literally saying so in the tutorial and the developers words.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 5, 2022

• @knell said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2791943#Comment_2791943

  *You claimed: The win condition hasn't changed, the change in the match making system clearly indicates otherwise. It might be an improvement, the old system was maybe flawed and yet it is a MMR system regardless. We agreed upon the fact that MMR is driven by the win condition defined by its parameters. It simply changed!

  1. The old emblem system did not utilize the MMR system. The whole purpose of changing the game's matchmaking was to transition from the Ranking system to a MMR. Everybody knows this. Are you new to this game? Show me exactly where the developers stated that the emblem system was based off MMR.

  2. The old emblem system failed because only a very minor part accounted for the win condition (Escaping) and added too many random variables like gen progression, altruism, and chases/encounters. And because of these junk in the ranking algorithm that had nothing to do with the wincon, the Ranking system ending up focusing more on "how often you play" and not "how skilled you are."

  3. The win condition was 'Escaping for Survivor' from the very beginning. We went through several different iterations of matchmaking systems, but the win condition has never changed.

  *You claimed: The survivors are not in a team, yet the tutorial and the developers both speak about a team. Like it cannot be more obvious than that. Therefore once again your argument debunked.

  Show me exactly where the tutorial or the developers state that the win condition is team-based. Forming a temporary alliance to actually fulfill the win condition (Escaping) does not make them a "team" (unless you count Survivors that backstab each other or leave each other behind in the end as a "team") nor does it have anything to do with the win condition - it's just one of the many game mechanics.

  *You claimed: Their statements were just lip service. You realize their not clear-cut and ambiguous definition of a win, aligned very well with their emblem MMR system, literally their win condition was just as flawed as their system... maybe because the system was built around it. This wasn't some lip service, it is how they implemented it. Patrick speaking of potential manners to improve the current system is relevant, because well it is the dev speaking of the win condition and how it isn't accounting for the overall outcome, but that it maybe should be doing that? It is kind of the topic. Those that agree with this statement and those that don't.

  Lots of assumptions here. Also lots of random, incoherent ramblings. Do you have anything to prove any of it? Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theories. Also, like I said earlier, emblem system did not utilize MMR. And there is nothing ambiguous about Tutorial's "Survivors: How To Win - The primary objective of a Survivor in a trial is to escape."

  *There isn't anything wrong with my comprehension levels, yet I don't simply dismiss all the other information that is given along side what you picked. Self preservation is important in the game where everyone is 1/4th of the score, people playing reckless is a good way to lose as a team and so yes it is good to teach this to people early on, the longer they survive the more chances they learn the game. Team work is important, as it increases the survival rate of everyone involved as stated in the tutorial.

  Team work is important, I agree. But again, there is nothing that suggests that it is a win condition in this game. The point of the game isn't to do team work, but to escape. In order to escape, players will most likely have to do some level of team work. Part of the skill is knowing when team work is advantageous for escaping, and when it isn't.

  *Tutorials simply lay-out the basics, don't feed, work together and once the gates are opened consider who is still out there before you choose to leave. Euhm... interesting it didn't say ditch them the moment you can leave, but if it is teach you that self preservation and your own escape is the only thing you should care about... why is it teaching you this: "Survivors choose when to exit the map. They can stay around and save other Survivors that did not make it but must do so before the Endgame Collapse."

  Tutorials and game manuals also lays out the game objective. Which it did. Which I have repeatedly copied and pasted.

  Also I've already stated in previous post: "Key word: "can". Like I said previously, the game doesn't prevent you from making a lot of bad decisions. Sure, you "can" stay around and save others. Is it wise to do so? It depends on the situation. But the game certainly doesn't consider saving others as being a win condition currently, does it? Otherwise the game would indicate that you have lost due to not saving someone. And yes, how many times do I have to repeat myself - survivors have to cooperate with each other up to a certain point so that they can escape; I have never denied that - but that's certainly not the goal of the game, which is what makes it a "win condition."

  1. Moving from a ranking system to a MMR, literally a different ranking system. Rating people and placing them in order to match them up according to their standing, is ranking them. All they did is change the parameters from emblems to escapes/kills to determine ones ranking aka changed the win condition (for the system) and hid it.
  2. It changed the win condition to determine whether to increase, remain or decrease the standing you have for the match making system. Your personal view on what a win is hasn't changed, but the win condition for you to climb the match making conditions has. It has been simplified and clearly you like it as it is more inline with your style of play.
  3. It hasn't changed for you, them adding a variable to the MMR system to account for team results will still not change it for you. You can still play for your personal escape, just as you did under every other system that had different win definitions.
  4. I have pointed out the different lessons that are taught to the survivors, which includes going back into the field to save others while they are at the exit gate and simply have to cross a line. You look at a single lesson given to survivors in the tutorial and act like it is the holy grail. There is more that is taught to survivors than that one lesson, look at the whole manual? Nothing that suggests that it is team based, other than calling it a team and giving a manual on teamwork. Part of skill is indeed to know when taking risks to go for the save in the end game collapse or when to cross that line to escape is the correct choice. That is why they say you can do it, as it is not just one answer is always correct! By your definition the second part wouldn't be explained and shouldn't be part of a manual, as that would be them instructing you to lose? How does that make any sense, I don't see the tutorial explaining; you can go find the killer and just stand there at the hook and point at it while standing next to the killer. People can make bad choices, but they wouldn't tell people to do them in a manual if it wasn't sometimes the correct one. In your definition there is nothing to gain, it is never the correct choice.

  
  

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 5, 2022

• @knell said:

  *You have admitted it isn't the only time they stated that a win isn't clear cut, on the forums, QNA, interviews. Either way we provided the word of the devs as requested, you can act like it is a lip service and yet nowhere did they state that.

  I've already explained why your examples are insufficient. Instead of crying about it, if you have a problem with that, go find something else. ...you actually think Cote would admit that what he is saying was just a lip service? Wow. I'm saying it's a lip service because, as you yourself stated, devs started avoiding discussing the wincon of the game after the playerbase started make a stink about it. In addition, what he claimed, "fun" being win con, is not only moronic, but impossible.

  *The emblem system was the match making system with a rank, a MMR, your rank was even shown. You accurately point out that a MMR system has a correlation between a win condition and where you stand. It might have had flaws, but it was the system they upheld.

  I explained exactly why their emblem system was flawed. Are you even reading, or having comprehension problems?

  *You claim it is purely anti social based off a quote, claim people aren't in a team and yet the tutorial refers to it. The notion that there is a team result based on Patrick's quote and they are considering having it factor in the MMR system. It is a win condition, it is a viable option to play and it would make it complex? Did 0, 1 or 2 or 3, 4 people escape.... so complicated.

  Again, the tutorial refers to collaborations between survivors in order for them to escape, but no where does it negate the wincon of the game. Sure, you have to help each other out - until you don't. Ultimately it's about escaping since that's the win condition. What's the problem?

  ...And what does Patrick's considerations or plans for the future have anything to do with the current state of the game's win condition? We are talking about the game as it is right now.

  *You aren't impartial, you only use dev quotes if they suit you. Who states that isn't a lip service to appeal to players like you? In the end it is a team game, the game explains this in the tutorial.

  I've explained the reasons why the quotes I've used is relevant and true, as well as explained why yours are not. It's now up to you to comprehend it.

  Show me in the tutorial where it specifically says that you have to win as a team.

  Let us just put the record straight here;

  • You claimed: The win condition hasn't changed, the change in the match making system clearly indicates otherwise. It might be an improvement, the old system was maybe flawed and yet it is a MMR system regardless. We agreed upon the fact that MMR is driven by the win condition defined by its parameters. It simply changed!
  • You claimed: The survivors are not in a team, yet the tutorial and the developers both speak about a team. Like it cannot be more obvious than that. Therefore once again your argument debunked.
  • You claimed: Their statements were just lip service. You realize their not clear-cut and ambiguous definition of a win, aligned very well with their emblem MMR system, literally their win condition was just as flawed as their system... maybe because the system was built around it. This wasn't some lip service, it is how they implemented it. Patrick speaking of potential manners to improve the current system is relevant, because well it is the dev speaking of the win condition and how it isn't accounting for the overall outcome, but that it maybe should be doing that? It is kind of the topic. Those that agree with this statement and those that don't.

  There isn't anything wrong with my comprehension levels, yet I don't simply dismiss all the other information that is given along side what you picked. Self preservation is important in the game where everyone is 1/4th of the score, people playing reckless is a good way to lose as a team and so yes it is good to teach this to people early on, the longer they survive the more chances they learn the game. Team work is important, as it increases the survival rate of everyone involved as stated in the tutorial.

  Tutorials simply lay-out the basics, don't feed, work together and once the gates are opened consider who is still out there before you choose to leave. Euhm... interesting it didn't say ditch them the moment you can leave, but if it is teach you that self preservation and your own escape is the only thing you should care about... why is it teaching you this: "Survivors choose when to exit the map. They can stay around and save other Survivors that did not make it but must do so before the Endgame Collapse."

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 4, 2022

• @knell said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2790942#Comment_2790942

  *You asked to quote the devs, which was done, even using the exact same interview that you based your argument on. Yet now you protest hard that we are using quotes from the developers when they defined a win. Their responses to the community in their QnA's, interviews are exactly what you asked for to be used as the foundation of the argument. Now you complain that we use their words, because they don't fit your narrative?

  I've already repeatedly explained in detail why that particular quote is a meaningless lip service, as well as explaining the absurdity of claiming that "fun" can actually be considered a win condition IN ANY GAME. Do we need to go over again? However, you have continually failed to address the quote in which Cote stated: "It’s anti-social multiplayer where survivors have to collaborate and cooperate up to a certain point. The old saying is that you don’t need to be fast than the killer, you just need to be faster than your friends." If you think that he's wrong, feel free to explain why - just as I have for your quote. Seems like it's you who are avoiding the argument that doesn't fit your narrative.

  *The fact is that the emblem system actually did match the win condition, as good as they could make it work, to what the developers stated towards the community. They didn't stick to their guns, they altered it and changed the win condition and yes they did so to appeal to a wider audience. That audience is now the player base that was sold on the evolved premise of the game.

  That's simply your assertion unless you can prove otherwise. The emblem system didn't "match" the win condition - sure, it incorporated 'Escaping' to a small degree, but was overburdened with too many other meaningless variables (gens/chases/altruistic actions) to make it meaningful at all. And no, they never altared or changed the wincon as written in the tutorial; it's always been simply to Escape, and that has not changed - you keep claiming that doesn't actually make it so. Again, feel free to provide actual evidence to the contrary - you keep failing to do that. By the way, still waiting for you to show me the official source where a developer states that the wincon of the game is "team" based. It seems like you keep avoiding that issue.

  *They are now trying to define it more clear cut win condition again and people argue that it should reflect what the game is; a 4v1 where the survivors are indeed on a team. They attracted many players with the team based aspect of survivor and catered to them. Don't know if you noticed but SWFs are considered one of the cornerstones of the game in its current state.

  Sure, some players are clamoring for that type of idea, wringing their hands and being loud about it, and it's true the developers are actually considering it - but that's it. At this stage, they are just considering it. Nothing at all has changed officially in regards to MMR, and certainly not the wincon of the game. And yet you keep claiming otherwise. Why are you continuing to spread falsehood?

  I've already explained why the existence of SWF is irrelevant to the current win condition - perhaps you need to go review what I've already stated so I don't have to repeat myself.

  *Btw. you might want to check the website to see what it states on escaping?

  It specifically points out, you can stay around and save other survivors, it doesn't state; Once the gates are powered and open it is a free-for-all, go save yourself and don't worry about anyone else. The beginner's guide also calls out to work together, work as a team, to maximize your chances of survival. The MMR system is purely here to try and match you up with equally adequate players and guess what that means also evaluating how well the team does (btw they mention that word in the guide as well).

  Key word: "can". Like I said previously, the game doesn't prevent you from making a lot of bad decisions. Sure, you "can" stay around and saves others. Is it wise to do so? It depends on the situation. But the game certainly doesn't consider saving others as being a win condition currently, does it? Otherwise the game would indicate that you have lost due to not saving someone. And yes, how many times do I have to repeat myself - survivors have to cooperate with each other up to a certain point so that they can escape; I have never denied that - but that's certainly not the goal of the game, which is what makes it a "win condition." Please keep up.

  *You claim it brings up new problems and for sure it will, no system is perfect and yet it will remove other problems that currently are within the system. They are simply changing the manner in which the matchmaking defines whether you should gain, remain equal or lose rating and by how much, as that is what we are talking about here. Within the context of the conversation a win within the system is simply raising your rating. So, you don't need to worry, the tutorial will go untouched and it is purely on whether you should gain or lose rating in the matchmaking system. Nothing that's changing would affect your ability to be selfish and play for your own survival, so calm your horses. It would simply allow people that are better at teamwork, working together to increase the overall teams survival rate to now be gaining rank for it instead of losing.

  You still seem to be confused about the relationship between win conditions and MMR. MMR system should be based off of the win condition (because that's what makes the system accurate) - however, you can still create ones that aren't solely based on the win condition. Sure, it makes it less accurate, and it will probably be too complex for it to work, but it's possible. The point I'm making is just because MMR incorporates new variables into its algorithm, it doesn't necessary mean that its win condition has also automatically changed. That would be up to the actual game designers. At this point, you are making too much assumption on what the developers are going to do. Like I said in the previous post, there are two possibilities - 1. team-based elements that the devs are considering will remain a non-win condition, and will simply be an additional variable in the MMR system (making it more complicated and problematic over time) or 2. team-based elements will be changed into an actual wincon of the game, changing the core of its game, and using it as a replacement of the 'Escape' variable in that same algorithm.

  You have admitted it isn't the only time they stated that a win isn't clear cut, on the forums, QNA, interviews. Either way we provided the word of the devs as requested, you can act like it is a lip service and yet nowhere did they state that. That is your subjective opinion and by how you act we may not consider that.

  The emblem system was the match making system with a rank, a MMR, your rank was even shown. You accurately point out that a MMR system has a correlation between a win condition and where you stand. It might have had flaws, but it was the system they upheld.

  You claim it is purely anti social based off a quote, claim people aren't in a team and yet the tutorial refers to it. The notion that there is a team result based on Patrick's quote and they are considering having it factor in the MMR system. It is a win condition, it is a viable option to play and it would make it complex? Did 0, 1 or 2 or 3, 4 people escape.... so complicated.

  You aren't impartial, you only use dev quotes if they suit you. Who states that isn't a lip service to appeal to players like you? In the end it is a team game, the game explains this in the tutorial.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 4, 2022

• @knell said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2790642#Comment_2790642

  *Is you agree they have avoided making clear statements on what a win is, you cannot claim that the one line in the tutorial is the undisputed champion of what that is.

  If the game is so clear on what a win is, then by that logic it would have been easy for them to simply refer to that. Yet they talked about gradients, not clear cut when referring to a win.

  We both know that I'm specifically referring to their replies in the forums, weekly livestreams, interviews, etc. If you've also been in the community since the beginning, you'd know that both the actual game and the in-game tutorial existed long before players started whining over the wincon. When the players' handwringing started, that's the point when the developers started obscuring the issue instead of directly calling their attention back to the tutorial/website like they should have. It was a spineless move that have had a horrible repercussion to the game throughout the years, but I guess that was what they chose to do to not lose some of their playerbase.

  *If the matchmaking is not relevant to the win condition as you claim with the emblem based system, why would you care if they added team metrics into this one as many people ask for. I bet you the tutorial isn't going to change.

  What are you talking about? The emblem system failed to matchmake properly due to the fact that wincon wasn't based off of it - of course I'd worry about the same thing occurring if they are deciding to do the similar thing with the new MMR system by adding a new metric that is irrelevant to the wincon.

  *They already changed the win condition of the game and they indicating that there are looking at team results. Half your argument was this isn't a team game... well according to the devs it is.

  ...are you serious right now? Please show me exactly where they've stated that they've already changed the win condition of the game. Stop putting the cart before the horse. Yes, like you say, they are looking at manipulating the MMR formula by adding in team-based elements - that means one of two things: either 1. they are going to add this new variable into the MMR algorithm without changing the current win condition of simply Escaping (which brings up new problems of competing variables like I mentioned before) or 2. they are going to change the actual win condition of the game, which will be a bigger deal than anything they've added to the game before - given that it would change the whole concept of the game from the ground up.

  You asked to quote the devs, which was done, even using the exact same interview that you based your argument on. Yet now you protest hard that we are using quotes from the developers when they defined a win. Their responses to the community in their QnA's, interviews are exactly what you asked for to be used as the foundation of the argument. Now you complain that we use their words, because they don't fit your narrative?

  The fact is that the emblem system actually did match the win condition, as good as they could make it work, to what the developers stated towards the community. They didn't stick to their guns, they altered it and changed the win condition and yes they did so to appeal to a wider audience. That audience is now the player base that was sold on the evolved premise of the game.

  They are now trying to define it more clear cut win condition again and people argue that it should reflect what the game is; a 4v1 where the survivors are indeed on a team. They attracted many players with the team based aspect of survivor and catered to them. Don't know if you noticed but SWFs are considered one of the cornerstones of the game in its current state.

  Btw. you might want to check the website to see what it states on escaping?

  It specifically points out, you can stay around and save other survivors, it doesn't state; Once the gates are powered and open it is a free-for-all, go save yourself and don't worry about anyone else. The beginner's guide also calls out to work together, work as a team, to maximize your chances of survival. The MMR system is purely here to try and match you up with equally adequate players and guess what that means also evaluating how well the team does (btw they mention that word in the guide as well).

  You claim it brings up new problems and for sure it will, no system is perfect and yet it will remove other problems that currently are within the system. They are simply changing the manner in which the matchmaking defines whether you should gain, remain equal or lose rating and by how much, as that is what we are talking about here. Within the context of the conversation a win within the system is simply raising your rating. So, you don't need to worry, the tutorial will go untouched and it is purely on whether you should gain or lose rating in the matchmaking system. Nothing that's changing would affect your ability to be selfish and play for your own survival, so calm your horses. It would simply allow people that are better at teamwork, working together to increase the overall teams survival rate to now be gaining rank for it instead of losing.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 4, 2022

• @knell said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2790167#Comment_2790167

  *Them defining the win condition and stating it isn't suitable for e-sports, just means that the win condition in the game doesn't work for that type of environment. It doesn't change the fact that it is the win condition of the game according to the developers.

  Yes, that's exactly he was saying. Win condition for survivors being Escaping, and Win condition for killer being Killing [without the specification of how many] is not suitable for esports/tournament scene. So instead of focusing on the win condition given by the actual game, Cote suggests players focus on the "fun." Again, a lip service. You yourself stated that, "the developers have avoided for years to create a clear message on what a win/lose condition is." And yet you are tripping over yourself with excitement over that one line.

  *Where in that quote are they speaking specifically about killers only and not about survivors? They state that the win condition is a gradient within the game, not just for killers. For someone that acts like a stiffler for words, you only do it when it is convenient for you?

  Why would it not be specifically about the Killer's win condition? The Esports scene wouldn't work BECAUSE the Killer's wincon is not specific. If it was, it would be. If you have another explanation, you are more than welcome to divulge it here.

  *The emblem system tried to embody the original win condition that was set out. It was literally a system to try and quantify the gradient, the accomplishments and whether or not you did good in the match. From the wiki: "Pips were either gained, lost, or kept at the current number depending on one's performance in ranked Trials." What exactly do you think this means? Ranking your performance, did you win we are only looking at ones individual performance after all? Escaping was a big chunk of it if you remember, just not the only factor.

  Emblem system was BHVR's failed attempt at trying to matchmake players of similar "performance" - has nothing to do with the win condition. You can perform well, and still make stupid mistakes that causes you to lose, and vice versa. And because it had nothing to do with the actual win condition (or as you say, only partly associated with the win condition) it completely failed to do its job. They mistakingly thought by scoring up points in each of those sub categories, it will place players of similar skill - of course it did nothing of that sort. And that's why it had weird circumstances in which despite winning (escaping), you failed to pip, or despite losing (not escaping), you were able to pip. Made a terrible matchmaking system. No wonder it was dismantled. But yes, it was obviously not the win condition for either side. AGAIN, you are more than welcome to find a quote by an official source that state otherwise, just as you are free to find a quote that says Escaping with the "team" is win condition, or any other win conditions that you want to make up at this time. It seems like something you enjoy doing without any evidence to back it up.

  *I didn't say that they should base the MMR system on that, they changed the definition of the win condition to make it more suitable for this type of MMR system. You are the one stating they didn't change. A match making system tries to determine your level based off your performance to match you with others at a similar rating.

  You know why I keep saying that it didn't change? Because it always stated the same thing since it was brought online.

  • In-game tutorial: "Survivors: How To Win - The primary objective of a Survivor in a trial is to escape."
  • On DBD's official webpage (under game objectives - how to win): "As a Survivor, your main objective is to escape the map and live another day."

  I know you like to keep avoiding this though.

  *It is funny that developers quotations are something you call out people to use as a foundation of their arguments, where did the devs state that... now it is just lip service? Just because the devs didn't say something that fits your narrative doesn't it less valuable.

  Don't you understand what the statement: doesn't have a clear-cut win/lose condition means? If it was simply escaping as a survivor, wouldn't that be clear-cut, there would be no gradient to speak of and he could have stated that.

  Again, you attach yourself to that one line like a baby about to have its blanket taken away - despite the fact that you yourself stated, "the developers have avoided for years to create a clear message on what a win/lose condition is." They were clearly, like you said, avoiding it. Win condition is to have "fun?" Are you seriously suggesting that DBD's official condition for winning was "have fun?" That in the tutorial, it said, "How to Win = have fun?" That in its official webpage, it listed "Have fun!" as the goal of the game? Can you imagine that type of idiocy being in ANY other game? "Hey, disclaimer guys! The game objective for chess is to errr have "fun" guys!" "Hey guys, this new fighting game? You win just by having fun!"  ...sigh. You are supposed to have fun playing games, but it's idiotic to think that it's the actual wincon. That's why I'm saying it was simply a lip service, nothing more. I can't even believe that I have to explain it.

  *Another quote of a recent Q&A, you don't have to go to far in the past: Patrick, lead game designer: "We are looking into improvements to the current system an example is to take team results into account for survivors in addition to the personal results" This shows that not only are survivors on a team, they actually have a result aka a win condition they can meet. Currently the MMR doesn't account for it, but it is there and they can use it. People like myself state that they should use it.

  Finally. Congratulations. This is the only quote that is even slightly relevant to the discussion, and gives some credit to your point. But if Patrick truly wants to add some sort of team-result variable into the formula, he should be very careful in doing so unless he's actually willing to officially change the win condition of the game - otherwise he's just adding another sub variables much like before, and it didn't work out last time, or the multiple times before that, either. Adding sub objective variables are usually problematic because players sometimes tend to get focused on fulfilling it instead of the actual wincon. Hopefully, he doesn't need anyone to tell him that, and is fully aware of that problems it could cause. Personally I don't agree with it due to the numerous reasons I gave above, but more power to BHVR if they can pull it off.

  Is you agree they have avoided making clear statements on what a win is, you cannot claim that the one line in the tutorial is the undisputed champion of what that is.

  If the game is so clear on what a win is, then by that logic it would have been easy for them to simply refer to that. Yet they talked about gradients, not clear cut when referring to a win.

  If the matchmaking is not relevant to the win condition as you claim with the emblem based system, why would you care if they added team metrics into this one as many people ask for. I bet you the tutorial isn't going to change.

  They already changed the win condition of the game and they indicating that there are looking at team results. Half your argument was this isn't a team game... well according to the devs it is.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 4, 2022

• @knell said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2789937#Comment_2789937

  *"One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition. It's more of a gradient of did I have a good game, do I feel like I’ve accomplished much, was it fun?"

  This isn't specific for killers, it is across the board. You claim it is speculative what I state and not a developers clear words. Yet I quote once again the developers words and you claim this hasn't changed? It is in the exact interview you use for your argument. The fact that this win condition isn't suitable to e-sports, still means this is what they defined as a win. 

  ...did I not just clarify the context of that quote? Or are you choosing to repeatedly cherry-pick that quote I've already refuted because you don't have anything else? Let me repeat: 1. This is in context of explaining why their esports/tournaments scene didn't work, because 2. True, the Killer's win condition is not "clear-cut", [but I have shown you repeatedly that the Survivor side is], 3. Your words: "the developers have avoided for years to create a clear message on what a win/lose condition is." - your quote is just another example of them paying lip service to avoid being clear about it. Or do you actually believe that player's "skill" is their ability to have "fun" within the match, and that the MMR should be based on Fun/Not Fun ratings, and that the game should be balanced by players ability to "have fun" or not. How does any of that even make sense?  

  *The emblem system was far more inline with their original definition of a win, they changed the system as their definition is no longer the original one as you claim.

  Uh, what. Show me EXACTLY where the developers have stated that the results from the emblem system (pips/losing pips) have anything to do with the survivor's win condition. Why in the world are you just randomly making things up?

  *What is the original win condition, well according to the developer - the quotes you claim to care about: Did you have a good game, do you feel that you have accomplished much and was it fun? 

  Why in the world would you think that lip service he gave is the "original win condition?" You realize that their official website and in-game tutorial have been around since its inception, right? You are also insinuating that if a facecamping Cannibal is having "fun" and feels like he had a "good game," then he should be regarded as having already won. Gotcha.

  *Nowhere in the developer you claim we should listen to does he state, it was just reliant on kill and escaping.

  Fun fact - nor does he say anything about the win con being reliant on escaping as a team. In fact, he specifically mentions that abandoning fellow survivors could be part of the game - and yet you keep ignoring that, huh? And yes, he doesn't say it in that interview, but hey, let's keep ignoring the official website and the tutorial, eh?

  *Escaping was not the embodiment of the win condition according to the devs quote from the interview, it is simple one of the goals, one of the factors to strive for and that was it. 

  What? How in the world do you infer all that from that quote? He doesn't even mention the win condition.  "Simply one of the goals, one of the factors to strive for?" Show me EXACTLY where he infers that.

  However, I have shown you EXACTLY what the Survivor's win condition is (repeatedly) in BHVR's official words, and you have repeatedly fail to demonstrate any evidence of some "team escape" being a win condition. But hey, may be you found it by now. Let's cross our fingers and hope.

  *It isn't true to their original design, it hasn't been a hide and seek game as it is evolved in being mainly centered around chases. It hasn't been a pure lone wolf, survival of the quickest among survivors for even longer than that. The fact is that you are playing a 1v4 game, you cannot win on your own as a survivor and are part of a team. You go what does it matter that you have to collaborate to achieve the final goal? Well the fact that means you are reliant on your teammates to get you to the finish line.

  ...what does any of that have to do with the win condition? And where did I say that collaboration and cooperation isn't necessary? It's usually absolutely necessary for most matches. What does that have to do with the win condition being simply an escape?

  The one lonely quote is insufficient due to the reasons I've already given - try again.

  1. Them defining the win condition and stating it isn't suitable for e-sports, just means that the win condition in the game doesn't work for that type of environment. It doesn't change the fact that it is the win condition of the game according to the developers.
  2. Where in that quote are they speaking specifically about killers only and not about survivors? They state that the win condition is a gradient within the game, not just for killers. For someone that acts like a stiffler for words, you only do it when it is convenient for you?
  3. The emblem system tried to embody the original win condition that was set out. It was literally a system to try and quantify the gradient, the accomplishments and whether or not you did good in the match. From the wiki: "Pips were either gained, lost, or kept at the current number depending on one's performance in ranked Trials." What exactly do you think this means? Ranking your performance, did you win we are only looking at ones individual performance after all? Escaping was a big chunk of it if you remember, just not the only factor.
  4. I didn't say that they should base the MMR system on that, they changed the definition of the win condition to make it more suitable for this type of MMR system. You are the one stating they didn't change. A match making system tries to determine your level based off your performance to match you with others at a similar rating.
  5. It is funny that developers quotations are something you call out people to use as a foundation of their arguments, where did the devs state that... now it is just lip service? Just because the devs didn't say something that fits your narrative doesn't make it less valuable.
  6. Don't you understand what the statement: doesn't have a clear-cut win/lose condition means? If it was simply escaping as a survivor, wouldn't that be clear-cut, there would be no gradient to speak of and he could have stated that.
  7. Another quote of a recent Q&A, you don't have to go to far in the past: Patrick, lead game designer: "We are looking into improvements to the current system an example is to take team results into account for survivors in addition to the personal results" This shows that not only are survivors on a team, they actually have a result aka a win condition they can meet (escape rates of the whole team). Currently the MMR doesn't account for it, but it is there and they can use it. People like myself state that they should use it.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 4, 2022

• @knell said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2789508#Comment_2789508

  *Are you going to use only the cherry picked aspect of the same interview that falls in line with your argument or look at the entirety what was said at the time? You use it as an undisputable point, while ignoring literally the rest of the interview.

  If you want to look at the full context of the interview without cherry picking it, that answer was provided specifically in regards to its failure in the e-sports scene. And yes, when you look at the Killer's win condition, unlike the Survivor's win condition, it doesn't have a clear-cut win/lose condition. (DBD website - "The Killer's main objective is to please The Entity by sacrificing Survivors on Hooks found in the environment." - it doesn't specifically mention how many sacrifices are required for a win.) As such, it doesn't really work out in regards to esports/tournament scene. But Survivor's win condition has always been very clear cut. And it never had to do with the total number of survivors being able to escape.

  *The fact of the matter is that the developers have avoided for years to create a clear message on what a win/lose condition is.

  Actually, win condition has never changed. In its official webpage, as well as in the tutorial, it has always been straight forward and clear cut. However, you are absolutely right that developers have always muddled this fact - it's a reflection of the lack of confidence they've had in this game design from the very beginning. The only reason why they have become more honest about its win condition now is only because they found out that the wincon of the game must be directly correlated with its matchmaking system for it to have any worth.  Otherwise they would still be hiding it under the rug - disgusting.

  *They now state it is escapes and kill based and compare it to a team sport. Their choice of a comparison, there are enough solo sports that it could be used and yet they picked a team sport.

  Haha, you are reading way too much into it. They could have picked ANY pvp game in the world and the analogy would still have worked - hocky was simply the first thing it probably popped up in his head. The message is simply about how the meaning of "skill" in games are directly related to its win condition, and nothing else.

  *There is a reason the emblem system was created to look at the different aspects to let you climb, it was about more than just kills/escapes and tried to embody the gradient.

  If you believe that, then you must also understand that there is also a reason emblem system is no longer used for matchmaking.

  *The definition of the feature of Survive With Friends is a direct statement of them trying to survive together, therefore your pretend to be a team is simply inaccurate it is an active choice of the survivors, one the game explicitly offers to the players. They join as a group, a party, a team to face off against a killer, to try and survive with this group.

  Sure, you can aspire to survive together - but it has nothing to do with the win condition, which is for each individual to find a way to escape. Like you said, it's just a feature - not a win condition.

  *Also, simply read up on the perks

  You are right - some of these perk description probably should be fixed to more accurately reflect the game design, and not the lore - since it's probably confusing to people who are desperately looking for a reason to believe that it's a "team" game.

  *Can you decide to be more selfish and a lone wolf, sure. Yet survivors can choose to cooperate and work as a team. Does the current system hold any regard to treating the survivors as a team, it is an option that the game presents to us after all. 

  That's just it. Players can be selfish and a lone wolf - they can choose to cooperate and work as a team. There are plenty of options within the game.  But at the end of the day, what is the win condition? What is the ultimate goal? What's the objective? Simply to escape.

  *Yet none of the plays, risks and actions that correspond to working together as a team are equivalently rewarded when successful. The win solely looks at the lone wolf approach.

  Of course not. The cooperation and the alliance in the game are definitely rewarded - if done correctly: it's rewarded with the player's personal escape - because that's the entire point of playing.  And the lone wolf approach? - again, if done correctly, it's rewarded with his/her escape - again, because that's the entire goal. For most players, it's not one or the other - they have to figure when it's the correct approach within the match, and when it is not.

  *People talk about teammates, not other sole survivors and you can dismiss this all you want. Claim it is a misconception of the player base, but these are the people that play the game. These are the people that for a large part have been extremely negative about the MMR system and are the people that the company relies on to keep playing. They listen to the community, according to the article that you yourself mention and that the product is no longer just theirs, but all of ours.

  And that's why it has become such a problematic game - instead of being true to its game design and sticking to it, the developers started relying on its players to define the game for them. Wincon is the most basic tenets of any game design - yet they compromised its existence for years. No wonder players are unhappy - they are being told "no" for the first time.

  *The win condition didn't change right? To many people it has changed, significantly punishing those that play in the other survivor style; as a team. People say they cannot remove SWF because, that is their money maker, that is what the game runs on... guess what these for the vast majority see themselves as a team. I am not disputing any of these claims, SWFs are a vital reason why the game is where it is today.

  Look at it from a business, how many people approach the survivor end of the game as the lone wolf choice versus how many approach it from the team choice? Who exactly do you want to keep happy and have the system account for? You can support both, but that would require expanding the parameters, considering solo performance on top of just the kills/escapes at the end of a match (in my opinion the better option). Yet if the developers want the easy clear cut win/lose condition of kills vs escapes, the team approach would be the better and smarter move.

  To me, that's a player base problem. Or rather, the quality of the player-base. Those who never truly loved or accepted this game for what it is. But yeah, you are right; I don't really look at it from the business perspective. Nor do I care about its player-base. The only thing I care about is being true to its game design - and its win condition has never been changed.

  ...so no quotes from the developers that would back your opinion that this game's win condition have to do with Survivors being a "team", eh? Bunch of inference and guesses, eh? I see. Like I said, it sounds like this is more about what YOU want, and not the game actually is.

  The definition of a win by the developers:

  "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition. It's more of a gradient of did I have a good game, do I feel like I’ve accomplished much, was it fun?"

  This isn't specific for killers, it is across the board. You claim it is speculative what I state and not a developers clear words. Yet I quote once again the developers words and you claim this hasn't changed? It is in the exact interview you use for your argument. The fact that this win condition isn't suitable to e-sports, still means this is what they defined as a win. The emblem system was far more inline with their original definition of a win, they changed the system as their definition is no longer the original one as you claim.

  What is the original win condition, well according to the developer - the quotes you claim to care about: Did you have a good game, do you feel that you have accomplished much and was it fun? Nowhere in the developer you claim we should listen to does he state, it was just reliant on kill and escaping.

  Escaping was not the embodiment of the win condition according to the devs quote from the interview, it is simple one of the goals, one of the factors to strive for and that was it. Just the same as striving for more survivors getting out than those that would die, under the escaping section it even says you can stick around and try to get the other survivors out. You argue that the win condition hasn't changed, but the interview you linked actually showcases that is exactly what happened. Their original design wasn't that clear cut.

  It isn't true to their original design, it hasn't been a hide and seek game as it is evolved in being mainly centered around chases. It hasn't been a pure lone wolf, survival of the quickest among survivors for even longer than that. The fact is that you are playing a 1v4 game, you cannot win on your own as a survivor and are part of a team. You go what does it matter that you have to collaborate to achieve the final goal? Well the fact that means you are reliant on your teammates to get you to the finish line.

  You state that the game of hockey could have been replaced by any other sport, yet they prepared the Q&A this was what they chose to use. The game is team based and simply put in any sport or game where a collaboration takes place to achieve a win, as is with the survivors in the game. None will result in a personal loss, if you managed to contribute enough to get the team a win. There is a reason for this, while I think a combination would be far more suitable to maintain the original win condition alive where having a good game, the idea where you feel accomplished and whether it was fun. The team aspect is not to be ignored.

  Since you love quotations have the following: Patrick, lead game designer: "We are looking into improvements to the current system an example is to take team results into account for survivors in addition to the personal results" (You can thank the previous conversation I had here for them pointing out the fact that they actually stated this) Clearly he is speaking of a team...

  You state to not care about the player-base, which frankly means you don't care about the game. Without a player-base there is no game and no they shouldn't simply listen to the player base... if they did that they would need to remove the MMR completely.

  This is pretty much sums it up, funny I saw this pop up in while I was writing this:

  https://youtu.be/G4gvrH0UJ3U

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 3, 2022

• @knell said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2789272#Comment_2789272

  *Your argument is this is not a team game, yet a Survive With Friends was introduced the year after that interview.

  ?

  The interview was posted on November of 2018. SWF arrived in Patch 1.0.3 in July of 2016. What in the world are you talking about?

  *The system doesn't care whether you are a pre-made or not, the introduction of SWF is literally the introduction of the concept of survivors being on a team. They threw away the anti-social approach of survivors when they added the feature.

  As I told the other forum goer, SWF simply allows friends to play together - nowhere does it imply that they have to be a "team." Just like in solo-que, they must form a temporary alliance, but that isn't actually a "team." Of course, players can choose to pretend that they are in a team, and proceed to play the game that way, but that is simply a player problem, not the game's. Sharing of information among SWF does allow for better awareness of when to help each other (so that they themselves can escape), and when to give up on them (so that they themselves can escape) - it's definitely a huge advantage, but that doesn't make them automatically a "team" nor does it change the win condition.

  For good measure, let's review what the survivor's win condition is again:

  Under the current in-game tutorial: "Survivors: How To Win - The primary objective of a Survivor in a trial is to escape."

  On DBD's official webpage (under game objectives - how to win): "As a Survivor, your main objective is to escape the map and live another day."

  In either case, nowhere does the game's win condition for survivors indicate that they are a team (e.g. "Survivors win if 2 or more survivor escape the trial in a match.")

  *You can cherry pick, but the game isn't anymore what it was back then. In that interview they stated they were going to re-invent the game and they did... it isn't a hide and seek game anymore either.

  Sure, they can change the mechanics within the game - sometimes strengthening the chase-aspects of the game, and other times the "hide and seek" aspects. Hell, if they want to, they can add "search for a generator parts" mechanics or "fight the killer" mechanics - but all of those mechanics won't change the overall goal of the game, which for survivors, is simply to escape themselves, and has nothing to do with helping other players survive.

  All I've done is give you exactly what DBD's game director has said on the matter - if you have a quote (and not just some inferences) from an equally reliable source that states that the game's win condition for survivors rely on them being a "team", you are more than welcome to do that. Otherwise, it just sounds like you are arguing for what you personally want DBD to be designed as, not how it actually is.

  This is about the statement win condition not changing, the quote of the same game developer within the same interview:

  "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition. It's more of a gradient of did I have a good game, do I feel like I’ve accomplished much, was it fun?"

  Are you going to use only the cherry picked aspect of the same interview that falls in line with your argument or look at the entirety what was said at the time? You use it as an undisputable point, while ignoring literally the rest of the interview.

  The fact of the matter is that the developers have avoided for years to create a clear message on what a win/lose condition is. They now state it is escapes and kill based and compare it to a team sport. Their choice of a comparison, there are enough solo sports that it could be used and yet they picked a team sport. There is a reason the emblem system was created to look at the different aspects to let you climb, it was about more than just kills/escapes and tried to embody the gradient.

  The definition of the feature of Survive With Friends is a direct statement of them trying to survive together, therefore your pretend to be a team is simply inaccurate it is an active choice of the survivors, one the game explicitly offers to the players. They join as a group, a party, a team to face off against a killer, to try and survive with this group. Also, simply read up on the perks;

  • Strengthens the potential in your and your team's Aura-reading abilities.
  • We have to work as a team, I need you to survive so that I can survive!
  • You are able to organise a team to cooperate more efficiently.

  There are tons of references that survivors are/can be part of a team, claiming that you are all lone wolves going at it alone is simply not true. Can you decide to be more selfish and a lone wolf, sure. Yet survivors can choose to cooperate and work as a team. Does the current system hold any regard to treating the survivors as a team, it is an option that the game presents to us after all. Yet none of the plays, risks and actions that correspond to working together as a team are equivalently rewarded when successful. The win solely looks at the lone wolf approach.

  People talk about teammates, not other sole survivors and you can dismiss this all you want. Claim it is a misconception of the player base, but these are the people that play the game. These are the people that for a large part have been extremely negative about the MMR system and are the people that the company relies on to keep playing. They listen to the community, according to the article that you yourself mention and that the product is no longer just theirs, but all of ours.

  We’ve learned that this is not just our game anymore, there are a million people playing every month and these people are part of what the game is and what the game should be. And they should have a say in what the future of the game is. So we pay quite a lot of close attention to what comes from our community. 

  From the developer himself. Well guess what... people aren't happy, people are complaining that if they do well and feel that they had a good game, that they have accomplished much and their team as a whole has more escapes than those that were killed... if they are the sole survivor that died, they are not granted the win like the rest, they are told they lost. The vast majority of players will look at the end result, a 4k, a 3k, a 2k, 1k, 0k and understand whether their side won or lost. Just like with hockey, people get the concept of an overall score.

  The win condition didn't change right? To many people it has changed, significantly punishing those that play in the other survivor style; as a team. People say they cannot remove SWF because, that is their money maker, that is what the game runs on... guess what these for the vast majority see themselves as a team. I am not disputing any of these claims, SWFs are a vital reason why the game is where it is today.

  Look at it from a business, how many people approach the survivor end of the game as the lone wolf choice versus how many approach it from the team choice? Who exactly do you want to keep happy and have the system account for? You can support both, but that would require expanding the parameters, considering solo performance on top of just the kills/escapes at the end of a match (in my opinion the better option). Yet if the developers want the easy clear cut win/lose condition of kills vs escapes, the team approach would be the better and smarter move.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 3, 2022

• @knell said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2789099#Comment_2789099

  ? What does SWF have to do with the main objective of the game design? Sure, SWF will have more information and therefore would have more awareness of when they should help or cut off other survivors. That doesn't change the win condition.

  You mean this win condition as defined by Mathieu in the same article and interview that you quote?

  One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition. It's more of a gradient of did I have a good game, do I feel like I’ve accomplished much, was it fun? 

  Your argument is this is not a team game, yet a Survive With Friends was introduced the year after that interview. It is not a team according to you, but the definition of with is together. There is only one game mode and it most definitely has teams on the survivor end. The system doesn't care whether you are a pre-made or not, the introduction of SWF is literally the introduction of the concept of survivors being on a team. They threw away the anti-social approach of survivors when they added the feature.

  Like you can literally use the same interview to claim that SWF and MMR have no place in the game and yet they are now integral parts of the game and aren't going to go anywhere. The game evolved and the features and systems that it added are direct products of the changes in what the game is. You can cherry pick, but the game isn't anymore what it was back then. In that interview they stated they were going to re-invent the game and they did... it isn't a hide and seek game anymore either.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 3, 2022

• @zarr said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2788049#Comment_2788049

  1. It wasn't about the "verbiage" of volatility, it was specifically about the volatility index. Here https://www.macroption.com/vix-calculation is a simple step-by-step guide on the math of that.
  2. Ah, so you did mean the thing I have shown with numbers and you never before stated. Gotcha.
  3. You are great at avoiding talking about actual points. The point of me bringing up hatch was only, simply, to indicatively highlight that I don't see that people care about rating as you claim. Again, even in cases where the hatch was right by a gate, I have yet to see anyone choose to take the gate escape over the hatch escape.

  You like hammering on the so called flaw of thinking that both sides can win in the current system. It is a 4v1 game, the meaning of versus is that they compete against each other. If at the end of a match a victor emerges on both sides of that v sign - they are versus, both sides shouldn't be able to have a victor if they are versus each other and that is not flawed logic, that is quite simple actually. This isn't a bad line of thinking, it is viewing the entire match and looking at the result of it. Then claiming that the MMR should look at who hit the win condition and who didn't.

  If you look at it in the way that the system actually does, there can be no instance of both sides of the equation gaining rating. You simply aren't understanding that doing it 1v1 leads to no such issues you were claiming it does. The only issue "both sides winning" leads to is more and more people climbing ratings with time, invalidating them. The 1-escape scenario does not lead to this, because it is statistically irrelevant overall, and statistically even more irrelevant for a given player. And for any player it would not be statistically irrelevant for, they should be gaining rating, because otherwise they would be able to do what they do, somehow consistently escape through gates the sole survivor, exceed the 50% success rate target, but yet get worse and worse opponents, getting less and less likely to ever approach the target that the system solely exists to seek.

  But even regardless, even when looking at it 1v4, how do you not get that both "sides" do not win if 3 survivors do not gain rating, and that a 50% survival rate is based on the 1v4 perspective because from the 1v1 perspective the only sensible survival rate would be 0%?

  To bring it back into the team sport analysis that was used, it is stating that the highest scorer of the opponents team won, even though their team lost. In sports they don't care who scored or not, all they care about is which side scored more... nobody cares whether it was 0-1 or 25-300 in the end one side wins. In DBD this equivalent it shouldn't matter if it was a 0-4, a 1-3, a 4-0 or a 3-1 there is a clear victor at the end and the only draw is a 2-2. The team that scored 25 don't have an individual win, they lost. It is literally the same issue as comparing it to hooks, whether or not the killer got many hooks the survivors escaped. It doesn't matter that the opponent made 25 points, you made 300 and won. It doesn't matter how the survivors or killer played, 3 of them are dead.

  DbD is not a team game in the sense sports are. Even outside of the context of you overblowing the analogy that was used and what it was used for, using team sports to apply to DbD logic is flawed. I've explained this at length (little reminders: people regularly play alone, having actual set teams is the rarest exception; everyone in DbD may only play for their own survival; everyone in DbD "scores goals", shooting themselves over the exit gate line, so to say), and the system may well be designed like this because as opposed to you, BHVR understands that most people care about their personal survival more than any stranger's, and that most players would not be happy dying 10 times in a row just because 2+ other players survived each time. Not least because they often may not even be around to see this outcome, having left the trial after their death. That is likely big part of the reason why they'll keep looking at individual survival rates too.

  And it is still not the same issue that looking at hooks would lead to. You have to think about what it systemically means that the 1 lone survivor that lives gains rating, and realize that as long as it does not lead to more and more players gradually climbing rating by consistently doing so, it poses no such issues. And nobody is consistently escaping through gates in matches where 3 people died. And if they were, they should be gaining rating, because they must be doing something that leads to this consistently, it is statistically impossible for someone to be consistently more lucky than other players. And they should not be individually escaping constantly either way, not even the sole survivor, but approach 50% escape rate, as that is the system's only purpose, and increasing the rating of such players as such necessary for its functioning toward achieving its goal.

  You even by admitting that switching to the group metric it would be an improvement. Therefore all that hiding you do behind the math model is invalidated as we agree it would become better. We both state that the current system mathematically still makes sense which means an improvement is about the accuracy and quality of the result (which is reflected in the volatility). Now you can argue how significant of an improvement it would be and we simply do not have the answer to that and I never claimed we did. You however want me to make up numbers to showcase this, while you refuse to do it yourself and I argue that it doesn't matter as those would be all fictional anyway.

  I only asked for actual math because you brought up the volatility index, saying it would show how the group metric mathematically reflects on the MMR system. And I only did because I was interested, not because I was claiming the group metric would have no such effect of decreasing "volatility", as I have from the beginning myself said and later explained with numbers, stabilizing ratings more around desired outcomes, cutting away some fluctuations.

  The things I argued were not about whether the group metric would improve the system in this way, but whether it would in the other ways you claimed it would, the ways in which you claimed the current system is flawed or not functioning desirably, such as "both sides winning", "star and team-players not climbing in rating as opposed to safe and selfish players", "the system not working from the 1v4 perspective", all of which is still just as wrong as it was then: both sides of the equation are mathematically unable to win; if you look at more than singular exceptional matches like you have to with the system, star players and team-players that have increased group survival rates (i. e. are actually good at what they do) will also have increased personal survival rates, and as such climb rating (but even if this weren't the case, it would pose no problems since it would still lead to all players eventually settling at ratings where they can personally survive more often, so what if these or any players aren't at the highest ratings); 50% survival rate works out to be balanced both from the personal and group perspective, and is indeed based on the 1v4 perspective because no player could ever realistically survive a 1v1 in DbD. If DbD were a 1v5 game instead, you could easily understand that not 2.5 survivors can escape in any given match, and that therefore a balanced 50% survival rate can never lead to balanced results in singular matches, that you would always have "wins" for either side with at best 2 kills vs. 3 escapes or vice-versa, yet still the 50% balance target would work on average over many matches and when looking at players individually. You just fail to understand this for the reality of the game where a 50% balance is possible from both perspectives and can in any given match lead to a balanced overall result too (2 kills, 2 escapes), but likewise also works with all other combinations over many matches (0, 1, 3, 4 kills vs. 4, 3, 1, 0 escapes). Well, conveniently it doesn't matter, it comes out to the same end result, the system will work to achieve its desired and desirable goal with 1v1 math just the same (only I suspect it will do so faster with 1v4 math).

  Whether this is a primary reason for you or not, that is literally purely subjective. It however does also implicate that all that I have been stating is accurate and correct. Therefore my line of thinking again isn't flawed. The reason why this is my primary motivator is actually because the mathematical improvements are one thing and I don't believe it is that significant and is why for the majority I focused on this aspect. You don't care about it, yet I believe the main outcry against this system is exactly due to the consequences of these soft factors.

  I did not say your thinking is flawed in the sense that such side-effects of the system can and do exist to extents (otherwise I would not have agreed with it...), but that it is flawed in the sense of making it out to be something objectively desirable for the system to encourage such self-sacrificing/risk-taking teamplay behaviour. Because opinions may very well and do differ regarding whether it is desirable to risk and give one's own life for that of others in the game rather than mostly play for one's own, whether the gameplay it yields is desirable. That means if and insofar the personal survival metric "encourages" "selfish" play, and the group survival metric "selfless" play, using either of the two is not objectively an improvement over the other, but a game design consideration that has to be informed by subjective considerations. And I for one do very much assume BHVR still thinks of the game more as a solo survival horror type, where 4 individual players happen to have the same objectives and may work together (in rudimentary ways; there's a reason BHVR is rejecting the idea of implementing in-game voice chat that most actual team games these day have), but are not strictly a team and may play "selfishly" and for their own survival above all too, and do not personally "lose" if they survive just because the other survivors may have died. And again, this is also because they probably realize that most people mostly care about their own personal survival, are satisfied most of all (or in many cases indeed only at all satisfied) if they themselves survive.

  Sorry, but you might want to call on your companion here to step in, because frankly you are out of touch with the actual discussion that I am having and the feedback I am giving. You pretty much conceded on each front without noticing, while we might value them differently on their importance yet that is a pure subjective take on it anyway and judging someone for it as you do is flat out arrogant and out of line. You can try and hide behind another persons professional experience, but he isn't the only one with that type of experience. You think I can draw up a graph like I did without any experience? If you want to act like an authority, show your own credentials as those of someone else don't actually mean you know what you are talking about.

  The nerve to call me "arrogant" after saying something like "call on your companion here to step in". You are pretty hilarious dude.

  Here I am repeating the very basic arguments that we have been circling around from the very start. This absolutely would not ever lead anywhere. Go ahead and have the last word, I'm ditching out of this "discussion" with you.

  You can google a math explanation Congratulations! Now apply it, get the average volatility graph and see what roles out. You wanted to know what it would look like, well that is what I drew out for you

  You act like you are proving me wrong and repeating that I dont understand how the system works throughout this conversation. All while admitting that the aspects I bring up have an impact, would be an improvement, etc. Yet dismiss it for some unknown reason based on nothing than the assumption it wouldn't have a big impact. Yet somehow you aren't arrogant? You even hide behind someone else's professional life, you brought that up.

  The fact that even with the graph I gave, you still state I don't see how it can produce the desired result of a 2k is mindboggling. It is literally what I drew... but oh well. You live in an imaginary world.

  If the developers want to create a situation where survivors act like they are on the same team, as a 4v1 game indicates... maybe the system should promote that. You stated and pointed out they are moving in the direction of team based outcome, but sure it isn't desirable or impactful or their view of the game.

  You now have the arrogance to fill in how the developers see their game. Claim that if anyone has a different perspective they are wrong and don't understand. It is the key element of the complaints about the system, that it doesn't account for those playstyles. I have from the get go have stated it is a different angle. Yet you kept coming at me with huge explanations on why that was wrong... now once again you simply yielded.

  This is indeed done, you have literally admitted to each and every one of my points and agreed. While still having an incorrect view of where I stand, even though I drew it out for you. You never had an interest in understanding what I was stating and just wanted to respond to an imaginary opinion.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 3, 2022

• @zarr said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2787702#Comment_2787702

  1. Dude, you were the one starting to talk about volatility indexes, I said feel free to use a functioning MMR system with example values because we don't know the real ones to actually showcase what you mean. That graph you drew isn't actual math, it's just... results randomly trending towards a mean. How does it relate to the actual math of an MMR system, let alone to a difference between personal and group survival metrics in an MMR system for DbD? Mind you, I never said the group survival metric would not have the effect reducing fluctuations within the rating developments, I poiinted out as much myself, I just wanted you to show what you mathematically mean with the volatility index function relating to this.
  2. The min. and max. in both metrics are 0ks and 4ks, 0% or 100% survival, both per-player and per-group... But the group metric allows for more granularity, since 25%/75% group survival results have a more predictable impact. What do you mean "even out on 2ks affecting them" - that they can be rated +/-0 in draws if using the group survival metric? Literally my point, and not one you brought up before.
  3. Not the point. Escaping by hatch gives +0 rating for the survivor, as opposed to escaping by gate, so if they cared about rating, they would always want to go out of their way to avoid hatch if they can get a gate escape. This is not behaviour I have noticed, which I used indicatively to say players don't even seem to care enough about rating to simply not jump into hatch.

  I specifically pointed out flaws in your understanding of the system. Like, you can't just say stuff like "both sides win, same problem as if it were based on hooks!", or "1v1 metric doesn't work from the 1v4 perspective", or "5-gen runners don't 'climb in ranking'!" and then act as if you didn't make objectively wrong assertions. What do you mean I want to limit the math to a single scenario? What scenario? Which part of the math specifically?

  I've always said I think switching to the group metric would be an improvement, what is your point? I didn't contest what you presented on the basis of it being gospel, I contested the things I did contest on the basis of them being false. The OP of the thread that has professionally worked with such systems had already told you you have no clue what you are talking about in your original posts, and pointed to the flaws in your thinking, I merely went and further tried to explain the flaws in your thinking to you. Doesn't mean everything you've said is wrong, or that you ever said the system would not work at all, you didn't... that was never the point.

  1. You actually talked about it, but frankly with your lack of understanding of the math model I am not surprised that you missed it. When you talk about how impactful things are on the numbers and claiming that they are insignificant, you are technically speaking of the volatility. All I did was use the correct verbiage.
  2. You speak of the killer being able to lose MMR while 2king, yet they can also gain MMR while 2king as it all is about the relative level of the survivors against their own. Additionally the system can still form the killers MMR to account for all of this even if a group metric is applied to the survivors or balance it out more easily by using averages and making that outcome less volatile.
  3. The fact that you do not understand that the ability to negate a negative and positive score for the other party based on whether you do escape or not by the door, impacts the mathematical outcome of the system. Taking the hatch isn't always an alternative to the gates, it might be the alternative to dieing. In either case this reflects back on the opponent you are facing as well as your own rating. These thing have a bigger impact on the numbers than you might think.

  You like hammering on the so called flaw of thinking that both sides can win in the current system. It is a 4v1 game, the meaning of versus is that they compete against each other. If at the end of a match a victor emerges on both sides of that v sign - they are versus, both sides shouldn't be able to have a victor if they are versus each other and that is not flawed logic, that is quite simple actually. This isn't a bad line of thinking, it is viewing the entire match and looking at the result of it. Then claiming that the MMR should look at who hit the win condition and who didn't.

  To bring it back into the team sport analysis that was used, it is stating that the highest scorer of the opponents team won, even though their team lost. In sports they don't care who scored or not, all they care about is which side scored more... nobody cares whether it was 0-1 or 25-300 in the end one side wins. In DBD this equivalent it shouldn't matter if it was a 0-4, a 1-3, a 4-0 or a 3-1 there is a clear victor at the end and the only draw is a 2-2. The team that scored 25 don't have an individual win, they lost. It is literally the same issue as comparing it to hooks, whether or not the killer got many hooks the survivors escaped. It doesn't matter that the opponent made 25 points, you made 300 and won. It doesn't matter how the survivors or killer played, 3 of them are dead.

  You even by admitting that switching to the group metric it would be an improvement. Therefore all that hiding you do behind the math model is invalidated as we agree it would become better. We both state that the current system mathematically still makes sense which means an improvement is about the accuracy and quality of the result (which is reflected in the volatility). Now you can argue how significant of an improvement it would be and we simply do not have the answer to that and I never claimed we did. You however want me to make up numbers to showcase this, while you refuse to do it yourself and I argue that it doesn't matter as those would be all fictional anyway.

  Then we go into the game design aspect and you have even conceded on this front:

  "I even agreed early on that the soft factor of the group metric perhaps kinda-sorta encouraging more self-sacrificing or at least risk-taking teamplay is an upside and another reason why switching would be good (although far from the primary reason, for me anyway)."

  Whether this is a primary reason for you or not, that is literally purely subjective. It however does also implicate that all that I have been stating is accurate and correct. Therefore my line of thinking again isn't flawed. The reason why this is my primary motivator is actually because the mathematical improvements are one thing and I don't believe it is that significant and is why for the majority I focused on this aspect. You don't care about it, yet I believe the main outcry against this system is exactly due to the consequences of these soft factors.

  Sorry, but you might want to call on your companion here to step in, because frankly you are out of touch with the actual discussion that I am having and the feedback I am giving. You pretty much conceded on each front without noticing, while we might value them differently on their importance yet that is a pure subjective take on it anyway and judging someone for it as you do is flat out arrogant and out of line. You can try and hide behind another persons professional experience, but he isn't the only one with that type of experience. You think I can draw up a graph like I did without any experience? If you want to act like an authority, show your own credentials as those of someone else don't actually mean you know what you are talking about.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 2, 2022

• @zarr said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2787370#Comment_2787370

  You just proven that you have no idea what you are talking about while acting like some kind of expert. You keep trying to tell me that my reasoning and manner of thinking is incorrect, yet when I throw at you the actual manner in which the system functions from the theoretical math model you try to hide behind you state you don't know what you are looking at.

  What part of your reasoning and manner of thinking does the graph support, in any way? I didn't say the graph made no sense, it's simple enough, just that the curves you input are random, and that the graph doesn't actually provide anything supporting any arguments you've made. How does it show that the group metric would reduce volatility, and how does it relate to the volatility index?

  The lines you see in my quickly drawn graph pretty much represent the two boundaries which one could experience to eventually end up at the correct nominal (50% escape rate).

  Yes, and this would true regardless of which metric you look at results from. The graphs would just be expected to be somewhat more extreme in their aligning at the nominal with the group metric, or so I suspect, which is obvious if it is true, but not mathematically proven to be true with your graph.

  You state yourself that the effect on the system isn't up for debate, so me showing this on the hand of actual numbers is quite pointless and time intensive, while an illustration does the exact same.

  I do think it has that effect, but I've explained why I think it does (using numbers, I showed that with the per-survivor survival metric, killers could lose rating in "draws" against mismatchedly-rated groups, or gain a lot of rating if they kill all survivors due to weak links in such groups; if you look at the overall result (and use group average ratings), you can much more easily stabilize players around balanced outcomes by simply leaving everyone's ratings unchanged in them, and not have rating disparities within survivor groups cause as much of a potential shift on both ends - there are still things that skew ratings with that metric too, you'll still need many iterations to arrive at stable ratings and more even matches, but it should take less iterations). I just don't see how your graph/explanation of it demonstrates this.

  You state that my logic is backwards by stating that the developers defining a win influences the players. That the hatch is a perfect example of it. Yet in my model the hatch would be considered far more a win, corresponding with what the game pretty much indicates as a win than it currently does. In the case that the game ends up in an overall loss, the final player still has a chance to get a draw just for themselves. The killer is hardly affected by this, as they are still judged on the overall games result. It is why I don't try and address the MMR system from their perspective, while they are naturally influenced by the manner in which survivors play. The whole goal of my suggestion is to have both sides of the versus to be judged on the same criteria.

  Currently, the hatch doesn't factor into MMR at all, it is the only "true" draw state we have because neither the killer nor survivor rating is affected by it. I only used this to showcase that people care more about surviving (like they've always done) than they do about ratings, because I haven't seen anyone refrain from taking the hatch in favour of leaving through an exit, even in cases where they were completely free to choose between the two. I also haven't heard of players saying they feel less good if they escape through hatch now, or as if they hadn't truly "survived".

  Either way, you bring up an interesting point, namely how to deal with the hatch in a group survival metric environment. Should a hatch escape count toward everyone's rating, making all survivors lose less rating than they would in a 4-kill match, or should it treat the match as a 4k for everyone but the survivor that did escape through hatch? I'm honestly not sure, but here I do feel like your argument that people care about rating shows itself to be relevant: if players knew that their hatch escape can "benefit" the entire team's rating, they might be more thrilled to play for and succeed in getting a hatch escape, and who knows, this might also lead to dead players sticking around more often spectating, rooting for remaining players.

  I have stated time and time again that the game design implications and the metrics used in the system aren't aligned to create the best game and experience. Looking at the overall outcome of the side that you play as is done with killer would result in a better system and you have conceded this fact multiple times.

  I didn't "concede" that fact, I purported it myself, and agreed with you about that aspect once it came up. It was the other stuff I argued against.

  Frankly speaking, you can believe what you want. You have admitted that it has an effect and yet because we cannot quantify how big it is you don't care. The quality and how good the system is as long as it works is irrelevant according to you. While that is exactly what I am addressing, the quality of the system and I have never claimed the current system doesn't work. I am discussing improvements to a system, while you are trying to have my prove that the current system doesn't work while making no such claims. We aren't having the same discussion, because you don't want to understand where I actually stand.

  My arguments weren't about your entire standpoint, certainly not after the first few replies, but about the specific things I addressed. I even agreed early on that the soft factor of the group metric perhaps kinda-sorta encouraging more self-sacrificing or at least risk-taking teamplay is an upside and another reason why switching would be good (although far from the primary reason, for me anyway). I just later pointed out that just because we both consider that to be a desirable effect, not everyone has to or does. Maybe one of the reasons why the devs are going for a hybrid approach specifically is that they are afraid that with an exclusively group-based metric, there could be more frequent edge-cases where players can go on dying streaks, and they want to still factor in personal survival to avoid this because they speculate/know that ultimately, players on average care much more about their own survival than that of others.

  You clearly haven't a clue what you are talking about.

  1. Me making up numbers can result in anything I want it to, as it has no foundation for it. Therefore doing so and acting like it would is completely delusional. Go do it yourself and prove me wrong, you claim to understand it so much better than I do... so do what you ask from others else simply stop demanding numbers.

  2. Killers even out on 2ks affecting them, you love throwing it at big numbers and the diversity of going up and dow goes both ways. The current system is more volatile because of it as the min and max are further apart.

  3. Hatch does affect MMR as it removes a loss and a win from the equation, either the killer or survivor. It is literally the only way a survivor can draw at this point in time. Making the sum for the killer reliant on 3 outcomes instead of 4.

  You try to tell me that I don't understand the system and use it against me... yet somehow when it comes to the math you want to limit it to a single scenario, while if anyone uses it to showcase risk/reward balance in the game you go... but that will level out. The hypocritical arguments, the personal deflection and trying to unjustified act like an expert is so transparent.

  You act like I am presenting my suggestion as gospel, but I already admitted they have more options to improve the system and it needs to consider group performance. You state they want to make a hybrid approach, literally meaning that all the points I brought forth are aspects they are considering... because guess what that is the reason people dislike the current. You are the one white knighting for the current system, while the developers by your own accord are not sticking with it. They have the numbers, and are adding team performance into the MMR!

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 2, 2022

• @zarr said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2786768#Comment_2786768

  I have now proven and showcased my point using a mathematical model in a more clear fashion, you don't care about the graph... but that is the math model you speak of.

  What point did you prove and showcase, specifically? The graph shows little of real value, it's just 4 curves randomly approaching 0 and 4 kill results. Your explanation of it truthfully didn't make much sense to me, and I'd be glad if you could try and explain more clearly, but the conclusion you came to is still wrong. It doesn't matter whether you attach a 50% survival chance to every single survivor or put together 4 survivors each of which have a 50% "group" survival chance for survivors in their matches, it doesn't matter how you "approach" it, it will still be the same outcome, coalescing around 50% survival rates per-player and per-group in matches on average.

  Either way, I asked you to showcase how the volatility index function relates to an MMR system. You know, the function that measures volatility on stock markets, using actual math? And I only asked you to do this because you brought it up and I was interested, it's not like it's making any point we have been discussing - if it shows that the group metric would reduce "volatility", that'd be dandy, I would like to see that, but I already said from the beginning that I expect the group metric will reduce fluctuations, that was never subject of discussion.

  You ask why I state it as 1 or 0 for the survivors as that is the definition of a win or loss in a mathematical or computer science situation. You do not care about the graph, because you are disingenuous in actually caring about the math behind the system. You complain about not using numbers, while I did not run any simulations or numbers and simply showed the theoretical outcome of a system like this. I can state over 10 billion games played, but it doesn't really matter as they are numbers that I pull out of a hat. The hypocrisy is that you have not once used any math yourself to strengthen you argument on why it would be better, while even admitting that a group view would likely result in a faster result. Which I showcased within the math analysis of what that means.

  Again, I only asked you to show the actual math because you were the one bringing up the volatility index and I was interested whether you were actually able to demonstrate how that is relevant, but you weren't. I used math in an earlier post modelling a rudimentary MMR system and showed that the group metric would probably lead to some better results in terms of stabilizing ratings more quickly. But that is not relevant to the argument, the mathematical parts relevant to the argument were: you falsely assuming the system would skew its math due to "both sides winning" with the 1v1 rating calculations, and you thinking singular matches are significant for a system that by design works over many matches, where singular match outcomes are statistically and functionally insignificant.

  Additionally even with my drawing it out for you and explaining it from a math model point of view, you still make inaccurate statements about what I am talking about. There is no use talking to you, as you clearly are not interested in listening or understanding what I am stating and just want to uphold some inaccurate imaginary idea of what you believe I believe... instead of speaking about what I actually believe and state. No matter how I try to clarify and rectify the assumptions you made about what I wrote, you just tell me that you know better what I believe than myself. You might not believe me, but I do think having a MMR system was a good decision for the developers to invest in. I just don't think they are using the best metrics to make the best game.

  I always quoted what I argued against. You claiming you did not make the arguments you did is still not leading anywhere.

  You claim why would someone care about their invisible rating, while I am not stating that they do. I state that people care about winning and the wins defined by the developers are as I stated. What is defined as a win or a loss influences how people play and acting like people don't want to win or shouldn't is so unrealistic. Therefore by proxy they do care about their rating, as it is defined by how often you win against how often you lose.

  Surviving and killing have always been what people consider winning in this game, it's literally in the game description. People at large have always cared about their survival more than anything else, that didn't change just because now an invisible rating used for matchmaking purposes looks at these things.

  As you accurately point out if you are in the exit gate with 3, the safe choice would still be to leave and in many cases would still be done with the improvements I stated and I am not trying to deny people from making that choice. Their team can make the more risky move and go for the 4 man out, try to save them however a 3 escape would be considered a win and therefore the risk isn't really worth it. It could also be that they are with 2 in the exit gate with 1 person on the hook. Then the decision would be to go for the safe draw or risk it all for the win, maybe it is now worth the risk? If they manage to pull it off, the team that went back are the ones that should be rewarded, but as it currently stands that isn't the case.

  Again, there are scenarios where the group metric could "encourage" certain risky plays more, but there's also others where it can do the opposite. Take the 2 in exit 1 on hook case - if they just get out, they will secure at least a draw for everyone's ratings, risking a rescue attempt is not regularly worth it here because endgame saves that don't result in a hook trade (or worse) are fairly rare. But regardless, now if we look at it with the personal metric, a player might very well be more willing to go for the risk, because if they die doing so, the worst that happens is that their own rating decreases, they are not risking anyone else's; the second survivor is free to leave if they want to secure their own rating increase, and the survivor on hook would have lost rating either way, so the worst case scenario is the same for them. In the group metric scenario on the other hand, you are "responsible" for everyone's ratings and might not be comfortable taking risks putting that on the line in scenarios such as these. If the survivor dies taking a risk in such a case, with the group metric they will have caused not only their own but everyone's ratings to drop.

  And this is all from the perspective that a non-negligible amount of players actually irrationally care about their rating and base decisions and actions on it, which I still can't see to begin with.

  A game design and the underlying systems should aim to reward those that take risks and succeed. If you cannot even comprehend that this results in a better overall game and system you simply don't want to understand my perspective. My goal is to provide feedback to have the game be the best version of itself, not to excuse it because it works if you ignore everything else and the ripple effect it has within the game.

  It does not "reward" anything, the actual rewards for taking risks and succeeding are blatant and plenty, and have been long before we've had invisible ratings.

  It's fair enough if your feedback is "with the group metric more players will feel more like a team, which is nice because I like teamplay and consider a more teamplay-oriented gameplay experience to be desirable", and I would agree and would even want for BHVR to outright tell people in the game that they are being rated based on group survival, but the arguments were about the proper functioning of the system, not subjective preferences, the things I argued against were criticisms of the system such as it leading to the "wrong" players "climbing ranks", the 1v1 metric not leading to the right results from the 1v4 perspective, the 1v1 rating adjustments skewing the math because "both sides can win", all of which is just objectively false.

  Assumptions 1: This is a team game.

  This is a 4 versus 1 game according to the game description, therefore it is a team game and a solo game based on which side you play. Claiming the survivors are not on the same team is simply inaccurate. You don't have to be in a pre-made to be on the same team, the game allows you to join a team and the MMR system seeks one for you. Those on the same side are on the same team, they simply are even if they are made up of individual solo players. It is a game of Survivors Versus Killer.

  It's not strictly a team game. People can care about and play for their own survival more than anything else, and that is not a "wrong" way to play the game. The basic game premise is just playing for survival, most of all your own, there is no implication that you should risk your own life for that of others. I agree that it is better if played as a team, and would even welcome if the game told players something along the lines of "you won" or "you tied" if 2/3 other survivors escape despite the respective player dying, but that's just not the reality of the game, and BHVR is making a deliberate design choice not treating the game strictly as a team game, not implementing voice chat, etc.

  Assumption 2: People care about their rating.

  The rating is the result of winning or losing, people that play games try to win and therefore as a result care about their rating, as explained before it is a derivative of the fact whether you win or lose.

  That's backwards logic. People care about winning and always have, they don't need an invisible rating to care about winning. Again, people don't feel like they've "not survived" if they take the hatch, and I have yet to see anyone refuse to jump into the hatch in order to get a gate escape instead, even if the hatch was literally in front of the gate. People care to survive, they don't care about the rating.

  But sure, there are definitely some people that care about the rating somewhat, I just highly doubt it has much of an actual effect on the game overall.

  Assumption 3: Teamplay leads to increased survival rates

  This is a well established fact, the more coordinated a team is the more powerful and higher likelihood they will win. There is a reason why SWF's are the strongest type of team within the game, as they play together to get the match win. You are to focused on the individuals survival rate, while the game should look at the groups survival rate to establish a win for all.

  The point is that teamplay that leads to increased group survival rates also leads to increased personal survival rates of the players employing such teamplay. You said "safe" players would climb the "ranks", not teamplayers, implying teamplay would consistently lead to the teamplayers dying.

  Assumption 4: Rating changes are a "punishment" or "reward"

  It is not about rating, if you read the actual post you would have seen that it is about rewarding those that take a risk.

  But rewarding how? The rating is not a reward in and of itself. And the effect of the rating is simply that players are matched such that they have more equal chances to succeed. Why would a teamplayer that actually consistently dies (loses rating) not want to be put into matches where they can survive more often. They want to help their team survive, they don't want to necessarily die doing so.

  Assumption 5: Different metrics lead to different results, such as different players ending up in different matchups and killers rising in rating disproportional to survivors

  This is based on the data mined information that was made available and multiple people discussed and showcased. This is not an assumption, this is directly pulled out of the game by a specific group. I indicate one of the factors to why that is the case and how different metrics lead to different decision making.

  Again, the mined data was not actually based on the MMR matchmaking system, there were a lot of killers with inflated ratings due to the game having been doing calculations in the background while the rank-based MM was still active. And even if there were now, that would not be due to the metric used for survivors. As I've said, if anything encouraging risky plays (and particularly in the endgame) would lead to inflated kill rates.

  The metrics leading to different decision-making of players that care about their rating is well and all, but even to whatever extent that actually happens, it's still not a flaw of the system, not least because "selfish" decisions if it were to encourage them are not objectively negative. But the point of contention here wasn't about that, it was about whether team-players and "skilled" players would end up at the same ratings, because you argued they wouldn't, that the current metric would select for "safe" and "selfish" players, that team-players and even generally "skilled" players would not climb "ranks". I argued against that from the very beginning.

  Assumption 6: You assume 1-escape and 1-kill matches stand in the way of the proper functioning of the system

  Once again, just showcases that you don't want to actually understand what I am stating regardless of what I stated and are purely reflecting on some imaginary belief. Not once have I stated that the system isn't functioning, I am stating that it can be improved and be adjusted to improve the overall game.

  You said with the per-survivor survival metric, 1-escape matches would be instances of "both sides winning", which is simply an error in thinking and not understanding the system's functioning. Both sides of the equation cannot win, and the issue that non-diametrically opposed win conditions would lead to by the way of "both sides winning" does not exist with this metric, it does not lead to everyone gradually climbing ratings.

  Assumption 7: Many more issues in your perception, such as whether the system selects for "skill", what that "skill" is, whether the system has to select for "skill", misperceptions (or deliberate misrepresentations) regarding what arguments I am making...

  The use of " marks to indicate that "skill" is some arbitrary aspect that one can fill in. The fact of the matter is that skill can be very well established if one would expand on the premise of the metrics used to account for that. If you read my posts you would see that I barely touch on it and speak far more on playstyles, overall decision making and their potential outcomes and not the skill that is involved in achieving them.

  The "skill" argument was a more minor point of contention, but it was still just something you were wrong about, starting from the first post and the false assumption that skilled players ("5-gen runners") would not climb ratings based on singular exceptional match scenarios, and later developing into you saying the devs are wrong to use the word "skill" in the way that they are, but they aren't, it's not a wrong use of the word to refer to players good at consistently winning.

  There is literally nothing wrong with my perception, you simply don't want to understand it. I look beyond the does the system function in a vacuum as I have stated many many many times now. You ignore that aspect completely and state that it is the only thing that matters, but it does not. The MMR system is a single piece of the overall product namely the game, my goal is to provide feedback to create the best game! What is the ripple effect that the MMR system does by defining a win and loss in the game and what impact does that have within the game itself.

  I have admitted at every step of the way that the argument of the ratings being soft (irrational/emotional) incentives for people's playstyles/decisions/actions has merit. I have doubted whether it actually has a notable impact on the game, but I have not said it doesn't matter what side-effects the system may have as long as it functions. But I have also pointed out that even if it were to encourage more selfish playstyles/decisions/actions for every single player, that would not objectively be a flaw, since that is preference.

  As long as the system functions to instate more even win/loss ratios for players, approaching 50% (which it does), it functions just as well in principle with the per-survivor metric as it will with the group metric, only that I suspect the latter will make players approach those ratings that lead to more even ratios faster, and/or stabilize them around those ratings more. Either way, everyone is still free to play however they want, and if their chosen playstyle preference (and even if it would be "informed" by the metric) leads to them dying often enough to fall in rating, that only means they will be more likely to be able to survive more often as a result at those lower ratings. There's nothing bad about it, it's not a viable criticism of the system.

  I have laid out clear examples on what effects occur based on the current system, how the suggestions would reflect and change. You however have not once showcased any consideration for any of the concerns others bring up that they have with the system and what it promotes. The math works, what is the issue? Well, the gameplay it promotes and how it defines a win condition! I am not one of those that advocates for a total different mindset either, I still use the same metrics of kills and escapes just in a different manner.

  I did address your main argument of the personal survival metric "promoting" certain gameplay, and I acknowledged that you as opposed to others are not entirely unreasonable/unfair in your treatment of the system. I also admitted that I came on a little harshly at first, since you weren't actually making some of the ridiculous arguments others are. But that doesn't change anything about the flaws in thinking that I did explicitly reply to and try to explain.

  You just proven that you have no idea what you are talking about while acting like some kind of expert. You keep trying to tell me that my reasoning and manner of thinking is incorrect, yet when I throw at you the actual manner in which the system functions from the theoretical math model you try to hide behind you state you don't know what you are looking at.

  The graph that I show you is how a mathematical model of a MMR system would look like and is known as an average volatility graph. You have the minimum end return value and the highest and then run a ton of games over it, within the industry the standards are like simulations of 1,000,000,000 games played to determine a volatility accuracy. The desired result if everything works accordingly is what we then call in the mathematical model the nominal. Therefore the reduction in fluctuation that you speak of is pretty much the area between the upper bounds and the lower bounds. The lines you see in my quickly drawn graph pretty much represent the two boundaries which one could experience to eventually end up at the correct nominal (50% escape rate).

  I cannot put in the numbers, because we don't have the numbers and to actually calculate these properly you either need to put in a bunch of data into it either by simulation or having actual data on it. Therefore I cannot tell you whether the angles I showcased are accurate and me making up numbers doesn't change the manner in which it responds compared to me just winging it like I did, as I would be the one making up the numbers. Applying the calculations would take far more time and that is totally not something I am going to do to prove a point on a forum. You state yourself that the effect on the system isn't up for debate, so me showing this on the hand of actual numbers is quite pointless and time intensive, while an illustration does the exact same.

  You state that my logic is backwards by stating that the developers defining a win influences the players. That the hatch is a perfect example of it. Yet in my model the hatch would be considered far more a win, corresponding with what the game pretty much indicates as a win than it currently does. In the case that the game ends up in an overall loss, the final player still has a chance to get a draw just for themselves. The killer is hardly affected by this, as they are still judged on the overall games result. It is why I don't try and address the MMR system from their perspective, while they are naturally influenced by the manner in which survivors play. The whole goal of my suggestion is to have both sides of the versus to be judged on the same criteria.

  I have stated time and time again that the game design implications and the metrics used in the system aren't aligned to create the best game and experience. Looking at the overall outcome of the side that you play as is done with killer would result in a better system and you have conceded this fact multiple times.

  Frankly speaking, you can believe what you want. You have admitted that it has an effect and yet because we cannot quantify how big it is you don't care. The quality and how good the system is as long as it works is irrelevant according to you. While that is exactly what I am addressing, the quality of the system and I have never claimed the current system doesn't work. I am discussing improvements to a system, while you are trying to have my prove that the current system doesn't work while making no such claims. We aren't having the same discussion, because you don't want to understand where I actually stand.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 2, 2022

• @zarr said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2785613#Comment_2785613

  Talk about brick walls.

  No, it doesn't make me understand, because it doesn't make much of any sense, due to the reasons I've been pointing out all along. Let's start once again...

  The fact that you state that there would be an improvement, means that the mathematical model will improve as well.

  I never said the mathematics of the system would not improve. I explicitly highlighted the way in which I assume they would improve - the equations would more quickly lead to the ratings where survivors actually settle around 50% escape rates. Less matches to arrive at the same ratings. Of course this is an improvement of the mathematical model, but our disagreements pertained stuff like you saying people would end up at different ratings with the different metrics altogether, that the current metric would lead to problems of "both sides winning", and other things, that I quoted verbatim whenever I responded to them.

  While that might mathematically create a similar table to represent the whole match, it doesn't do this for the survivors. If the metrics are improved as we both claim, the line moves as displayed in the graph above as the green line regardless of which way it is approached, as the goal of the system itself doesn't change.

  This is bogus. It doesn't matter whether you look at a match from the "perspective" of the killer or the survivors, if each of the survivors in a match has a 50% chance of surviving, on average 50% of them will survive. As long as the metrics arrive at that 50%, there is literally no difference in the achieved end result of the graphs you look at over time, no matter whether you looked at individual survivors with a 50% chance to escape themselves, or at whether 50% of the survivors overall escaped in their matches. I argue (and have argued from the very beginning) that a graph would more quickly arrive at those same ratings that yield a 50% chance per-survivor (automatically also meaning per-group/match), have a steeper incline. But your argument went the way of saying such graphs would look different between the metrics altogether, lead to different players settling at different ratings, lead to issues of "both sides winning" and as such more and more players ending up at high ratings, which would skew the results more, and more stuff.

  If an individual improves and starts over/under performing compared to those lines, their MMR will drop or rise accordingly to try and match that once again, so the quicker and more efficient it is as detecting that the better and more accurate your rating will be determined. The lines do not hit the 2 mark, as people consistently fluctuate between the upper and lower boundaries (volatility) as they keep winning and losing, a range based on the accuracy of the system that it deems acceptable.

  Yes, indeed, it will be quicker, there will be less matches needed to arrive at the appropriate ratings (the same ratings we arrive at with the current metric), less potentially uneven, fluctuating match results to get there... which is what I've been arguing from the get-go. That is not what I contested at any point. I contested things such as you claiming different people would end up at different ratings altogether.

  If you make a risky play for the teams overall outcome and are successful, you personally were already set to escape so it remains a +1 and all that changes is someone else however also now achieves a +1. Yet as this is a random stranger, why would anyone care under the current one?

  Why would anyone care about the "+1" is the question you should instead be asking yourself in order to realize the flaws in your thinking. The only reasons for it would be irrationally caring about one's invisible rating, whereas the reasons to go back into the map to help someone else in a scenario where you could otherwise just escape are plenty and more rational, such as seeking gameplay, thrill, the feeling of success if you manage to rescue them, the feeling of solidarity, and on.

  If you make a risky play for the teams overall outcome and make a 1 for 1 change, now you personally are now set to 0 instead of +1, while someone else is set to +1. While this does not affect the overall numbers of the graphs, it does affect yours negatively.

  But you still have no reason to care about your "graph", there is no negative effect no matter how it behaves if it actually behaves according to your survival over many matches, if your actual chosen playstyle actually consistently leads to those graph changes. If you personally actually die due to sacrificing yourself for others and do so so consistently that your graph is affected to trend more toward 0 than it otherwise would, you want the system to reflect this with a lower rating because why would you not want to be matched such that you can survive more often rather than constantly keep dying at the ratings where you have shown you will keep dying with your playstyle? Even disregarding that in matches with a 50% overall survival chance any survivor is likely to escape around 50% of the time on average and that no one player is likely to consistently more often be among the two that die, even if that were the case, the system seeks more even personal success chances for individual players, and this is desirable for pretty much everyone, because most of everyone wants to succeed and not constantly die, not least because players in this game most of the time aren't in actual "teams" but queue up individually. And for the few people that actually prefer to die in order for their teammates to survive, and don't mind constantly dying, falling in rating to a point where they can survive while still helping their teammates to survive in the same ways is still not a negative effect, unless they are a "masochist" and for some reason want to actually constantly die helping their teammates rather than only die/survive half the time helping their teammates. At that point we'd basically be arguing the system insofar it "encourages" playstyles due to people caring irrationally much about ratings, "hurts" people that have yet other psychological oddities on top of this, such as outright wanting to die. And even on multiple levels of absurdity of this, it doesn't really matter, as I'm sure such players would still find reckless risks to take for their teammates that lead to their demise even at the lowest levels (hell, BOT Trapper from the tutorial can kill you if you take silly risks).

  If you make a risky play and fail, now the teams overall outcome goes down, your +1 changed to 0 and that of the other remained a 0.

  And this is how even with the group survival metric, even if you irrationally care about rating changes, risky altruistic plays are not encouraged. In any case where you die for the survival of 1 other survivor in your stead, the risk was actually not worth taking from the group survival perspective, because you risked 25% of the team (yourself) for a net-neutral return, in what could have also ended in a net-negative return. In these scenarios the group survival metric would also regularly dictate simply leaving because the risk is not worth it (if you irrationally care about rating changes).

  This is how it functions in the current system. There is no incentive to put your own neck on the line to improve the teams overall outcome. It even incentivizes you to ditch anyone that does in any situation where you can see a line of play where you personally can escape. Nothing you have stated has addressed this concern, just tried to excuse it as irrelevant. While that is how the system promotes and favours certain playstyles. They mathematically achieve the same goal, but what it promotes are very different achievements and actions.

  First of all, you have to manufacture very specific scenarios where you can actually see a "line of play" that leads to your own survival without helping other survivors. Such as when you are literally in the exit gates and would have to decide to go back into the map for someone else. In most of any other case, you helping fellow survivors increases your personal chances of survival. And again, in scenarios where you can actually secure your own survival without risking anything for the survival of others, the group metric would still regularly "encourage" (if you irrationally care about rating changes) simply leaving, because that is the most secure play from the group rating perspective too. Only in scenarios where you can very safely rescue at least 1 other survivor with it actually not leading to you yourself dying is it at all "worth it" to go for such plays from the "I care about rating" group metric perspective, and I guarantee that people do not refrain from making such plays with the current metric either, even if they know about the metric and care about their rating.

  On the other hand, you can manufacture specific scenarios where people that like to go for risky plays are discouraged from doing so from the group metric "I care about rating" perspective. Say someone is on a hook and 3 other survivors are in an exit gate. Now one of those 3 players might be inclined to go and try to rescue that survivor... but they've already won, all they need to do is leave. Them going back into the map is risking their rating increase, regularly at best leading to the same outcome, while at worst leading to a decreased rating for everyone due to them dying. These risks are simply not "worth it" from the group metric perspective either, that's why you see actual teams in tournaments leave the last survivor to die 99.9% of the time. If people go for rescue attempts in these scenarios, they have to do so in basically throwing away rational risk calculations to begin with, in either metric and without caring about ratings at all, and do so for the gameplay, the fun, the thrill, etc.

  Naturally as a result if one person is taking a risk, means that everyone on that side is affected and should be invested in supporting and making it a success or at least a neutral outcome. You might consider this undesirable, but my argument is that it is better than the current system that promotes no risky play to be done instead or concern for the survival of others. It is a game after all where you are supposed to be 4 against 1, wouldn't it make sense of it to promote the 4 to work together to make their side win - at the moment it just goes for personal victories and that is the main complaint? It is about winning and losing, but the detail lies in what is to be considered a win or a loss!

  You might consider it desirable for survivors to be concerned about the survival of others just as much as their own, or even more, but you do not have to consider it as such. I have repeatedly pointed out that even if it were true that the people that irrationally care about their rating play in more selfish ways than they would otherwise, that is not objectively a flaw of the system from a game design perspective either, because the game is not strictly a team game and may very well be seen as a solo survival game.

  Regardless, I can only repeat that playing for one's own survival automatically leads to playing for that of others, and that playing for the survival of others automatically leads to playing for that of oneself. Sure there are exceptions to this, just like there are exceptions where selfish play can increase group survival and altruistic play can decrease group survival, but overall, the correlations here are such that there is no difference in distinguishing between personal and group survival. Absolutely not in the results of the functioning of the system to achieve its intended goal because 50% per-survivor is 50% per-4-survivors, but also not by the nature of the game or indeed the "I irrationally care about ratings" perspective, because not only is teamplay (and at times risky teamplay) that increases group survival necessary for one's own survival, but for every case where it is not, there are cases where avoiding teamplay (and especially risky teamplay) is necessary to increase group survival.

  Even if you irrationally care about rating, and even if you accept the argument that playing for the team is desirable and how the game should be played, there are only exceptions where the personal metric would actually "encourage" different plays from the group metric, and these exceptions exist in both directions, as there are instances where the group metric would "discourage" teamplays that come at a risk to oneself.

  The system as it is now in promotes to not work together as long as you can escape. If someone is taking a risk for the sake of someone else, it promotes just ditching them and lowering their chances to succeed or trade evenly for your own gain. Which in turn reflects positively on the killer and make them overperform more often and raising in rank, they get an extra kill making their losses less negative, they get the risk takers more often to die and boosting them positively. Regardless of the path taken it can cause friction within the group of survivors, there is no set path to take and yet the system removes the higher risk/reward scenario for the people that would need to take the risk to begin with. The guy on the hook isn't the one making the choice after all, it is the others that are. They can still secure the X escape by running out, but they could also consider the +1 escape at the risk of a bigger loss. It is a game, it should reward those that take the risk and succeed, not just even out at best.

  First, your assumption that this would overall make killers overperform is again based on not understanding that the system works out to instate 50% survival rates in both cases, and that it doesn't matter whether you look at individual survivors or groups of survivors for this, as it is the same average outcome of 2 kills/2 escapes. It does not "positively reflect on the killer".

  Secondly, even if we do say teamplay is desirable (which is not objectively the case, players and designers may well prefer more "selfish" approaches to the game) and assume people irrationally care a lot about their ratings, the group metric does not regularly "encourage" risky play any more than the personal metric, and there are instances where it outright discourages it, especially once we consider that people now can also be affected by irrationally caring for their teammates' ratings, which risk-taking behaviour can put in peril since one's own death now directly negatively affects everyone's ratings.

  If anything I could argue that if the group metric would actually "encourage" risky altruism more often where the personal survival metric does not, that would actually play into the killer's hand because that gives them way more opportunities to get more kills than is otherwise the case. I could argue risky teamplays (and particularly in the endgame where players can see an actual "selfish" line of play to their personal survival) are way more likely to result in decreased overall survival than they are to result in increased overall survival. (This would of course still not matter for the functionality of the system since it trends toward 50% overall in the matchups it creates in either case, with simply the people taking the right risks and avoiding the wrong ones climbing ratings either way... but even if you do go into "irrational" arguments of the system encouraging certain playstyles in players that otherwise would play differently, it is not as clear-cut as you assume it is.)

  If you view the data that was mined, it showed that killers raise significantly faster in rank to the soft cap than the survivors did, this might contribute to that? If killers disproportionally are raising their MMR compared to survivors, as they are far more likely to benefit of the selfish behavior the survivor metrics promote. This results in matching similar MMR to create a more balanced match becomes more difficult and results in more uneven match ups to avoid extreme queue times, the longer you wait the wider the search becomes speed over quality. There are significantly more survivors complaining about long queue times than for killers, which means that it widens and they are more likely to be paired with a killer at higher ranking then themselves as there are more high ranked killers awaiting a match themselves - since there aren't enough survivors up there with them.

  The data was mined at the very beginning of the system's implementation, which means the numbers were a result of the old matchmaking system where killers were matched against survivors based on rank. It is obvious why there were disproportionally more killers at high MMR at that point because we know the ranking system led to high kill rates on average, and especially in red ranks.

  Both the assumption that this is still the case and the queue time assumption are merely that, assumptions. We have no idea what the distribution now is, what queue times globally are actually like, and even if we did, that could indicate issues with a ton of things rather than the system, the system would most likely just be highlighting certain issues, which it would in either case no matter which metric.

  And again, functionally the system would trend toward 50% kill/survival rates regardless of which of the two metrics is used, which is its purpose, and so the metric switch would definitely not help alleviate any issues that may lead to killers rising in rating faster, or the like. If such problems actually do exist due to the system, they can only be found at other parts of it, the metric change would not change anything about it.

  Now, where is my wrong perception here? People are playing a game, many people will take unnecessary risks because as you stated, it gets the adrenaline pumping, it is fun, it is a game... yet the system doesn't promote or reward this at all for the individuals and I would argue at the detriment of its own quality. You keep telling me to prove my point with numbers and the math behind it, well here you go.

  Disregarding that you used no numbers and math to actually prove your points, your perception is wrong in the following regards:

  1. You assume the game is strictly a team game and people should be encouraged to play it as such. This is not objectively the case, and it is also not objectively the case that self-sacrifical teamplay makes for more desirable gameplay. Subjective opinions on this can and do differ.
  2. You assume people care that much about their ratings. I highly doubt this, because not only is it most likely only a portion of the playerbase that even knows about the rating and personal survival metric, but of those that do, they still have a ton of other, much more tangible things to care about that inform their plays. How often since MMR implementation have you seen a player come across an open hatch but actively refuse to jump into it and run to the gates instead? I basically never see that. This should be an indicator that people do not care about the rating much at all.
  3. You assume teamplay that leads to increased group survival chances/rates leads to the teamplayers themselves having reduced personal survival chances/rates, which is wrong because of the correlations between the two. Likewise, you assume the group survival metric would encourage risk-taking/self-sacrificing teamplay where the personal would not, but it can discourage such play just as much, and there are instances where it if anything discourages it even more so.
  4. You assume rating changes are a "punishment" or "reward", not understanding that getting a decreased rating is not a punishment and does not lead to ill effects. All it does is put players into matches where they stand a better chance to survive if they did not stand a 50% chance to do so on average at higher ratings.
  5. You assume the different metrics lead to different results, such as different players ending up in different matchups and killers rising in rating disproportional to survivors. This is wrong because regardless of which of the two metrics you apply, kill/survival rates average out to approaching 50%. It may do this faster with the group metric (I think it will), but it will not ultimately end up creating different matchups.
  6. You assume 1-escape and 1-kill matches stand in the way of the proper functioning of the system, by way of creating instances where "both sides win", not understanding that the mathematical logic of 1v1 creates no such instances where both sides of the equation gain rating, and leads to none of the issues that "both sides winning" would (more and more players gaining rating and all ending up at the same levels, or the "soft" cap).
  7. Many more issues in your perception, such as whether the system selects for "skill", what that "skill" is, whether the system has to select for "skill", misperceptions (or deliberate misrepresentations) regarding what arguments I am making...

  It is about more than just does the system make it a 50% chance to escape or not, it is about the ripple effects it has. Like if this doesn't make you understand what the hell I am talking about... you are just a hopeless case.

  The rating system itself literally only is about creating more even success chances/rates overall, approaching 50% for "everyone" on average. If it works to do that (which it does, notably more so than the old system, and despite matchmaker issues), it works, and the metric change would change nothing about this (other than probably make players approach those 50% more quickly, which is my assumption). The "ripple effect" it may have of "encouraging" more selfish play of people that irrationally care about their rating is not objectively a negative effect, and can even be seen as a positive effect. And regardless, it does not stand in the way of the proper functioning of the system, and teamplayers even if they would consistently die and fall in rating despite having higher group survival rates in their matches (which I'm convinced is not at all the case, those players consistently survive more often themselves too), suffer no ill consequences from their lower rating - the only thing it does is put them into matches where despite their playstyle, they have higher chances to stop dying that often, eventually arriving at a place where they too should be able to survive as often as they die playing in this way.

  And I've explained all of this in various ways various times, and would likely have to keep doing so indefinitely if we keep going.

  I have now proven and showcased my point using a mathematical model in a more clear fashion, you don't care about the graph... but that is the math model you speak of. You ask why I state it as 1 or 0 for the survivors as that is the definition of a win or loss in a mathematical or computer science situation. You do not care about the graph, because you are disingenuous in actually caring about the math behind the system. You complain about not using numbers, while I did not run any simulations or numbers and simply showed the theoretical outcome of a system like this. I can state over 10 billion games played, but it doesn't really matter as they are numbers that I pull out of a hat. The hypocrisy is that you have not once used any math yourself to strengthen you argument on why it would be better, while even admitting that a group view would likely result in a faster result. Which I showcased within the math analysis of what that means.

  Additionally even with my drawing it out for you and explaining it from a math model point of view, you still make inaccurate statements about what I am talking about. There is no use talking to you, as you clearly are not interested in listening or understanding what I am stating and just want to uphold some inaccurate imaginary idea of what you believe I believe... instead of speaking about what I actually believe and state. No matter how I try to clarify and rectify the assumptions you made about what I wrote, you just tell me that you know better what I believe than myself. You might not believe me, but I do think having a MMR system was a good decision for the developers to invest in. I just don't think they are using the best metrics to make the best game.

  You claim why would someone care about their invisible rating, while I am not stating that they do. I state that people care about winning and the wins defined by the developers are as I stated. What is defined as a win or a loss influences how people play and acting like people don't want to win or shouldn't is so unrealistic. Therefore by proxy they do care about their rating, as it is defined by how often you win against how often you lose.

  As you accurately point out if you are in the exit gate with 3, the safe choice would still be to leave and in many cases would still be done with the improvements I stated and I am not trying to deny people from making that choice. Their team can make the more risky move and go for the 4 man out, try to save them however a 3 escape would be considered a win and therefore the risk isn't really worth it. It could also be that they are with 2 in the exit gate with 1 person on the hook. Then the decision would be to go for the safe draw or risk it all for the win, maybe it is now worth the risk? If they manage to pull it off, the team that went back are the ones that should be rewarded, but as it currently stands that isn't the case.

  A game design and the underlying systems should aim to reward those that take risks and succeed. If you cannot even comprehend that this results in a better overall game and system you simply don't want to understand my perspective. My goal is to provide feedback to have the game be the best version of itself, not to excuse it because it works if you ignore everything else and the ripple effect it has within the game.

  These are not my assumptions, these are the assumptions you impose on me and while some are accurate just because they are objectively true not all of them are.

  Assumptions 1: This is a team game.

  This is a 4 versus 1 game according to the game description, therefore it is a team game and a solo game based on which side you play. Claiming the survivors are not on the same team is simply inaccurate. You don't have to be in a pre-made to be on the same team, the game allows you to join a team and the MMR system seeks one for you. Those on the same side are on the same team, they simply are even if they are made up of individual solo players. It is a game of Survivors Versus Killer.

  Assumption 2: People care about their rating.

  The rating is the result of winning or losing, people that play games try to win and therefore as a result care about their rating, as explained before it is a derivative of the fact whether you win or lose.

  Assumption 3: Teamplay leads to increased survival rates

  This is a well established fact, the more coordinated a team is the more powerful and higher likelihood they will win. There is a reason why SWF's are the strongest type of team within the game, as they play together to get the match win. You are to focused on the individuals survival rate, while the game should look at the groups survival rate to establish a win for all.

  Assumption 4: Rating changes are a "punishment" or "reward"

  It is not about rating, if you read the actual post you would have seen that it is about rewarding those that take a risk.

  Assumption 5: Different metrics lead to different results, such as different players ending up in different matchups and killers rising in rating disproportional to survivors

  This is based on the data mined information that was made available and multiple people discussed and showcased. This is not an assumption, this is directly pulled out of the game by a specific group. I indicate one of the factors to why that is the case and how different metrics lead to different decision making.

  Assumption 6: You assume 1-escape and 1-kill matches stand in the way of the proper functioning of the system

  Once again, just showcases that you don't want to actually understand what I am stating regardless of what I stated and are purely reflecting on some imaginary belief. Not once have I stated that the system isn't functioning, I am stating that it can be improved and be adjusted to improve the overall game.

  Assumption 7: Many more issues in your perception, such as whether the system selects for "skill", what that "skill" is, whether the system has to select for "skill", misperceptions (or deliberate misrepresentations) regarding what arguments I am making...

  The use of " marks to indicate that "skill" is some arbitrary aspect that one can fill in. The fact of the matter is that skill can be very well established if one would expand on the premise of the metrics used to account for that. If you read my posts you would see that I barely touch on it and speak far more on playstyles, overall decision making and their potential outcomes and not the skill that is involved in achieving them.

  There is literally nothing wrong with my perception, you simply don't want to understand it. I look beyond the does the system function in a vacuum as I have stated many many many times now. You ignore that aspect completely and state that it is the only thing that matters, but it does not. The MMR system is a single piece of the overall product namely the game, my goal is to provide feedback to create the best game! What is the ripple effect that the MMR system does by defining a win and loss in the game and what impact does that have within the game itself.

  I have laid out clear examples on what effects occur based on the current system, how the suggestions would reflect and change. You however have not once showcased any consideration for any of the concerns others bring up that they have with the system and what it promotes. The math works, what is the issue? Well, the gameplay it promotes and how it defines a win condition! I am not one of those that advocates for a total different mindset either, I still use the same metrics of kills and escapes just in a different manner.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 2, 2022

• @zarr said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2782442#Comment_2782442

  The fact of the matter is you are not discussing with me the premise and actual standpoint that I have. You are simply using me as a medium for some imaginary idea of my opinion. You clearly don't want to have a discussion and an exchange of perception. You act as if I stated that the system didn't work at all while this entire time I have stated this would be an improvement. For someone that puts down so many words to say very little, you really have difficulty understanding those of others.

  I think you are the one not actually discussing with me nor wanting or being able to hold an actual discussion, you still don't (want to) get that my argument wasn't about the change being an improvement, but the reasons it would be an improvement for, and that your thoughts on why it would be an improvement were based on misunderstandings of the system. It ended being a "discussion" because all I did was keep on trying to explain to you how you were making mistakes in your thinking regarding the system (and game) - the same ones I highlighted in my original reply already - and you kept saying the same things without ever actually addressing my points or substantiating yours.

  I never said you made it out as if the system didn't work at all, I explicitly (with actual quotes of what you said) responded to the ways in which you made the system out to not work properly, the specific flaws it would have, highlighting that those weren't actually the flaws you mistakenly thought they were.

  You already admitted that it would improve, but clearly you don't know how that is reflected in the numbers based on your response. You claim it would not do what I stated, just shows you never seen the results of such systems.

  I don't know what you mean with never seeing the results of such a system, but I invite you again to show with actual maths (of a functional MMR system for DbD with values of your choosing) how the volatility index function relates to the personal and group survival metric in its effect on the mathematics of the system.

  I didn't "admit" it would improve with the group survival metric as if I had to be convinced of it, I argued it would be an improvement even before ever responding to you; the reason I responded to you with regards to that was, again, that you were wrong about why it would be an improvement, claiming it would solve issues with the current system that aren't actually issues.

  The fact that you also ask me to show that the current system will not create (a more volatile yet) similar result just shows that you are not engaging with me in discussion nor understand what I am speaking of.

  This is more of that "gaslighting" stuff, still just as unsuccessful because the things you were "speaking of" are literally quoted in my responses to those things, and they were absolutely not about the systems creating the same end results.

  I don't falsy assume that teamplay by default will lower your survival ratings, I stated it can be one of the effects of it. Once again twisting what I am stating to fit your false narrative. Some team plays and risks taken can get you killed while simulationsly providing an on par or better result for the team. The system should not punish people for playing in that manner if that is the result. It should use metrics that account for a more versatile playstyle if it is a positive for the side that they are on.

  If you assume teamplayers would not "climb" in rating (which you did, it's there in your posts and in my quotes of those posts), you are stating it has to have the effect of lowering your survival rates, because with regards to the system that's literally the only effect that's relevant. And if it doesn't consistently do so, over many matches, the instances where it can have such an effect are irrelevant, because singular matches' effect on the rating are negligible by design, the rating only changes in non-irrelevant fashion over many matches.

  The system does not "punish" people, you keep saying this word without ever answering what the "punishment" would be. A number change is not an actual punishment in and of itself. And the effect that number has is not either, on the contrary. Why would a player that actually dies more than half the time in their matches not want to be put into matches where they can start surviving more often?

  And even if you irrationally care about the rating and consider rating changes "rewards" or "punishments", there are just as many ways for things to afftect the ratings that don't intuitively make sense to us in a group survival metric environment as there are in the personal survival metric one, such as literal anti-teamplayers (e. g. people that kill themselves) or players that contribute next to nothing to the "team" (e. g. in cases where they quickly die early on, or just hide all game and die late) being "rewarded" with rating for their ""teammates'"" survival.

  Running a killer for 5 gens is teamplay, they fulfill the role of distraction while others do the gen. If the other people dont work on gens, then it won't be a 5 gen chase. The idea that teamplay still means individual actions are taking place, each at their own skill level and role. That is the whole idea of a team.

  If running a killer is a "teamplay", your definition of it and indeed reason for wanting to distinguish between the metrics should reveal itself to you as absurd. A survivor running from the killer is literally running for their own life, it's not like a player that doesn't play for the "team" but only their own survival would... choose to stop running from the killer and go down.

  Everything that contributes to your own survival would be a "teamplay" from that perspective, and that is a crucial realization for you to come to: If you realize that since all survivors have the same conditions that have to be met in order for them to be able to personally survive (in the context of the system, so disregarding hatch) their fight for their own personal survival is also implicitly one for everyone else's, you will come closer to understanding why personal survival correlates with group survival and vice-versa, and why distinguishing between the metrics does not lead to different end results in this regard. And the same is true for actual altruistic teamplay (rescuing others in various ways, directly helping others with heals, etc.), or so I argue, because helping your team survive is helping yourself survive, since the team helps you survive, implicitly (if they survive longer they contribute to meeting the conditions necessary for your survival even if they merely play for their own survival), and also explicitly (fellow survivors that are alive are also able to altruistically help you, rescue you, etc., and they are also more likely to do so if you helped them).

  And of course, the thing is that even if there were a difference in the ratings players end up at with the different metrics, there is the next step in understanding the system, and realizing that since its only purpose is making matches happen where people can on average survive around half the time regardless of their playstyle, distinguishing between the metrics is still not relevant in this regard.

  I have shown that objectively a survivor and the killer the 2 opposing forces at the end of a match can both have a winning result. It is a 4v1 game, not a 1v1. No matter how you want to twist it, the survivors are on the same team.

  And it doesn't matter how much you keep stating this, it is still a failure to understand the system. The problem with MMR systems where both "sides" can win at the same time is that all players involved in a match can gain rating, which will lead to more and more players ending up at the same ratings, defeating the purpose of a matchmaking system based on such ratings. In the 1v1 math that the system works with, there can be no instance of both sides of the equation winning/gaining rating; in a 1-escape match, the 3 survivors that did not survive lose rating, their "side" doesn't gain rating. Once you understand that the system trends toward a 50% survival chance for individual players, and that a 50% survival chance of every individual player on a group of 4 players translates mathematically to a 50% survival chance of the group, you will come closer to seeing why the system even when looking at 1v1s does over many matches trend toward average 50% survival rates, per-player and per-group (2 survivors surviving, 2 dying), and that 1-escape and 1-kill matches pose no functional problem for the system whatsoever.

  Short cuts means systems are not perfect. The question is whether the flaws of it are better or worse with the improvements suggested. You already admitted it would be quicker, faster and by result more accurate.

  MMR systems are about winning vs. losing, in players competing to achieve diametrically opposed win conditions against each other - they are (and indeed have to be) by their very definition about the "shortcuts", insofar wins (whatever the system defines as a "win") are seen as "shortcuts", because they are about winning. People think the MMR system has to be about "skill" and matching people of similar "skill" and wins are merely being used as a "shortcut" to that end, a proxy for "skill", but that is the complete backwards understanding of the system: the system is about winning, wins are the ends in themselves, the only purpose it serves is instating a matchmaking where people have more equal chances/rates of winning in their matches on average, they are matched based on their wins. That wins indicate (are "shortcuts" or proxies for) "skill" (in this context strictly meaning: one's ability to win consistently) is merely a correlating side-effect, that can be used to make the neat assumption/statement that players matched based on their chances to win are also matched based on their "skill", but this is merely a collateral to the actual reason why players are matched based on wins, which is just wanting players to have more equal chances to suceed and more even win/loss experiences, since that is as a basic premise deemed desirable. As I've said, even if you would have to pair killers and survivors of different "skills" (or ratings) in order to be able to achieve 50% average survival/kill rates, that is what the system would want to do (although this does not seem to be the case according to BHVR, and if it were, the ideal solution would of course be to change the actual gameplay mechanics to achieve a more balanced state, not the rating system).

  One "problem" could be that different killer characters are not able to reach rating levels that other killer characters are, or that their average rating levels are very disparate, and this should definitely be looked at if it is the case (and should have always been, since there are clear, stark differences in strength between the different killer characters). It's not a functional problem of the system because the players playing the killer characters will simply be matched with the respectively appropriately-rated opponents, but it is a problem in the result, which is that survivor players beyond a certain rating are much more likely to see certain killer characters in their matches. But yeah, the different killer strengths have always been something that should be brought into line more, closer to an average between them, because that way the game overall can be better balanced according to the strength of all killer characters (and the same is true to a lesser extent for perks, items, add-ons, maps, but at that point you get into game design considerations that people actually enjoy disparate gameplay experiences and don't want everything to be closer to an "average", even if that objectively makes it easier to achieve "balance").

  For someone that likes to use so many words, you really have difficulty reading those of others. I have stated from the beginning that the system overly favours safe plays and doesn't account for riskier ones even if it results the team a net positive. That is why if you want to not expand the criteria it would be better to at least view it from a team perspective. Nothing you have stated has altered or informed me of anything I didn't already knew.

  I mean, I have informed you of various things you objectively did not know about, such as whether the current system actually leads to more balanced overall average outcomes, and whether the devs are actually planning to change the metric to include group survival.

  But regardless, you are still repeating the very same errors I have been responding to and trying to explain from the very beginning. You are the one with the difficulty reading and understanding my words (which, fair enough, it's a lot to read, but it could have ended with the very first few posts already). The system does not "favour" any plays, and it already accounts for all plays - a higher rating doesn't mean the system thinks of those players as "better", it is not intrinsically "favourable" to be at a higher rating, it just means the players there factually survive more often against other higher-rated players; and it already accounts for everything with regards to the kill/survival win condition, because everything is accounted for insofar it actually affects the rate at which players achieve or fail to achieve the win condition. For instance, it "accounts" for self-sacrifical teamplay by lowering the rating of players employing such play if they actually consistently die more often due to it, and this is not somehow not "favouring" them, since all it does is put them into matches where they can in theory and on average survive more often despite their playstyle.

  My concerns have never been about whether the current system can work from a mathematical standpoint and I have stated it many times. The fact is you don't even understand the mathematical implications of the improvement you yourself speak. The fact that you state that there would be an improvement, means that the mathematical model will improve as well.

  

  Here have a visual representation (horribly drawn in paint) of what I am speaking of, the goal is to achieve a 2 kill/escape ration for a match (this is how it looks like over many many games). Meaning that over the long run they should approach the 2 kill/escape line. The current system views this from a 0 to 1 line one per survivor, that evens out at a 0.5 ratio and applies those 4 charts in the match to the killer to from their outcome to be the sum of them all and creating the above graph in essence. While that might mathematically create a similar table to represent the whole match, it doesn't do this for the survivors. If the metrics are improved as we both claim, the line moves as displayed in the graph above as the green line regardless of which way it is approached, as the goal of the system itself doesn't change.

  If an individual improves and starts over/under performing compared to those lines, their MMR will drop or rise accordingly to try and match that once again, so the quicker and more efficient it is as detecting that the better and more accurate your rating will be determined. The lines do not hit the 2 mark, as people consistently fluctuate between the upper and lower boundaries (volatility) as they keep winning and losing, a range based on the accuracy of the system that it deems acceptable.

  You love throwing the math at me, but I understand how it functions. You did not explain any of this, you did not adjust my perception on how the system functions. All you did was tell me that the devs are seeking to adjust the metrics to improve the system, while considering a more hybrid approach to make the team and sum of the results play more of a role.

  You claim that my perspective is wrong, but from a game design perspective all that I have stated is simply true and please feel free to illustrate exactly would be wrong with the above graph. I look beyond the system in a vacuum and its mathematical model, clearly something you are incapable of and don't even try to attempt. Therefore we are having very different conversations, as I am not disputing the fact how the MMR system functions from a mathematical standpoint. The current system punishes risk plays that might result in the overall result improving or staying equal and it only favours safety ones from a personal perspective for survivors. This is what I consider a dire flaw with it and this would be addressed by viewing it from a team perspective, the sum of the total.

  From a math point of view it is simply this:

  If you escape you get +1 a win, if you die you hit are a 0 and lost.

  • If you make a risky play for the teams overall outcome and are successful, you personally were already set to escape so it remains a +1 and all that changes is someone else however also now achieves a +1. Yet as this is a random stranger, why would anyone care under the current one?
  • If you make a risky play for the teams overall outcome and make a 1 for 1 change, now you personally are now set to 0 instead of +1, while someone else is set to +1. While this does not affect the overall numbers of the graphs, it does affect yours negatively.
  • If you make a risky play and fail, now the teams overall outcome goes down, your +1 changed to 0 and that of the other remained a 0.

  This is how it functions in the current system. There is no incentive to put your own neck on the line to improve the teams overall outcome. It even incentivizes you to ditch anyone that does in any situation where you can see a line of play where you personally can escape. Nothing you have stated has addressed this concern, just tried to excuse it as irrelevant. While that is how the system promotes and favours certain playstyles. They mathematically achieve the same goal, but what it promotes are very different achievements and actions.

  Naturally as a result if one person is taking a risk, means that everyone on that side is affected and should be invested in supporting and making it a success or at least a neutral outcome. You might consider this undesirable, but my argument is that it is better than the current system that promotes no risky play to be done instead or concern for the survival of others. It is a game after all where you are supposed to be 4 against 1, wouldn't it make sense of it to promote the 4 to work together to make their side win - at the moment it just goes for personal victories and that is the main complaint? It is about winning and losing, but the detail lies in what is to be considered a win or a loss! If both the killer and survivor can win in the same match, why would a survivor need to care about their side winning - why take any risks, a 1 escape is all you need to win?

  The system as it is now in promotes to not work together as long as you can escape. If someone is taking a risk for the sake of someone else, it promotes just ditching them and lowering their chances to succeed or trade evenly for your own gain. Which in turn reflects positively on the killer and make them overperform more often and raising in rank, they get an extra kill making their losses less negative, they get the risk takers more often to die and boosting them positively. Regardless of the path taken it can cause friction within the group of survivors, there is no set path to take and yet the system removes the higher risk/reward scenario for the people that would need to take the risk to begin with. The guy on the hook isn't the one making the choice after all, it is the others that are. They can still secure the X escape by running out, but they could also consider the +1 escape at the risk of a bigger loss. It is a game, it should reward those that take the risk and succeed, not just even out at best.

  If you view the data that was mined, it showed that killers raise significantly faster in rank to the soft cap than the survivors did, this might contribute to that? If killers disproportionally are raising their MMR compared to survivors, as they are far more likely to benefit of the selfish behavior the survivor metrics promote. This results in matching similar MMR to create a more balanced match becomes more difficult and results in more uneven match ups to avoid extreme queue times, the longer you wait the wider the search becomes speed over quality. There are significantly more survivors complaining about long queue times than for killers, which means that it widens and they are more likely to be paired with a killer at higher ranking then themselves as there are more high ranked killers awaiting a match themselves - since there aren't enough survivors up there with them.

  Now, where is my wrong perception here? People are playing a game, many people will take unnecessary risks because as you stated, it gets the adrenaline pumping, it is fun, it is a game... yet the system doesn't promote or reward this at all for the individuals and I would argue at the detriment of its own quality. You keep telling me to prove my point with numbers and the math behind it, well here you go.

  It is about more than just does the system make it a 50% chance to escape or not, it is about the ripple effects it has. Like if this doesn't make you understand what the hell I am talking about... you are just a hopeless case.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta February 1, 2022

• @zarr said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2780872#Comment_2780872

  You keep on showing that you don't actually understand the math and the principles I am talking about.

  Hm?

  It will be just faster reflects on the volatility index of the system and improving that is important as it ensures that the players themselves actually experience the effectiveness of the system and create a more consistent experience.

  Uh, this is the first time you use the term "volatility index" in our discussion, so not sure which discussion you think you have been having. If you want to do and show some actual math in which you apply the principle of a "volatility index" to ratings in an MMR system, you are welcome to though, I for one would find that interesting to see. I doubt the function does what you think it does there though, as if changing to a group survival metric would "reflect" on this.

  That players do not experience the effectiveness of the system with the individual survival metric is also just a baseless assumption. You are again to free to show this with actual math (which is of course impossible for you, given that you don't actually know what numbers the system is working with), but even if you now agree (and pretend like you've always agreed...) that the different metrics don't actually change what ratings players arrive at but merely the pace at which they do, there is no reason to assume the pace will be that much increased that players tangibly experience the system's effectiveness, or indeed that it isn't already fast-paced enough with the individual survival metric as it is for players to do so.

  You claim it doesn't promote gameplay just once again means you are clueless on how game design works. Even in your examples there are clear signs of this that you flat out ignore. If the game allows you to take risks to improve the teams outcome, then if that risk is successful that should reflect positively upon those that took it and that is one of the most complained aspects of the system as it is purely set to punish those plays at no potential reward.

  With how often you make reaching claims regarding tenets of game design, I have to wonder whether you are an actual game designer. Because if you are, I kindly suggest going back to school, your idea for an implementation of a "chase metric" was laughable from a game design perspective. Like, I guarantee you if a dev actually reads it, they will laugh.

  I asked you in clear and simple terms "How does the system "punish" certain playstyles? What is the actual punishment? Please answer clearly, and keep in mind that a number change is not an actual punishment in and of itself.", and rather than give an answer, you have continued what you have been doing all "discussion" long, you just keep on saying the same things without substantiating them. How does the system reflect positively or negatively on anything?

  What I did admit is that there's the vague psychological aspect of people irrationally, emotionally caring about their rating despite not seeing it, and I have already laid out various reasons why that aspect of the system "promoting" certain playstyles is not a "game design" issue or "flaw" of the system, and may well be argued to be a positive effect from a perspective other than your own subjective one that taking risks for the team to the detriment of oneself should be encouraged. I have also shown that even with a group survival metric, such risk-taking is not actually much more "encouraged" (if you irrationally care about rating) than it is with the individual survival metric, if at all. In many scenarios such risky plays are to the detriment of the group survival just as much as they are to one's own, not least because oneself is part of the group.

  Nothing in my proposed improvements would btw restrict or limit players to playing in ways if that would net a positive outcome for their team, yet players on the survivor end if they want to climb the ranks would have to simply consider their sides overall outcome and selfish plays might be totally justified in that approach. The fact is that it would widen the acceptable plays as long as it ends up in the overall survival rate of the survivors.

  You could use a metric of how many bananas survivors eat in a trial and the system still wouldn't "restrict" or "limit" players in the ways they play. You are not getting this, the system is not "promoting only taking safe choices", you are completely free to play however you want, it does not make any play more or less "acceptable", and there are actual, tangible gameplay and personal incentives that can lead to players making risky plays, or making much of any other play, regardless of the invisible rating. And again, much of the time, risky plays that actually increase group survival increase personal survival just as much precisely because of it. Players often take risks for other players because they know they most likely or definitely won't survive themselves if they don't help.

  Yes, some players irrationally care about the rating, but I'd wager even of them most players don't actually care enough for it to substantially change their play, if they care about their personal survival they most of all do because they want to survive, not because that increases their rating. I have not noticed a dramatic increase in "selfishness" personally at all, the only thing I've noticed more consistently (at higher ratings where I presumably am) is people not taking reckless, overly-altruistic risks, which are risks that more often than not lead to decreased group survival as well and as such would not be "encouraged" for people that irrationally care about their rating in a group survival metric environment either.

  With regards to widening the "acceptable" plays under this assumption, so the plays players are comfortable going for in caring about the rating, I could argue that the personal metric is actually much more liberating, because if everybody is only "responsible" for themselves and their surviving or dying does not in itself impact the rating of others, they will feel more free to play however they want without worrying about it directly negatively impacting the team rating. I gave you the example of players not approving of a teammate going for risky endgame plays "for fun" in an already-won game, so how would this reflect on an individual player, and how "acceptable" they feel it is to do something like that, how "discouraged" they are from going for risky plays by the group metric?

  Tons of players don't even know about the metric, nor the workings of the system at large. If anything I could argue of the people that know about the personal metric and care about their rating, the system may well also encourage many to take more reckless risks than they otherwise might have, because they want a lower rating instead. Either way, if you really think a notable amount of players in this game aren't taking risks anymore that they did before, or care more about their personal survival than they didn't already anyway, I just think that's pretty unrealistic. ...And even if it were that way, again, it is still only your subjective opinion that self-sacrifical altruism is more desirable gameplay than self-preservation, it would still not be an objective "flaw" of the system, changing it not an objective improvement.

  Additionally acting like lower ranked killers are trying less hard to get kills is misrepresenting what the system is trying to achieve, as it wants these killers to also get a 50% kill rate in their games. The whole concept of the MMR is a 50% escape, rate which means that killers will get a 50% kill rate and be just as Killy on all levels. By your own logic these type of statements that you make are complete bogus and doesn't align with the math you are so keen on falling back on.

  You are again portraying a severe lack of understanding the system. They are less killy in the sense that they have shown that they only consistently achieve that 50% kill rate at lower ratings, i. e. against survivors that also do not manage to survive consistently against other, higher-rated killers. They are not as good at killing (due to lack of killing skills or just due to their chosen playstyle preference) as players at higher ratings because they simply didn't consistently kill at those higher ratings. That's literally what the ratings you care so irrationally much about are there for, exclusively: signifying the killiness of killer players and surviviness of survivor players, their average kill and survival performances, such that they can be matched accordingly to be able to even out to 50% kill and survival rates against each other, rather than get below-50% rates against higher-rated players, or above-50% rates against lower-rated players, where killiness and surviviness levels would be in disproportion.

  I have already stated multiple times that the current system isn't broken or faulty and it functions to a degree. I am discussing improvements and you admitted that what I stated would result in a faster, more efficient and better system. Therefore you already conceded and are purely arguing because you believe that the quality of the system is irrelevant. The improvements I have stated would make the system better, it would be more accepted and would account for a larger spectrum of gameplay types therefore appease a larger audience.

  I have since the very beginning and indeed before even replying to you said I think switching to the group survival metric would improve the system by making it reach the same ratings faster, that is literally what I explained to you multiple times when you were clearly doubting the functioning of the system and claiming it would function in a flawed way. Now you make it out as if I agreed with your explanations that the system actually functions correctly already? You are still talking about it "accounting" for a larger spectrum of gameplay types with the metric switch, thereby showing you are still not understanding that it already does "account" for everything. If those altruistic gameplay types you personally find desirable would actually lead to decreased personal survival rates (which I have explained I'm convinced they don't, which you vehemently disagreed with, saying players with such playstyles would end up at ratings where they shouldn't be with the current metric), the system "accounts" for that by those players having a lower rating, which does not harm them, on the contrary.

  This honestly seems like some odd way to "gaslight" your way out of this discussion. But luckily the posts are saved, so now we are at a point where I seemingly have to repeat not only the things I've said, but those you did too. Literal quotes from yourself:

  and yet the star player of the team goes down in ranking?

  Here you showed that you didn't understand that the system looks at many matches, over which the "star player" would not go down in rating consistently if they actually are a "star player".

  The idea that the contribution to the team is insignificant for your standing is false.

  Here again, claiming contributions to the team would not lead to an appropriate standing with the current metric, implying they are not significant for the rating.

  Let the other person run the killer, do the gens and let them hang on the hook to die while you escape. You claim it doesn't matter to climb the ranks, but that is also false as the goal is to be teamed up with others around the same level of play and now the individual that was the star can get placed in worse teams rather than better ones?

  Here you imply teamplayers and "stars" would not "climb ranks", clearly claiming the current metric prevents them from doing something outright that the group metric wouldn't, again neglecting that when looking at more than 1 match in which they happened to die for one reason or another, they would actually "climb ranks" due to these things. You further showcased not understanding that as per the functioning of the system, if players of the same "level of play" actually consistently personally died due to their play, they would end up at similar lower ratings and get into matches with each other, and the only difference the change in metrics would make for that is that they would meet at arbitrarily different ratings, against the same level of killers against which they stabilize out to 50% survival rates.

  As it currently stands, they aren't identifying skill in survivors to climb the ranks, they are identifying safe players. If you are the first to be found, you are more likely to die than being the 3rd person to be found within a match? Regardless of whether that first person ran the killer for longer or not.

  Here again you are outright claiming different players would "climb the ranks" with the different metrics, again outright in disagreement to the idea of the metric only making the same players reach the same ratings faster. You are also again showcasing not understanding that the system logic works over many matches, in which no player is more or less likely to be found than another player in principle. Or, if they only hide, that will be to their team's detriment, which will be to their personal detriment, which will over many matches prevent them from "climbing ranks". Or yet, if they would actually be able to consistently escape through exit gates playing that way, it would be a playstyle the system should select for. You were showing you don't understand the system and indeed the game by thinking that "safe" and "selfish" play that actually leads to decreased group survival chances leads to increased personal survival chances, and that "altruistic" and "risky" play that actually leads to increased group survival chances leads to decreased personal survival chances, based on exceptional, singular matches, which is not true in principle and all the less true over many matches, where personal survival rates of a player will correlate with the group survival rates of the matches they're in. And in any case, this would then make a difference with the different metrics, leading to different players ending up at different metrics, again going to show you did not argue the metric switch would lead to the same players simply ending up at the same ratings faster.

  "The fact of the matter is that the overall MMR system for teams does not reflect upon the individual"

  "being a star player doesn't move you into a better team"

  "The system inherently promotes selfish plays in a team, as that is what is rewarded instead of skillful plays and teamwork."

  Here you even go beyond saying it doesn't only not let teamplayers gain rating, but make it out as if skillful play is teamplay strictly, as if someone running a killer for 5 gens is somehow a teamplay. And of course, again neglecting that proper teamplay and survival-oriented skillful play leads to increased personal survival rates over many matches too, alongside increased group survival rates.

  As OP asked you to, prove that the best players (and at this point you were not even saying the best teamplayers, just skillful players, "star" players) are the ones that consistently die, more often than worse players. And then, demonstrate how even if that were the case, this would be bad for those players, that this would "punish" them, or harm them, derive them of rewards they would otherwise get, that this would be "unfair" as you say. Rather than just... an invisible number change, that results in matchups where they can actually survive more often.

  This is also one of the examples of you failing to distinguish that in the context of the system, "skill" means being good at consistently surviving, measured by a player's actual survival results over many matches, so if what we usually understand or want to take as "skilled" play doesn't lead to consistently surviving, but yet other play does, it simply means in the context of the system that other play is actually the "skillful" play that has to be selected for because it actually leads to surviving consistently, even if someone might not subjectively like that type of play or considers it to be less skillful. If having selfish survivors on a group (and even 4 of them) would more consistently lead to more of the survivors surviving against higher-rated killers, it is simply those players that will be and should be at higher ratings, and teamplayers will and should be at lower ratings where they can more often survive. Of course, I don't think this is the case, but if it were, there's no issue with it, it's still exactly what should happen, what the desired and desirable outcome of the system is, because players should be having roughly even success chances/rates regardless of their playstyles, which this ensures on average.

  Provide the numbers that showcase that skilled players are rewarded

  Here you go claiming skilled players are not "rewarded" by the system, failing to understand that "skilled" in the context of the system literally just means "winning consistently", which by definition means they are gaining rating (are being """rewarded"""). The rating itself is literally the number that showcases that "skilled" players (players that consistently win) are "rewarded" (gain rating), because... players gain rating for winning.

  You falsely assume only teamplay is skilled and that the system has to rate based on teamplay. You falsely assume that teamplay leads to decreased personal survival rates. You falsely assume any however-skilled player is meant to gain rating, rather than literally just players that survive/kill consistently (are skilled at consistently winning). You falsely assume that gaining rating is a "reward" rather than just something used to put players into matches with other players of similar rating, such that they can on average kill/survive 50% of the time.

  does not promote the 4 that are supposed to be a team

  Claiming they are supposed to be a team, which they aren't.

  The match result would result in your increase or decrease in MMR and how you got there is irrelevant as more skilled players would win more of their matches, yet that is not how the system works as they sort of want to evaluate you individually even though you are on a team and don't bother however looking at what you contributed towards the final result of a match.

  Again claiming such contributions that lead to team wins would not result in players personally also winning over more matches, and that the system does not work to do so and with a different metric would. Clearly saying there are functional differences between them, and clearly showcasing that you don't get that the game is not a team game, and starting to show that you don't get 50% per-survivor is also 50% per-4-survivors.

  This is supposed to be a skilled based matchmaking system in a 1v4 game, if the developers want to take short cuts to judge people on the end result. They should do as most systems do and use the end result, else it is by design flawed.

  Outright calling the system flawed, and not understanding that the 50% survival per-survivor end result is the same as 50% group survival end result.

  I will spare us the rest because I have of course literally addressed all of these things in great detail over the course of the discussion already, but just to include one more thing:

  This is a 4v1 game, yet you are creating a situation where both sides of the versus can be winning at the same time. By their own accord situations where everyone wins creates weird math and does apply to these situations as much as it would to the extreme cases of 4 escapes and 8 hooks resulting in a win for everyone. The current system ignores the fact that the killer wins overall in the match when only one survivor escapes and still hands the win to the survivor as well.

  You claim the current metric creates situations where "both sides" can win, which would indeed be a flaw if it were true, but it is objectively false and objectively you claiming the system doesn't function correctly with the current metric, based on not understanding the mathematical logic behind it.

  You keep acting like big data is the only metric that should be used in design choices, yet that is wrong. Players don't experience it that way and is not always the most accurate reflection of the actual product in place. This is not some holy grail that you can fall back on that is undisputable, while data is important it is far more nuanced than that and you claim what I state will improve the accuracy and speed of the data achieving it desired results. If the sum of all the aspects to consider and the shift in the metrics based on those reasons would result in a better system... why are you trying to disprove the concept while admitting that you do not care about them nor want to go into them. The fact that you claim I didn't explain this, means you really aren't reading what I have stated. It is like talking to a brick wall.

  You "explained" this? Much of what you did is make false and flawed statements based on a lack of understanding how the system works, what its purpose is, and a lack of understanding the game in certain regards. I was the one to explain to you what the system is meant to do, that the system actually works to do that, and that it does so from the "1v4 perspective" as well (instating on average more even success (kill/survival) chances/rates, per-player, which automatically means per-match (or per-"team", if you will)). I also showed you that even if your 1 true argument would actually be significant (people irrationally care about rating and this changes their playstyle to be less self-sacrificial), this would not be an objective flaw of the system whatsoever, and is only your subjective opinion regarding what desirable playstyles are (which I happen to share, but not everyone has to and not everyone does, and anyway, you never really realized that with these self-sacrificial playstyles, we are actually talking about stuff that can also be detrimental to group survival, and would as such not necessarily be "encouraged" (if you care about rating) with a group metric either, and that altruistic teamplay that does lead to increased group survival also often leads to increased personal survival, and is as such not necessarily "discouraged" (if you care about rating) with the personal metric).

  This is a funny section anyway, because you go off about "nuance" and whatnot claiming I would only look at "big data" or let alone think it is the only thing that should be used in design choices, neglecting that the group survival metric the argument is about... is still completely a "big data"-based metric. You won't suddenly get the appropriate ratings after a single match, the scope which your flawed reasoning continuously could not move away from. I parodicly presented you an example case where a baby Meg can die early on but get a higher rating due to the rest of ""her team"" besting the killer 3v1 without her "contributions". Please just stop dude.

  
  

  The fact of the matter is you are not discussing with me the premise and actual standpoint that I have. You are simply using me as a medium for some imaginary idea of my opinion. You clearly don't want to have a discussion and an exchange of perception. You act as if I stated that the system didn't work at all while this entire time I have stated this would be an improvement. For someone that puts down so many words to say very little, you really have difficulty understanding those of others.

  You already admitted that it would improve, but clearly you don't know how that is reflected in the numbers based on your response. You claim it would not do what I stated, just shows you never seen the results of such systems.

  The fact that you also ask me to show that the current system will not create (a more volatile yet) similar result just shows that you are not engaging with me in discussion nor understand what I am speaking of.

  I don't falsy assume that teamplay by default will lower your survival ratings, I stated it can be one of the effects of it. Once again twisting what I am stating to fit your false narrative. Some team plays and risks taken can get you killed while simulationsly providing an on par or better result for the team. The system should not punish people for playing in that manner if that is the result. It should use metrics that account for a more versatile playstyle if it is a positive for the side that they are on. Short cuts are fine, even my improvement suggestion is a shortcut. It is the quality that I am addressing.

  Running a killer for 5 gens is teamplay, they fulfill the role of distraction while others do the gen. If the other people dont work on gens, then it won't be a 5 gen chase. The idea that teamplay still means individual actions are taking place, each at their own skill level and role. That is the whole idea of a team.

  I have shown that objectively a survivor and the killer the 2 opposing forces at the end of a match can both have a winning result. It is a 4v1 game, not a 1v1. No matter how you want to twist it, the survivors are on the same team.

  Short cuts means systems are not perfect. The question is whether the flaws of it are better or worse with the improvements suggested. You already admitted it would be quicker, faster and by result more accurate.

  For someone that likes to use so many words, you really have difficulty reading those of others. I have stated from the beginning that the system overly favours safe plays and doesn't account for riskier ones even if it results the team a net positive. That is why if you want to not expand the criteria it would be better to at least view it from a team perspective. Nothing you have stated has altered or informed me of anything I didn't already knew.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta January 31, 2022

• @zarr said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2780759#Comment_2780759

  This is a 4v1 game, you wanted to know why people dislike it and what the impacts they have on the game... but clearly you don't all you are trying to do is act like what you state is gospel and that anyone coming from a different angle is by default false.

  The system works as intended from the 4v1 perspective too...

  The fact that you state that you should be lowered in rank so you don't have to take risks, meaning that over time the system is to remove all risk from playing.

  That's not what I said at all... You will less often have to take risks such that you won't die as often doing so, or you simply won't die despite doing so because the risks aren't as high, but that doesn't mean you won't ever have to take risks again, or that the risks can't sometimes be as high.

  The 50% survival rate is about all survivors in a match, the fact that you want to approach the game from a 1v1 perspective, but it isn't. You go but big data and yet when it actually applies you now want to go: to on an individual base.

  50% individual survival rate per survivor translates to 50% survival rate of all survivors in a group of 4...

  Even if you die 100% of your games, if your actions would result in the rest of your team getting out 100% of the times, it means your side won the match. It means that for those games you would be involved in would have a 75% escape rate and not the 50% that you claim to want to achieve and yet that survivor would be placed against lower ranked killers to bump them up to 100%. Ones playstyle can still result in a higher overall escape rate for all players in the match, yet you don't want to account for these plays.

  The survivor dying 100% of the time would have a 0% survival rate... The system would gradually move them to a place where the killer does not as often put them into a situation where they have to help the group this much to be able to survive, a place where they can survive around half the time themselves (50%).

  And that's ignoring that the scenario of a survivor dying 100% of the time in their matches while the 3 others survive 100% of the time is not a reality that happens or can realistically happen in the game over many matches.

  I think the individual survival rate does account for plays that increase the group survival rate, over many matches such plays will also lead to a higher individual survival rate of the player making those plays. But even if it didn't, the players making such plays and consistently dying more often than they survive due to it do not need higher ratings for doing so, they need lower ratings in order to be able to survive roughly as often as they die, the ratings don't matter for anything but that...

  This is of course an exaggeration of the point, but it is something that happens each time someone makes those plays and they are more common than some edge case scenario. You claim this evens out over a long course of games, but that is now shifting the goal posts again from a single survivor to the entire collective. For individual players that might not be the case, even if the escape rates are 50% across the board as the playstyle of trying to get your team out is as far as I remember not one that is undesirable or should be punished

  Looking at many matches does not shift "goal posts" from a single survivor to the collective, whatever that even means in this case, it's shifting the perspective from looking at singular matches to many matches, which is what we have to do in order to understand the system...

  For individual survivors this should be the case, because at lower ratings, against less killy killers, they will less often have matches where they "need" or even get the opportunity to sacrifice themselves in order for others to survive (if this even were something you could consistently do, at any level).

  I'm not saying that playstyle is undesirable, but it is also not strictly how people should or have to play, and some people may prefer to play differently, and either way, the system does not "punish" anyone for playing how they want. If a survivor actually somehow manages to die 100% of the time (without literally going out of their way to deliberately die of course) and somehow actually helped the 3 others escape 100% of the time doing so... I'd wager they don't mind dying and are happy to be achieving the thing they die for, otherwise they would and indeed can at any point decide they want to stop sacrificing themselves for others. They have no reason to care about their rating, if anything being at the lowest possible rating makes it more likely to achieve the impossible and actually somewhat-consistently try to carry a team that hard. Try the bot tutorial match sometimes, you can carry those bot survivors over the exit line against the bot killer more often than you ever could in matches with players any better than them. It's a fun challenge if you enjoy that type of gameplay, and it would likely be even more fun and of course much more emotionally/psychologically rewarding at a very low rating.

  just in the same way that self preservation isn't something that should be taken out completely and with what I suggest wouldn't as you point out self preservation will also impact the rests survival rate.

  Yes, indeed, even if we look at group survival, individual survival rates will logically scale with them over many matches, correlatively by the nature of how the game works and mathematically because individual survivors make up groups, and if over many matches of a player the average group survival rate in them is 50%, their personal survival rate will most likely and most often also be around that... It will take as little away from self-preservation motivations as the individual survival rate metric currently does from the team motivation. Not only because 4 self-preserving survivors with a 50% survival chance still combine for 50% of the group surviving on average, but also because the individual and group rates correlate with one another by the nature of how the game works, with teamplay increasing every single survivor's survival chances in a group.

  Risking your own life is not the same as throwing the match, it is just seeking as you say the adrenaline in the match, which tends to be done by the more experienced and better players in the game. If they are good they will most likely also only do this in a situation where the game already is going to be a win for their side and there in lies the problem. They would have won if they didn't take any risks, but because they did and even if the overall result remains the same. Those that benefit from it change and that skewers the math.

  Here you are getting dangerously close to actually arguing the system should account for what is essentially smurfing...

  If you consistently take risks in the endgame, let alone in situations where the game was already going to be a win, you will most likely lead to a decreased group survival rate just as much as you do a decreased personal survival rate (not least given that you yourself are 25% of the group, of course), while often at best taking such a risk for a net-neutral change in group survival/personal survival. That means neither metric accounts for such risk-taking.

  And it still wouldn't matter either way, because at worst you are your own enemy: You are already in a winning position but risk your life for the fun of it, while you could simply not do so, survive, gain rating, and get tougher opponents against which you will more often actually have to take risks because they are necessary for success, rather than merely for fun, which can also be all the more thrilling, engaging, and rewarding...

  And endgame scenarios where you are actually "called for" to try and not be the lone survivor that match and go back in to try and get at least 1 more other survivor out in order to achieve a higher-than-1 group survival, in a group survival system you are also not strictly encouraged to do so, because you are risking turning a 3k into a 4k, decreasing group survival by 25%, which will decrease rating more for all survivors including your teammates, whereas simply escaping would have saved all of you some rating... So even if you care about rating, a group survival-based system is not necessarily encouraging you to take risks for other survivors to survive even in endgame scenarios either, it regularly actually only does so if the risk for you to die is small and the result is either likely to get 1 additional other survivor out, or realistically getting more than 1 other additional survivor out. Both of which are rare, and already instances where most survivors won't just ditch even with the current personal survival metric.

  You want to ignore these facts, because mathematically the system works over the large amount of players and games. You don't care about how it reflects upon the gameplay of the game, which gameplay it promotes under the less experienced players or how it punishes those that seek a more thrilling match by taking higher risk plays because they know they can. You don't look at the system to see what playstyles are of note within it or how it shifts the mindset of people. Looking the overall result of a 1v4 is how the approach I suggest is more truthful to the games premise of an asymmetrical PvP game.

  Again, apart from the psyche thing of people caring about their matchmaking rating (which people cannot see and which plenty of people don't even know about, let alone that it is based on personal survival), there is no functional way in which the system "promotes" any type of gameplay, nor "punishes" anything. What it functionally does is lead to players with more similar gameplay and levels of skills/performances/success ending up in matches with each other more often, and that is also literally what it was designed with the intention to do.

  You are just not demonstrating how the things you say are actually true within the reality of the functioning of the system.

  You are arrogant and entitled to believe that a MMR system like this can be seen only from one view point. I am not viewing this from a mathematical theoretical point of view, as I view this from a game design one and that isn't false, wrong or bad. There is no use in my explaining it as you have no interest in anything beyond your own point of view and the only way I could appease you is by looking it from a mathematicians view point and I won't. I understand what you are stating I just look beyond the mathematical model and at the product as a whole. I view the MMR system as part of the base and foundation of the game and believe it should be designed to promote the desirable results.

  This is well and all, and I would definitely agree with other points of view that are relevant to game design... but you are failing to demonstrate that the individual survival metric actually does the things you say it does. The only argument I see merit in is that of the rating affecting people psychologically, in knowing that only their personal survival increases their personal rating, and caring about that despite not seeing the rating and not being rewarded or punished by changes to the rating... and for that I can only keep repeating that it encouraging more "selfish" playstyles (in however far it does) is not objectively something bad for the game, and could even be argued to be good.

  But I have already agreed with you long ago that the soft argument of the invisible rating being based on group survival and thereby affecting people's psyche to be more willing to take risks to save others in scenarios where they otherwise could more safely escape themselves, or at least to think of the game more as a team game in general, is valid. I've also mentioned that I for one do actually want the devs to embrace the game as a more strictly team-centered game, even with actual according gameplay changes, and as such agree that the psychological encouragement of the MMR metric (to whatever extent it is that) is a reason why switching to a group survival metric is desirable. As opposed to the devs I would even go for group survival all the way, not a hybridized system, and while they may well have their reasons for doing what they do, that should go to show that I'm not just defending the current metric/paradigm in a biased way - I want it to change too, even more than the devs will change it!

  I would even go for more: Show people their ratings in the game, tell them clearly it is based on group survival in the game, base the killer's rating adjustments on the group survival metric too, and even base the rating calculations on the group average rating, for the killer and for each survivor in the group!

  I think that would be an improvement. (Though I can also see some arguments against it, and ultimately I have no clue what their MMR system programmatically looks like, maybe they have some really good reasons to go for a hybridized system, to not show/tell anything about ratings and metrics in the game, to not base killer rating on group survival and rating calculations on group averages for everyone. I would love for them to educate us on this stuff in more detail.)

  You are wrong to believe that game design and development can only be viewed from one angle and every other one is false, wrong and inaccurate because of it. I admitted from a mathematical point of view it can work, but I don't believe it promotes the desirable results and it limits the accessibility to a larger audience because of it. That is why people are angry about it, that is why people are leaving because of it and that is why if the developers would want to improve the system they need to look beyond the does it mathematically make sense. If they truthfully are looking at a more hybrid system as you claim... it means they too have acknowledged that.

  I don't actually believe game design/development can only be viewed from one angle, but regardless, let's leave it at this: for whatever our discussion will ultimately have been worth, if someone else (and perhaps a dev!) is/was/will be reading it, the perspectives you shared might very well influence their thinking and decisions. If contrary to my conviction you have a valid angle and the criticisms are fair, then perhaps your arguments will lead the devs to reconsider on some aspects. That's of course especially true if people are leaving at significant rates and there can be a causal relationship established between it and the system/its metric. Maybe instead of working on a hybridized system, they will actually go a step further and switch to group survival, or maybe at least favour group survival much more starkly in the rating calculations.

  I also want to note that I do think I have perhaps been a little unfair in certain ways of wording things or might have come off as condescending which I did not wish to, and that was in part indeed based on not continuously keeping in mind that you as opposed to others are not actually one of the people completely memeing on the system and acting like it has no rhyme or reason at all. To that end, I want to again stress that my "devil's advocate" section of "arguments" was not meant in parody to yourself, but sentiments that could be read elsewhere, of people that may have similar concerns as you, but aren't as fair/reasonable about it as you are.

  Like I don't think you actually understand what I am talking about, because the fact that you state it would be more accurate and quicker means you concede, as it is exactly what I am stating. The fact that you point out it won't rate players very differently or that the match ups would maybe be still similar showcases this fact, because you are applying my metrics and is why I used them to begin with. You literally are stating what I have been pointing out consistently: It would be an improvement on the current system, while still using the same metrics of Kill/Escapes. Where did I state it will create totally different metrics to analyze. The fact you believe it would lead to only self-sacrificial altruism and rainbows in high rank based on what I stated and those that throw the game for trying to do so... just shows you don't understand what I am talking about.

  You consistently argued the individual survival metric would "punish" altruistic play, not "account" for it, lead to such players being at ratings where they do not "belong"... you are/were clearly not of the opinion that switching to a group survival metric would merely speed up the process, but that it would change the process.

  I have repeatedly pointed out that it speeding up the process is the main, actual reason why I also want them to switch to group survival, but the argument did not end there. I don't remember you at any point agreeing with that, let alone explaining that it is the main thing you think it would change functionally about the system.

  People are less likely to get angry if they go up in rating while not playing to well and their team winning than the other way around where they lose rating while their team wins the match. Unless you are really petty and are to busy with what ranking other people get..

  Well, people can be plenty petty. What about people getting upset because another survivor on their group recklessly takes risks (such as in an endgame scenario, and all the more so in an "already-won" one of course), putting their rating in peril because that survivor counts toward how much rating they'll get.

  Ultimately I just don't think people actually care so much about their rating...

  If you always escape, but the rest of your team always dies... I think that is worth more of an evaluation than if you always die and the rest always gets out. It is more desirable. High ranked players should be able to keep not just themselves, but also the majority of their team alive. To even out at 50% escape rate, where the games aren't just a stomp one way or another.

  Well, both of those scenarios have the same issue (which ultimately isn't one, not least because the scenarios themselves are more than rare enough to be statisically irrelevant): In the one where the 1 "selfish" survivor escapes, if we assume that their selfish play actually contributed substantially to the other survivors dying... you have 1 player moving up to where they "shouldn't be", and 3 down to where they shouldn't (they got "sandbagged" into dying to an extent); in the other where 1 "altruistic" survivor dies, if we assume their altruistic play actually contributed substantially to the other survivors escaping... you have 1 player moving down to where they "shouldn't be", and 3 moving up to where they shouldn't (they got "carried" into escaping to an extent) - it doesn't matter whether you look at these instances from a group survival or individual survival metric perspective, in both you have similar "issues". With the group metric, in the first scenario all survivors lose rating, so the 3 still fall "unfairly", and the 1 at least doesn't fall as much as they would have and "should" have; in the second scenario, all players gain rating, so the 3 still climb "unfairly", and the 1 at least doesn't climb as much as they would have and "should" have.

  It will lead to much of the same rating developments over many matches (for which such scenarios won't be statistically relevant anyway so it's whatever), with the same implications for any matches the respective players may end up in due to those developments.

  Functionally, I'm convinced the system will effectively be the same, just "faster".

  You keep on showing that you don't actually understand the math and the principles I am talking about. It will be just faster reflects on the volatility index of the system and improving that is important as it ensures that the players themselves actually experience the effectiveness of the system and create a more consistent experience. You claim it doesn't promote gameplay just once again means you are clueless on how game design works. Even in your examples there are clear signs of this that you flat out ignore. If the game allows you to take risks to improve the teams outcome, then if that risk is successful that should reflect positively upon those that took it and that is one of the most complained aspects of the system as it is purely set to punish those plays at no potential reward.

  Nothing in my proposed improvements would btw restrict or limit players to playing in ways if that would net a positive outcome for their team, yet players on the survivor end if they want to climb the ranks would have to simply consider their sides overall outcome and selfish plays might be totally justified in that approach. The fact is that it would widen the acceptable plays as long as it ends up in the overall survival rate of the survivors. If your plays end up getting more people killed, then appropriately it would make you lose rating. Naturally it is a risk and therefore it isn't the safest play, yet a game shouldn't promote only taking safe choices because it is a game. Additionally acting like lower ranked killers are trying less hard to get kills is misrepresenting what the system is trying to achieve, as it wants these killers to also get a 50% kill rate in their games. The whole concept of the MMR is a 50% escape, rate which means that killers will get a 50% kill rate and be just as Killy on all levels. By your own logic these type of statements that you make are complete bogus and doesn't align with the math you are so keen on falling back on.

  I have already stated multiple times that the current system isn't broken or faulty and it functions to a degree. I am discussing improvements and you admitted that what I stated would result in a faster, more efficient and better system. Therefore you already conceded and are purely arguing because you believe that the quality of the system is irrelevant. The improvements I have stated would make the system better, it would be more accepted and would account for a larger spectrum of gameplay types therefore appease a larger audience.

  You keep acting like big data is the only metric that should be used in design choices, yet that is wrong. Players don't experience it that way and is not always the most accurate reflection of the actual product in place. This is not some holy grail that you can fall back on that is undisputable, while data is important it is far more nuanced than that and you claim what I state will improve the accuracy and speed of the data achieving it desired results. If the sum of all the aspects to consider and the shift in the metrics based on those reasons would result in a better system... why are you trying to disprove the concept while admitting that you do not care about them nor want to go into them. The fact that you claim I didn't explain this, means you really aren't reading what I have stated. It is like talking to a brick wall.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta January 30, 2022

• @zarr said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2780105#Comment_2780105

  Read my posts, the fact that you even state this means you literally are not acting in good faith and not even bothering to read what I have stated, while my posts are far shorter. It has literally nothing to do with my personal rating. The issue I have is that it punishes certain play styles for no reason at all, which in return means it favors and promotes others. That is the long term effects of such a system whether you see it or not.

  I'm asking you directly now because all I've been doing is explaining over and over again that the things you think you dislike the system for are simply false, and yet you keep going on saying the same things again. You are still not understanding at all, and I will have to repeat myself for the nth time going through this. Here goes...

  First: How does the system "punish" certain playstyles? What is the actual punishment? Please answer clearly, and keep in mind that a number change is not an actual punishment in and of itself.

  Also, the next time you try to fill in my motivations and why I am so upset. Consider the fact that one can have an opinion about a subject and it doesn't mean it is because they are salty about what it did to them. Criticism is not bad if you care about actually improving a product. Having multiple points of view and seeing what others have to say, can help improve it.

  Nowhere did I say you are upset or "salty". I am saying your criticism is based on simply not understanding the system.

  Good for you, yet for some reason people are consistently complaining about sweatier games. Guess everyone is delusional and your statements that people indeed care more about their personal survival are just flat out misleading.

  In a system that matches people such that they have more equal chances to succeed, "sweatier" games are literally what has and is supposed to happen, especially the more you care to and do succeed. The players that do and try everything to win existed before too, they just didn't meet as consistently as they do now, which is what I explained in the section you are quoting. Anyone is still as completely free to play as "non-sweaty" as they wish as they've been before MMR... they just can't expect to also win as frequently and comfortably while doing so as they might have done in the past, which is a good thing, because there are always players on the receiving end.

  Is it though, according to the developers themselves the match making is knows that it is creating matches that are unfair. Those that play the game for a living consistently says that it isn't and that , even the ones like OhTofu that is totally in favor of the MMR system states that it is a total mess. So... who exactly is making any such claim?

  Refer to this post https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2778178/#Comment_2778178 where I quote official numbers given by BHVR that prove it is creating overall more even matches. You have consistently been demonstrating issues to distinguish between singular instances and overall averages, so I'll point this out clearly: not every single match and every single player has to have 50% winrates in order for the global, average to be around 50%.

  BHVR is making this claim, based on actual numbers and actual insight. They are also saying the ratings predict match outcomes very accurately.

  Don't you see the issue with this, if you enjoy doing end game fiestas as per example, while you should be placed higher based on the rest of the game... you will now be in a low bracket facing low level killers, so you can demolish them? Would that make my own games more enjoyable, sure but isn't the goal of the system to also make the game fairer for the other side? This is a pretty good summary of the issue I described; you are good, most of your team gets out, but because you like to play the end-game to get someone else out... you now face lower ranked killers. Clearly a prime example of a more fair and skill based match up?

  It is good that you are finally getting closer to realizing that you yourself aren't being punished or are otherwise suffering if you die and lose rating due to your chosen playstyle, rather now you say your opponents would suffer from this... but no, this is a pretty good summary of you still not at all understanding how the system works. Those lower-rated killers are still matched such that they will have 50% kill rates on average, which means the other survivors in those matches will also be worse at surviving, so you won't regularly be "demolishing" the killer.

  You got this the wrong way around though, the current system wants to have it both ways. The killer needs to simultaneously be able to win and lose within the same match. Yet they still only played one match? Stating that there are 4 matches being played in one is inaccurate. It is a 4v1 game, there is one match and the individuals in the the team of 4 side have an impact on each others outcome.

  No, if the killer side wins, that means they gain rating all in all. But if 1 survivor escapes, they gain less rating than they otherwise would have. They won, but they didn't win decisively, and this is naturally something you would want to account for a in a group survival-based system as well, with 3ks increasing rating by less than 4ks.

  Either way, this is still you not understanding that the system works over many matches. You are still looking at 1 match and think "how can this person "win" if the team lost, the system can't function then", but if the system looks at every player individually and applies ratings based on whether they survived or got killed, moving them around in the matchmaking such that they get matches where their rating stabilizes, they will end up at around a 50% survival rate overall. If every individual player in a match has a 50% chance of surviving, matches will on average end in 2 kills and 2 escapes. This is the goal of the system, and it does mathematically work to achieve this even if you look at individual player survival, even despite the existence of 1-escape and 1-kill matches.

  I'm sorry, I'm not the right person to explain the step from our intuitive understanding to the mathematical functioning of the system any more easily comprehensible than I have been. It is definitely an a bit difficult concept to understand, but I implore you to think about this and read what the OP and devs have said on this as well, and consider whether the people that do this math and program these systems don't actually know what they're talking about when they say the system works. If you look at 1v1s for the rating adjustments, you never have an instance where both sides of that equation gain rating, and since these adjustments lead to 50% kill/survival outcomes for both players of that 1v1 equation over many confrontations, it will also lead to 50% kill/survival outcomes in the overall matches with them, because 4 survivors with a 50% survival chance each on average comes out to 50% of survivors dying and 50% surviving, 2/2 per match (on average).

  Yet as you can climb 4x as fast or drop 4x as fast... it skewers the system. Survivors will be far longer within their brackets in comparison, as they play 1 match per evaluation instead of 1 match for 4.

  Why are you assuming that the killer rating increase is actually the same that survivors get? You could simply use "/ 4" on the individual rating results for the killer to prevent this.

  Sure, it may be possible that the devs did not think about this and killers rise in rating much faster than survivors due to that... but I highly doubt it. And it would still not be a problem inherent to the system, it would just be an oversight regarding something that can easily be solved.

  BHVR has consistently gone out of their way to not define a win. The idea of a versus match is that at the end you either win, draw or lose compared to the other side. It might be hard to grasp for you; if two sides face off and one side wins, why would one then state that the other side also wins or a portion of them did. It has literally little to do with the asymmetrical nature of the game why people go up in a ruckus about it. A win is a 3/4k for the killer and a 1/2k for the survivors... yet somehow both sides can win, because the 1 escape is also a win. Which means the killer now also lost... but they won?

  BHVR in the context of the system we are talking about here has absolutely defined a win. Killing vs. surviving. That you don't understand that the system does not have to look at the 4v1 result in order for this to function since 50% of every individual player scales to 50% of all players is the precise problem.

  The survivor won, but their side lost? Now they are defined as skilled? This is a wrong use of the word.

  You are again looking at a single match. I went out of my way to specify in very simple terms that the "skill" that is "defined" (correlates) in the context of the MMR system is being good at winning consistently (over many matches, with and against many different players). The logic of the system is tied to many matches and averages, please try and understand this and stop looking at individual results trying to argue against its logic on that basis, your thinking here is deepy flawed and you are not beginning to understand.

  And yes, If a player actually manages to consistently survive despite their team constantly dying (impossibly unlikely to happen of course), they are absolutely still good at surviving consistently, and they are doing something well, they have some skills that lead to this consistently being possible... and that still doesn't matter for the functioning of the system, it doesn't care about this "skill", it only matters if they survive, and if they do survive more often than they don't, they systemically move up in ratings such that they ideally arrive at some place where they cannot do this as consistently anymore due to facing killier killers, and approach a 50% escape rate.

  I have laid out the objective definition of skill and demonstrated that it absolutely can be used in the way the devs did (definition: being good at something; dev use of the word: a player that is good at consistently winning), yet you keep contesting it with arguments that amount to "no". That is the problem here, you keep not understanding and repeating the wrong, flawed thoughts over and over again.

  I would argue that the matchmaking system is part of the base game, it is the foundation on which it runs even: It determines: Who do you face? What is considered a win?

  Oh joy, now the time has come to get into semantics, huh?

  By base game, I mean actual mechanical gameplay aspects. A "base game" can function with bots, it can function if you play with a predetermined group in custom matches. Matchmaking is certainly part of the game, but not of the basic game functioning.

  It also doesn't determine what a win is in general. The MMR system has clearly-defined win conditions that serve its function, but those do not necessarily have to be the ones players play for, and indeed some players play for other things, such as hooks, or Bloodpoints, or anything else they may care about. That said, the basic win condition of killing vs. surviving has existed since DbD's very inception, I quoted BHVR's official description of the game for you earlier.

  The central idea here was just that problems (if they are actually problems) such as Bubba's facecamping interactions are infinitely more sensible to be addressed on a mechanical base-game basis than somehow worked around with a matchmaking design. I think for many of such things it's at best absurd to try and do the latter, and at worst impossible.

  The idea that only mechanics in the match should work on making more desirable gameplay is once again showcasing how you want to view systems in a vacuum, yet games are the sum of its parts and MMR is one of the parts. All parts need to try and promote more desirable gameplay.

  I never said only base-game mechanics matter, I specifically referred to base-game changes vs. matchmaking changes. I didn't even say matchmaking can never in effect change anything about gameplay, I just said base-game changes are much better suited for remedying some of the issues people are trying to fault the matchmaking system for.

  I also told you that I believe the MMR system is already conceptually the best it can be in my opinion (functioning on the premise of making players on average approach 50% success chances). Doesn't mean it can't be improved upon in its actual working, but the concept behind it, its goal, is "correct" for a competitive game, and that's why so many such games use MMR/Elo systems.

  Btw. I agree this is not a casual game, it might not be an e-sport game. It is a PvP game, where 4 players face off against 1 player and that by definition is competitive.

  I'm glad there are things we firmly agree on. It irks me whenever people talk about it being a "casual" "party game", when its reality is, as you say, by definition competitive, it being a PVP game where players compete to achieve their objective against their opponents, and do so literally by preventing their opponent from achieving theirs, with players on one side literally being thrown out of the game if they fail to do so. And people are pretty fervent in their desire to win in this game.

  To answer your query on a chase: To determine whether a chase was a win is not as difficult as you make it out to be; you can create parameters for: How long a chase needs to be to provide enough time to help the team progress, they have that type of data and it would result in a formula similar to (A seconds + B seconds for each pallet used) * (pallets/startAmountPallets) =< seconds chased is a win.

  Meet that parameter or exceed it is a win, the point of the chase is not for the survivor to escape it is to occupy the killer and a good executed chase is simply a longer one. If the chase is lost, initiate a time frame that if it exceeds that the killer dropped chase and therefore you won it, else the timer continues running. Don't meet these parameters and you lost that chase, based on the value achieved you can even state by how much. You would need to keep track of how many pallets were used compared to the overall availability on the map, the less you use the higher your score, the less available to you the lower the chase duration would need to be, etc. Like it isn't easy, but impossible no.

  Yeah, sorry, but this works about as well as my argument predicted it could: not at all.

  To start with, you fail to define what even a "chase" is.

  Next, as pointed out in the post I referred you to, you have to find a way to detect a "chase". The chase state mechanic does not do this, you can and do lose chase state frequently while being in an active chase, for various reasons, and there are even reasons why intentionally doing so is beneficial. You can also be in chases without active chase state for prolonged periods, and this too can be intentional. So, how do you technically define and detect what a "chase" actually is, and when a player is in a proper chase?

  The next issue you run into is that you have to define an endstate to a chase and decide whether the killer or survivor "won" the chase. If the killer leaves a survivor intentionally, did the survivor actually "win" the chase? Maybe the killer is playing a hit-and-run playstyle, or maybe they have a thousand other reasons why they are not committing to a chase, all of which may very well be leading to game wins (kills) ultimately. So, did the killer really "lose" the chase if they intentionally break it off?

  Do chases end when a survivor goes down? What about the countless instances where survivors die outside of proper chases? Such as when they go for a calculated hook trade. Did they now lose a chase in 10 seconds?

  Another issue is that maps, map spawns, perks, items, other survivors and more play into chase duration. Survivor used DH, Storehouse window 3 times, a Styptic, 5 pallets, and 3 times a teammate took a hit for them... did they play a good chase, as good as someone that got the same chase duration without using all of this? (Although for this I will say that you can assume that it will be the same for all players over many matches, so it's not a real problem if you just look at it comparatively between players. But it will definitely give a lot of fuel for people to falsely make fun of the dev's concept of skilled chases.)

  Determining what the right chase duration is "to help the team progress" is not actually easy at all, and it can be completely different in different matches. As far as I can tell, it would just be an arbitrary value no matter what.

  There are different killers with different chase mechanics, they would all need different chase duration values to determine what a "won" or "lost" chase is. Various of the abilities also make it much more difficult to decide what a "chase" is.

  I'm sure an actual dev could go on and on here, but I hope you understand that your idea for an implementation does not even begin to be functional at objectively defining chases, detecting chases and differentiating proper chases from things that aren't, deciding what a won or lost chase is, how this applies to every killer, ...

  Not that I think they should do this for the MMR system, but claiming it is impossible is untrue; you can determine whether someone did a good or bad chase purely based on numbers. It would be quite extensive, you would need to assess the actions done by a survivor in a % based on the entire match duration and see how effective they would be - as efficiency is extremely important if you wanted to account for all types of skill meaning a breakdown would need to be made for multiple elements, etc. Then compare that to the result at the end, to determine a final MMR rating and voila you have a true Skilled Based Match Making System.

  I hope someone better than me at explaining how ludicrous this idea is will at some point do so.

  I will say this: I myself actually did want them to look at "chase duration" averages for a "skill-based player rating" when we first started hearing about SBMM being in the works, and while I understood from the beginning that it cannot be used in an MMR system because you cannot define actual win and loss states for chases (I wanted them to just use average chase durations of players to somehow factor into their ratings... I didn't really think about it further though), I had to realize that it's just impossible to actually define and detect chases, there are tons of scenarios in the game that may look like a "chase" but aren't, and yet others that are a "chase" but may not look like it.

  Simply looking at killing vs. surviving does the trick, even regardless of whether it would correlate with any skill at all, because the goal is just to reach 50% kill/survival chances/rates on average in more matches, which the system can achieve by rating players based on killing vs. surviving...

  However what I have sated from the get go is that they should consider: How many of the survivors escaped? You could have some weighted values based on whether you were the first to die or the last and stuff like that, but that is pretty much it. Be evaluated based on your sides performance against that of the killer. One team versus another, who won, who lost. That simple, it is still a system based on proxying for skill and yet would be more truthful to the nature of the game of 1v4.

  You say it would be more "truthful" to the nature of the game as a 1v4, but what does this actually mean?

  As I told you, 50% in 4 1v1s is 50% in 1v4 too, it does not need to make that distinction to achieve its goal from both perspectives. It does not have to rate based on 1v4 results in order to lead to the desired 4v1 results, it already fits the reality of the game mathematically and achieves the state of balance in matches on average that it was implemented to seek.

  And with regards to your point that the solo survival metric "promotes" selfish gameplay in players' psychological and emotional respone to it, even if that were the case for every single player playing this game, I will tell you again that the game is not strictly a team game. You and I may prefer it to be, but there are arguments for keeping it more in the spirit of a game of 4 individuals with the same basic objectives that however may well play for their own survival first and foremost. Are you in favour of implementing in-game voice chat for survivors? You must be, because that makes the game a lot more team-centered, and most team multiplayer games feature in-game voice chat. I think BHVR is strictly against that precisely because they want survivors to be lone actors that may choose to be more selfish, or only opportunistically altruistic, with merely rudimentary means of coordination and communication. They want this to be more of a player choice rather than the game dictating that they have to play for and as a team.

  You are trying to justify the system looking at it from a 1v1 perspective, in a 1v4 game. While I am using the exact same logic and explanation of the developers of judging MMR based on hooks causes issues, is doing the exact same thing here. Having a 1 escape and 3 dead or 8 hooks and 4 escapes, still means your side lost. It all comes down to what is the definition of a win, you throw that term around loosely and claim a 1 escape is a win, but that means both sides at the end of the game win at the same time and as Patrick stated: Once everyone can win, the math becomes weird. The killer isn't facing off in a 1v1, they are facing off in a 1v4 and the same applies to the survivors.

  This is again the problem of you not understanding that mathematically, win and loss of 1v1 and 1v4 are the same thing over many matches, and it works out, it does not lead to any scenario where "both sides win" because in the 1v1 rating equation of killer vs. survivor, the survivor can only have survived or died, either the killer gains rating against this survivor or the survivor gains rating against this killer.

  I've already admitted I'm at my wit's end in trying to explain this to you. Maybe OP can do it more pellucidly. I dunno, maybe this helps you bridge this gap of understanding: In a match, a survivor player can only either live or die, correct? Then the "survival rate" of any 1 survivor in any 1 match can only ever be 0% or 100%. ...So how could this survivor ever have a "balanced" match outcome if they can only win or lose? How can the system ever give them any 1 match in which they actually somehow half survive and half die? Of course, it cannot! It can only give them an actual survival rate of 50% over more matches, and this explains how a survivor can potentially live in one match (such as one where 3 others died) or die in another match (even one where the 3 others escaped) but still be in a balanced scenario where they achieve a 50% survival rate over many matches, and where all matches taken together can have a "balanced" average outcome from the 4v1 perspective of 2 survivors living and 2 dying, without the actual matches actually having 2 survivors live and 2 others die, but sometimes 0 or 4 or 3 or 1. Or indeed they can have have a higher-than-50% survival rate over many matches, despite sometimes dying where 3 others survive, or a lower-than-50% rate despite sometimes surviving where others die, and then they would be gaining/losing rating accordingly over those matches and arriving at a place where they will move closer to that 50% rate. The win rate over many matches is what matters and makes the system work to achieve a more balanced outcome, from the 1v1 perspective of individual players, and in turn the 1v4 perspective of the matches they play in.

  Also do I have to repeat myself, just because a system can function, doesn't mean that it is the best version of itself or is adding as much value as it could to the product as a whole. You are talking as if I am stating, that the system cannot work at all.... but that has never been my argument. It does fall flat in accounting for all types of playstyles in scenarios, where high risk/rewards for the team are in play or allowing playstyles and choices that might net the overall teams out come to be the same, meaning the system is limiting the game.

  I know what the argument is about, and you are saying the the system does not function from the 1v4 perspective, based on a failure to understand how the system works.

  You say it "falls flat in accounting for all types of playstyles", but you are never clarifying what this functionally even means. It accounts for everything, respectively to the degree that those things increase or decrease personal survival chances/rates over many matches by. If your playstyle includes risking your life in order for others to be able to escape, and if this playstyle means you consistently do not survive more than you die at whatever rating you are, then you should lose rating because the system wants you to survive around half the time, whatever your playstyle is. You need easier opponents against which you don't have to take such risks as often/don't die as often taking such risks in order for you to be able to hit 50% survival rates if you aren't doing so at a higher rating.

  Dude, what I state isn't false nor does this mean I don't understand how the system functions, it is from the perspective you claim not to care about and therefore you want to view the system in a vacuum unrelated to the game that it is being applied to. This is a 4v1 game, you wanted to know why people dislike it and what the impacts they have on the game... but clearly you don't all you are trying to do is act like what you state is gospel and that anyone coming from a different angle is by default false.

  I have not stated that the current system is a total failure or isn't functioning to a certain degree. The fact that you state that you should be lowered in rank so you don't have to take risks, meaning that over time the system is to remove all risk from playing. Just shows that you don't understand the concept of game design. Risk/Reward is a vital part of having a fun game, if you never have to take risks that results in the game becoming stale and boring. It is literally part of the desirable result, if people seek these type of scenarios to occur in their games and want to play them out... the system shouldn't try to punish your playstyle. The 50% survival rate is about all survivors in a match, the fact that you want to approach the game from a 1v1 perspective, but it isn't. You go but big data and yet when it actually applies you now want to go: to on an individual base. Even if you die 100% of your games, if your actions would result in the rest of your team getting out 100% of the times, it means your side won the match. It means that for those games you would be involved in would have a 75% escape rate and not the 50% that you claim to want to achieve and yet that survivor would be placed against lower ranked killers to bump them up to 100% to even out their numbers. Ones playstyle can still result in a higher overall escape rate for all players in the match, yet you don't want to account for these plays.

  This is of course an exaggeration of the point, but it is something that happens each time someone makes those plays and they are more common than some edge case scenario. You claim this evens out over a long course of games, but that is now shifting the goal posts again from a single survivor to the entire collective and that is why the system has an issue in my point of view; it creates the stomp or be stomped effect within the game. For individual players that might not be the case, even if the escape rates are 50% across the board as the playstyle of trying to get your team out is as far as I remember not one that is undesirable or should be punished; just in the same way that self preservation isn't something that should be taken out completely and with what I suggest wouldn't as you point out self preservation will also impact the rests survival rate.

  Risking your own life is not the same as throwing the match, it is just seeking as you say the adrenaline in the match, which tends to be done by the more experienced and better players in the game. If they are good they will most likely also only do this in a situation where the game already is going to be a win for their side and there in lies the problem. They would have won if they didn't take any risks, but because they did and even if the overall result remains the same. Those that benefit from it change and that skewers the math.

  You want to ignore these facts, because mathematically the system works over the large amount of players and games. You don't care about how it reflects upon the gameplay of the game, which gameplay it promotes under the less experienced players or how it punishes those that seek a more thrilling match by taking higher risk plays because they know they can. You don't look at the system to see what playstyles are of note within it or how it shifts the mindset of people. Looking the overall result of a 1v4 is how the approach I suggest is more truthful to the games premise of an asymmetrical PvP game.

  So... you can " mark all you want on other peoples perspectives, but frankly you are just becoming rude and dismissive. You are arrogant and entitled to believe that a MMR system like this can be seen only from one view point. I am not viewing this from a mathematical theoretical point of view, as I view this from a game design one and that isn't false, wrong or bad. There is no use in my explaining it as you have no interest in anything beyond your own point of view and the only way I could appease you is by looking it from a mathematicians view point and I won't. I understand what you are stating I just look beyond the mathematical model and at the product as a whole. I view the MMR system as part of the base and foundation of the game and believe it should be designed to promote the desirable results.

  You are wrong to believe that game design and development can only be viewed from one angle and every other one is false, wrong and inaccurate because of it. I admitted from a mathematical point of view it can work, but I don't believe it promotes the desirable results and it limits the accessibility to a larger audience because of it. That is why people are angry about it, that is why people are leaving because of it and that is why if the developers would want to improve the system they need to look beyond the does it mathematically make sense. If they truthfully are looking at a more hybrid system as you claim... it means they too have acknowledged that.

  To account for your last post:

  And mind you, again, I agree that the system would be improved by looking at group survival as opposed to individual survival. But not because the game is strictly a team game, nor because the system will then or should necessarily encourage teamplay, not because it will rate players very differently and make very different matchups, nor because then the high MMR bracket will be place of self-sacrificial altruism and rainbows... But just because it will come to the appropriate ratings more quickly. I'm convinced much of the same players that are in similar rating brackets now will be then as well and we will see much of the same gameplay in matches involving such players, they will just get there earlier, and will have to go through fewer potentially uneven, undesirable matches (for themselves and/or the other players in them) to do so.

  Like I don't think you actually understand what I am talking about, because the fact that you state it would be more accurate and quicker means you concede, as it is exactly what I am stating. The fact that you point out it won't rate players very differently or that the match ups would maybe be still similar showcases this fact, because you are applying my metrics and is why I used them to begin with. You literally are stating what I have been pointing out consistently: It would be an improvement on the current system, while still using the same metrics of Kill/Escapes. Where did I state it will create totally different metrics to analyze. The fact you believe it would lead to only self-sacrificial altruism and rainbows in high rank based on what I stated and those that throw the game for trying to do so... just shows you don't understand what I am talking about.

  My point is that players need to get to their appropriate rating quicker means the system is better, because from a single player point of view they aren't going to be at mass data points where they even out for a large majority of players. It would also address many issues people have with skilled plays being punished. People are less likely to get angry if they go up in rating while not playing to well and their team winning than the other way around where they lose rating while their team wins the match. Unless you are really petty and are to busy with what ranking other people get..

  If you always escape, but the rest of your team always dies... I think that is worth more of an evaluation than if you always die and the rest always gets out. It is more desirable. High ranked players should be able to keep not just themselves, but also the majority of their team alive. To even out at 50% escape rate, where the games aren't just a stomp one way or another.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta January 30, 2022

• @zarr said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2778759#Comment_2778759

  Game design is about more than just, is the system functioning. One has to evaluate how people respond to it. Therefore you acting like it is irrelevant is the whole difference in view point.

  Oh no, the matchmaking system is making people want to survive!

  ...What is your actual problem with the matchmaking system? That your rating is possibly not high? What's it matter?

  That people don't rescue in the endgame? From my experience, it's about the same as it used to be. Some do, some don't, mostly it depends on whether it's sensible, most people do stay around in the endgame to help and don't just bounce first chance they get, but people won't usually take outrageous risks for at best a hook trade in endgames, and they didn't use to either. Well, some did and some still do.

  Personally I really don't see that the system has had a big impact on player behaviour overall. You have to keep in mind that the behaviour you see has existed long before MMR. The only thing it tangibly did is sort more alike players into similar brackets and therefore matches, which obviously means you will encounter more consistent behaviour trends, but mostly just because you encounter certain types of players more often, not because they didn't exist beforehand. If anything I suspect any actual changes in player behaviour are more in reponse to those trends, which has less to do with how the matchmaking works and mostly just with how the game works when it is played with less disparate participants than was regularly the case in the rank-based matchmaking system.

  The question is whether the system is having its desired overall result.

  It's leading to more even matches giving people fairer chances to succeed and more balanced win/loss experiences overall, which I'd wager most people desire because most people like winning and don't like losing. Aiming for a 50/50% win/loss ratio for "everyone" is aiming for the greatest good in that regard, since every % above that on one player is a % taken from another player. Obviously doesn't mean everyone is actually at that ratio, but we know from hard numbers that overall things are notably closer to it now.

  It's also pairing more similar players, in their abilities but also their game approach to extents. Obviously not an exact thing, but it's easy to see that higher rating brackets select for players using certain playstyles and strategies that as such get filtered out more of the brackets below it, and vice-versa. If you enjoy endgame fiestas for example, you will likely more consistently meet people at non-high rating brackets that go for that kind of stuff, so you shouldn't mind that your rating goes down if you die taking risks to save others, on the contrary.

  To then fall back on the 4v1 overall aspect is the whole point of that argument, as it only applies to the killer. In a single match the killer and survivor are deemed winners, in a MMR system you shouldn't have the opposing forces both win. The survivors are not judged as a whole, so you cannot then go but overall the survivors lost!

  It's you that wants it both ways here: you say the killer won since they killed 3 survivors, and the 1 survivor won because they escaped, but that is only true if you look at the killer from the 4v1 perspective and the survivor from the 1v1 perspective. If you look at both from the same perspective there is no issue here, because the killer actually lost against the one survivor from the 1v1 perspective, they did not both win. From the 4v1 perspective on the other hand, you of course have to look at all survivors, and 3 lose rating, clearly meaning the survivors lost more rating than they gained in that match.

  Remember that "winning" and "losing" from the system's perspective is literally just looking at whether someone gains or loses rating, and you can mathematically resolve this player-by-player without any issues of having both sides "win" in the equation. Also remember that gaining rating from a single match means next to nothing, and that consistently gaining rating only happens if a player consistently survives against more than 50% of the killers they meet, or kills more than 50% of the survivors they meet. And also that gaining rating merely means a player will more often face players of similar higher ratings. Nothing else. And if they cannot keep consistently surviving/killing at some rating level, they will not remain there. Being the sole survivor to escape through exits in matches where 3 people died is a fairly rare occurrence in general, and certainly not something a player will consistently be climbing ratings with... and if someone somehow magically would, that means they must be doing something that leads to that, and they need higher-rated opponents against which they cannot as often do whatever that is because they should be stabilizing around a rating with a 50% survival rate, not endlessly survive.

  Skill is not some arbitrary word it has a meaning. The fact that the devs misuse it doesn't make it change its meaning.

  The devs don't "misuse" the word, I quoted its dictionary definition earlier already. It's a loaded word in gaming so they would have probably been well-advised to not use it in this context, but that people try to "strawman" their use of it is again more a perception/understanding problem. People take the general meaning of skill, of just being good at the game, and apply it to a single match, questioning the logic behind the use of the word when the devs use skill to refer to being good specifically at winning the game, and specifically in the context of a system that has to deal with an evaluation/average over many matches, meaning in turn players good at consistently winning the game. "Skill" just means being good at something, it is absolutely proper use of the word to refer with it to a person good at consistently winning a game, at whatever the game actions and decisions are that lead to that.

  This wouldn't actually be controversial in much of any other game, nobody would find the idea ridiculous that if you win in Unreal Tournament you're good at it, that the players that win a lot at the game are skilled at the game... but the asymmetrical format makes people go all crazy. I for one never found the use of "skill" here particularly weird, if you consistently win against other players in a game, you must be good at that game, you have some skills. Sure there are matches where a better player can lose, skilled play doesn't always lead to actually winning, but it does always lead closer to wins, and over many matches, it leads to wins more often than non/lesser-skilled play. This holds just as true in DbD as it does in symmetrical competitions. And the distinction that one means actual win-oriented play is self-explanatory in this context.

  It probably was a mistake to call the matchmaking system skill-based though, because what it is actually based on are of course wins (killing/surviving) - that ratings based on wins then also indicate a player's prowess at killing/surviving is a natural assumption, and while that assumption makes for the neat idea that if you pair players of similar ratings they will have competitive, evenly-fought matches, the system itself doesn't need for skill or anything to correlate with winning, it just needs a reliable way by which to predict outcomes such that it can match players to on average achieve 50% winrates. And the ratings apparently do allow for this, so they have to correlate with something there, but since skill is a loaded word, they should just have called it rating-based I suppose.

  That is the difference between the systems functionality and the player perspective. These matter from the game design point of view.

  From a game design point of view, sure, but then with regards to actual changes to the base game to functionally promote more desirable gameplay wherever deemed necessary or possible. I think for the matchmaking system, there just is no better way to do it than MMR in competitive games, and much as people may want to think of the game as casual, it's awfully obvious that most people care very much about succeeding in it. A matchmaking system that aims to give people equal chances to succeed is pretty much objectively correct, and even if it would actively encourage certain playstyles that some people might not find very desirable, that's a small price to pay for the overall increased player satisfaction levels it is expected to yield.

  For a player 100games can seem like much, but for a system it is peanuts.

  It was not meant to be a suggestion to statistically-significantly demonstrate something, it was just a suggestion for you yourself to try and see how strong your conviction holds that altruistic play leads to higher group survival rates but lower individual survival rates, and selfish play lower group survival rates but higher individual survival rates. 100 games should be enough to get a better personal feeling for that. Mind you, selfish play doesn't only mean not going back into the map in the endgame, it basically means you are only ever on gens or hiding, taking chases to teammates if you're found, ditching as soon as you can.

  If your game relies soley on players personal motivations it is bad design.

  Now that's something one could start a new discussion on, but it's not for this thread. I mentioned game theory in the context of why the game not being strictly a team game can have its merits, and having personal motivations play a more integral role in game decisions/interactions rather than clear objectives you either manage to achieve or not can make for interesting, worthwhile gameplay, it is not strictly bad design in my opinion.

  But yeah, that's beside the point anyway, because it's still not like the MMR system sets any gameplay motivations for or against any decisions/actions either. It's not only a personal motivation to play for your rating, it's an irrational one.

  Regarding your edit:

  Btw. no not every teamplay move even during the map will increase your personal survival chances. Making such claims just showcases a complete lack of understanding of the game.

  Acting like I claimed every single teamplay move will increase personal survival chances in every single match is just showcasing a complete lack of understanding my argument, and indeed again a complete lack of understanding the system that looks at many matches, over which correct teamplay that increases group survival chances/rates will also increase personal survival chances/rates.

  Simple examples: Bubba is face camping, trying to body block against a Myers with a T3 at 99%, etc. etc. there is far more nuance to this game than you give it credit for. Yet the developers are supposed to consider these things in their choices, going like it is to difficult, to complex is just a flat out cop-out it is literally their job.

  ...These are terrible examples to pick. May I remind you that you yourself are 25% of the group, and that risking your own life in scenarios that do not result in leading to more survivors escaping alive is still also something that will decrease group survival rate, or at best not increase it? Not attempting to save against a facecamping Bubba can be the correct teamplay as well, and regularly indeed will be. But before you try and come back with better examples, I refer you back to my previous statement. Of course not even every teamplay-oriented move that actually increases group survival will also increase personal survival every time. I argue it will do so more often over many times, which is what's relevant for the system.

  As for it being a cop-out to say it is too difficult to account for everything... It's essentially impossible. Refer to my post where I show that even just trying to evaluate "chase skills" properly is not possible: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2773383/#Comment_2773383

  As OP has done before, and as I did, I encourage you to actually demonstrate how you would objectively, mathematically, in a working system that assigns clear, diametrically opposed win and loss states, account for any of this stuff, such as "when was a survivor actually more skilled than a killer in chases, when did they "win" chases against them?".

  I will also remind you again that even if it were possible to do this, it would still be wholly unnecessary for the system to fulfil its intended purpose. Its intended purpose is to make matches happen that overall trend toward 50% kill/survival rates for all players involved on average, not to make matches happen where everyone is equally skilled, that is just a correlative, collateral thing that comes with it. If for example matches of 5 equally-rated players would not yield 50% kill/survival rates on average, then the system could simply look for a rating ratio between players where it does; it doesn't have to care that people then aren't equally rated (or by implication "skilled") in such matches. That would then be something for the devs to care about, since that is obviously indicative of base game imbalances - which have to be remedied with base game changes if deemed necessary.

  They promoted it as a skilled based match making system, yet on that end they fall flat because they allow both survivors and killers to win in the same game.

  Honestly now you are just kinda raving. These two have nothing to do with each other. Both players in a game can be skilled and playing in skilled ways at the same time, the system being skill-based is not the reason why both sides being able to win at the same time is an issue. The issue is that if both sides can win at the same time, you cannot clearly decide who should gain or lose rating, and if you cannot clearly decide this, eventually everyone will gain rating and the entire purpose of rating-based matchmaking goes out of the window. A single survivor gaining rating in a 1-escape is not an issue of "both sides winning" because the killer loses rating for that survivor, and the other survivors also lose rating.

  And again, the system does not fall flat in selecting for skill, it selects correlatively for skills that consistently lead to wins (killing/surviving). If you feel better with it, think of them as kill and survival skills that correlate with killing and surviving consistently (over many matches, with and against many different players), not just "skill". Kill/Survival Skill-Correlated Match-Making doesn't have quite the same ring to it though.

  The fact is you are white knighting for a system you yourself believe would be improved by an approach more focused on team play. Whether you see each aspect in the same light as me is irrelevant and not of actual concern. You however act like I don't understand the systems in play while frankly I just look beyond a singular system and as a product as a whole. I consider player types, human nature and other aspects of game design that should govern the decisions made rather than, does this work in a vacuum.

  White knighting? This is just a discussion, and I'm not doing anything but arguing I actually believe the system is good. If me pointing out that people are misunderstanding the dev analogy and indeed the system at large in pretty ridiculous ways is white-knighting, then so be it.

  The rest of your argument is honestly irrelevant to me. The system works to its intended, desired purpose regardless of "player types, human nature and other aspects of game design", and I for one consider the purpose of creating more even matches where players overall have more equal chances of being able to succeed by playing to the best of their abilities desirable regardless, and if it somehow encourages certain play more often through players' psychological and emotional response to it, and if there are issues with that type of play, then changes to the actual gameplay are in order, not however a different system that somehow absurdly tries to account for this.

  I think we've gone on quite long enough. This is not interesting for me anymore.

  "...What is your actual problem with the matchmaking system? That your rating is possibly not high? What's it matter?"

  Read my posts, the fact that you even state this means you literally are not acting in good faith and not even bothering to read what I have stated, while my posts are far shorter. It has literally nothing to do with my personal rating. The issue I have is that it punishes certain play styles for no reason at all, which in return means it favors and promotes others. That is the long term effects of such a system whether you see it or not.

  Also, the next time you try to fill in my motivations and why I am so upset. Consider the fact that one can have an opinion about a subject and it doesn't mean it is because they are salty about what it did to them. Criticism is not bad if you care about actually improving a product. Having multiple points of view and seeing what others have to say, can help improve it.

  "Personally I really don't see that the system has had a big impact on player behaviour overall."

  Good for you, yet for some reason people are consistently complaining about sweatier games. Guess everyone is delusional and your statements that people indeed care more about their personal survival are just flat out misleading.

  "It's leading to more even matches giving people fairer chances to succeed and more balanced win/loss experiences overall, which I'd wager most people desire because most people like winning and don't like losing. Aiming for a 50/50% win/loss ratio for "everyone" is aiming for the greatest good in that regard, since every % above that on one player is a % taken from another player. Obviously doesn't mean everyone is actually at that ratio, but we know from hard numbers that overall things are notably closer to it now."

  Is it though, according to the developers themselves the match making is knows that it is creating matches that are unfair. Those that play the game for a living consistently says that it isn't and that , even the ones like OhTofu that is totally in favor of the MMR system states that it is a total mess. So... who exactly is making any such claim?

  "It's also pairing more similar players, in their abilities but also their game approach to extents. Obviously not an exact thing, but it's easy to see that higher rating brackets select for players using certain playstyles and strategies that as such get filtered out more of the brackets below it, and vice-versa. If you enjoy endgame fiestas for example, you will likely more consistently meet people at non-high rating brackets that go for that kind of stuff, so you shouldn't mind that your rating goes down if you die taking risks to save others, on the contrary."

  Don't you see the issue with this, if you enjoy doing end game fiestas as per example, while you should be placed higher based on the rest of the game... you will now be in a low bracket facing low level killers, so you can demolish them? Would that make my own games more enjoyable, sure but isn't the goal of the system to also make the game fairer for the other side? This is a pretty good summary of the issue I described; you are good, most of your team gets out, but because you like to play the end-game to get someone else out... you now face lower ranked killers. Clearly a prime example of a more fair and skill based match up?

  It's you that wants it both ways here: you say the killer won since they killed 3 survivors, and the 1 survivor won because they escaped, but that is only true if you look at the killer from the 4v1 perspective and the survivor from the 1v1 perspective. If you look at both from the same perspective there is no issue here, because the killer actually lost against the one survivor from the 1v1 perspective, they did not both win. From the 4v1 perspective on the other hand, you of course have to look at all survivors, and 3 lose rating, clearly meaning the survivors lost more rating than they gained in that match.

  You got this the wrong way around though, the current system wants to have it both ways. The killer needs to simultaneously be able to win and lose within the same match.

  Remember that "winning" and "losing" from the system's perspective is literally just looking at whether someone gains or loses rating, and you can mathematically resolve this player-by-player without any issues of having both sides "win" in the equation. 

  Yet they still only played one match? Stating that there are 4 matches being played in one is inaccurate. It is a 4v1 game, there is one match and the individuals in the the team of 4 side have an impact on each others outcome. Therefore from a system point of view for a single game, the killer has 4 different outcomes. That means they rise and drop at significant different rates than survivors do and as the OP correctly pointed out, it is about where you relatively stand on the scales compared to others. Yet as you can climb 4x as fast or drop 4x as fast... it skewers the system. Survivors will be far longer within their brackets in comparison, as they play 1 match per evaluation instead of 1 match for 4.

  "Skill referring to being good specifically at winning the game"

  BHVR has consistently gone out of their way to not define a win. The idea of a versus match is that at the end you either win, draw or lose compared to the other side. It might be hard to grasp for you; if two sides face off and one side wins, why would one then state that the other side also wins or a portion of them did. It has literally little to do with the asymmetrical nature of the game why people go up in a ruckus about it. A win is a 3/4k for the killer and a 1/0k for the survivors, with a 2k being a draw... yet somehow both sides can win, because the 1 escape is also a win. Which means the killer now also lost... but they won? The survivor won, but their side lost? Now they are defined as skilled?

  This is a wrong use of the word.

  From a game design point of view, sure, but then with regards to actual changes to the base game to functionally promote more desirable gameplay wherever deemed necessary or possible.

  I would argue that the matchmaking system is part of the base game, it is the foundation on which it runs even: It determines: Who do you face? What is considered a win?

  The idea that only mechanics in the match should work on making more desirable gameplay is once again showcasing how you want to view systems in a vacuum, yet games are the sum of its parts and MMR is one of the parts. All parts need to try and promote more desirable gameplay.

  Btw. I agree this is not a casual game, it might not be an e-sport game. It is a PvP game, where 4 players face off against 1 player and that by definition is competitive.

  As OP has done before, and as I did, I encourage you to actually demonstrate how you would objectively, mathematically, in a working system that assigns clear, diametrically opposed win and loss states, account for any of this stuff, such as "when was a survivor actually more skilled than a killer in chases, when did they "win" chases against them?"

  To answer your query on a chase: To determine whether a chase was a win is not as difficult as you make it out to be; you can create parameters for: How long a chase needs to be to provide enough time to help the team progress, they have that type of data and it would result in a formula similar to (A seconds + B seconds for each pallet used) * (pallets/startAmountPallets) =< seconds chased is a win.

  Meet that parameter or exceed it is a win, the point of the chase is not for the survivor to escape it is to occupy the killer and a good executed chase is simply a longer one. If the chase is lost, initiate a time frame that if it exceeds that the killer dropped chase and therefore you won it, else the timer continues running. Don't meet these parameters and you lost that chase, based on the value achieved you can even state by how much. You would need to keep track of how many pallets were used compared to the overall availability on the map, the less you use the higher your score, the less available to you the lower the chase duration would need to be, etc. Like it isn't easy, but impossible no.

  Not that I think they should do this for the MMR system, but claiming it is impossible is untrue; you can determine whether someone did a good or bad chase purely based on numbers. It would be quite extensive, you would need to assess the actions done by a survivor in a % based on the entire match duration and see how effective they would be - as efficiency is extremely important if you wanted to account for all types of skill meaning a breakdown would need to be made for multiple elements, etc. Then compare that to the result at the end, to determine a final MMR rating and voila you have a true Skilled Based Match Making System.

  However what I have sated from the get go is that they should consider: How many of the survivors escaped? You could have some weighted values based on whether you were the first to die or the last and stuff like that, but that is pretty much it. Be evaluated based on your sides performance against that of the killer. One team versus another, who won, who lost. That simple, it is still a system based on proxying for skill and yet would be more truthful to the nature of the game of 1v4.

  Honestly now you are just kinda raving. These two have nothing to do with each other. Both players in a game can be skilled and playing in skilled ways at the same time, the system being skill-based is not the reason why both sides being able to win at the same time is an issue. The issue is that if both sides can win at the same time, you cannot clearly decide who should gain or lose rating, and if you cannot clearly decide this, eventually everyone will gain rating and the entire purpose of rating-based matchmaking goes out of the window. A single survivor gaining rating in a 1-escape is not an issue of "both sides winning" because the killer loses rating for that survivor, and the other survivors also lose rating.

  And again, the system does not fall flat in selecting for skill, it selects correlatively for skills that consistently lead to wins (killing/surviving). If you feel better with it, think of them as kill and survival skills that correlate with killing and surviving consistently (over many matches, with and against many different players), not just "skill". Kill/Survival Skill-Correlated Match-Making doesn't have quite the same ring to it though.

  You are trying to justify the system looking at it from a 1v1 perspective, in a 1v4 game. While I am using the exact same logic and explanation of the developers of judging MMR based on hooks causes issues, is doing the exact same thing here. Having a 1 escape and 3 dead or 8 hooks and 4 escapes, still means your side lost. It all comes down to what is the definition of a win, you throw that term around loosely and claim a 1 escape is a win, but that means both sides at the end of the game win at the same time and as Patrick stated: Once everyone can win, the math becomes weird. The killer isn't facing off in a 1v1, they are facing off in a 1v4 and the same applies to the survivors.

  Also do I have to repeat myself, just because a system can function, doesn't mean that it is the best version of itself or is adding as much value as it could to the product as a whole. You are talking as if I am stating, that the system cannot work at all.... but that has never been my argument. It does fall flat in accounting for all types of playstyles in scenarios, where high risk/rewards for the team are in play or allowing playstyles and choices that might net the overall teams out come to be the same, meaning the system is limiting the game.

  You can keep stating but don't care about MMR than what does it matter, just drop in MMR and you can keep doing these plays. But that is a problem for the system, as that means skilled players are dropping in rating and that means the number they have isn't correlating to the level they should be playing at.

  "It was not meant to be a suggestion to statistically-significantly demonstrate something, it was just a suggestion for you yourself to try and see how strong your conviction holds that altruistic play leads to higher group survival rates but lower individual survival rates, and selfish play lower group survival rates but higher individual survival rates. 100 games should be enough to get a better personal feeling for that. Mind you, selfish play doesn't only mean not going back into the map in the endgame, it basically means you are only ever on gens or hiding, taking chases to teammates if you're found, ditching as soon as you can."

  Wooow you really did not understand the point at all. It isn't about extreme cases of pure altruistic plays or selfishness. It is about the point that there is zero incentive or reward for playing one way over the other in many cases. The many many many situations that the only correct path for the system is to take the safe approach regardless of the effects on the team. You have a high risk play, that at best has no positive impact on the player that takes the risk and any other case is they drop in value.

  Why should one type of playstyle be punished, if the result for the survivor team at the end is the same? That is a flaw in the system.

  White knighting? This is just a discussion, and I'm not doing anything but arguing I actually believe the system is good. If me pointing out that people are misunderstanding the dev analogy and indeed the system at large in pretty ridiculous ways is white-knighting, then so be it.

  You believe it is good, but you admitted and conceded that it would be better if it considered team results. That is why you are white-knighting. My conclusion was A, you said YES! but NO! SYSTEM GOOD!

  The rest of your argument is honestly irrelevant to me. The system works to its intended, desired purpose regardless of "player types, human nature and other aspects of game design", and I for one consider the purpose of creating more even matches where players overall have more equal chances of being able to succeed by playing to the best of their abilities desirable regardless, and if it somehow encourages certain play more often through players' psychological and emotional response to it, and if there are issues with that type of play, then changes to the actual gameplay are in order, not however a different system that somehow absurdly tries to account for this.

  That is funny, because if the game wants to appeal to more people, it needs to consider these aspects.... but you don't really seem to care that it pushes people away. Just look on the feedback and the amount of people stating MMR is why they are leaving, totally irrelevant ofcourse and the system is clearly working as intended and eliminating parts of the games appeal to certain players. Job well done I guess.

  I think we've gone on quite long enough. This is not interesting for me anymore.

  Wooow... what a way to dismiss other angles on a topic. Such a disrespectful way to end this. I wish I read this part sooner... than I knew you don't actually care about a discussion, just want to 'win', 'be right' and not actually care about anyone else's input. You had no intent in actually having a discussion in good faith or an actual discussion - that is why you tend to be so long in your posts, you just like to hear yourself speak so to say.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta January 30, 2022

• @zarr said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2778330#Comment_2778330

  You literally ignore the human element of game design and the psychology behind it. Acting like players should care what the system believes instead of how the system impacts us. The developers cannot change people, they can change the system. You admitted a shift in overall aim to get kills and escapes compared to before and yet still act like it didn't?

  Even if the system and specifically its per-survivor survival metric had huge effects on the human psyche and thereby the way in which many people play the game, that is not relevant for the proper functioning of the system to create matches with more even chances of success, which is deemed the desirable target and its only purpose. Sure, you could then say you personally dislike the type of gameplay it "promotes" through people's irrational psychological response to it, and I could say, well, that's just your opinion; the game is not strictly a team game, a designer or indeed a player may very well see and enjoy it as a solo suvival mission experience, and you can absolutely argue that a game where you have a group of players that have the same objectives but are not strictly a team rather individual actors with possibly selfish goals makes for some very interesting and worthwhile dynamics (keyword: game theory) that a game that is actually strictly a team game where everybody either succeeds or fails only as a team-entity does not have.

  Secondly, I don't believe that it actually has that big of an effect on people, psychologically or otherwise. But sure, I believe it has a non-0 effect in that regard. Refer to the first point to see that this may not even be seen a negative effect however.

  Thirdly, even if it did have a big effect, people that themselves find it in them to get over their irrational psyche and realize that the rating isn't a ladder, let alone toward some type of reward, can simply start again caring more about and playing for whatever they actually care about in the game instead of caring about that rating and playing in ways to increase it. And they will meet more like-minded players in more even matches as a result.

  Finally, I am convinced that correct, skilled teamplay that consistently (over many matches) leads to increased survival chances and rates of groups, will also consistently lead to increased survival chances and rates of the individual players that employ it (over many matches). That's why I think the system already "rewards" (selects for, rates based on) such teamplay skills and performances even when looking at it on a per-survivor basis.

  You don't get that an MMR system that can award both sides with a win has a mathematical issue, as that is quite easily possible to achieve even.

  No, you don't get that the system mathematically doesn't award both sides a win. A 3-kill, 1-escape match is not a win for the survivor side, it's 3 losses and 1 win. There is no issue with this because not all survivor players gain rating in this case where their "side" lost (sub-50% "team" survival rate), it's only 1 survivor, and through the mathematical MMR logic of many matches, this survivor will be adjusted accordingly - if they keep surviving they have to get rating increases because their personal survival rate is meant to also approach 50%, if they are somehow managing to constantly survive and exceeding that rate, you have to assume they are that good at surviving and need tougher opposition that is better at killing... and if they aren't actually that good and would not regularly survive at higher ratings, they will start dying again and fall back to the proper rating and all is well.

  And this is again ignoring that singular matches do not affect ratings a lot, and that instances such as that are outliers that don't over many matches affect rating much at all even if they would make for big shifts in ratings after a single match. A survivor escaping through gates in matches where 3 others die is fairly uncommon and unlikely to begin with, and it gets increasingly more unlikely for it to always be a specific survivor that is the one escaping in such scenarios, particularly because that would also mean their own performance is so bad that they even find themselves consistently in matches where 75% of survivors die to begin with. And if they are actually merely carried to an escape by those 3 people sacrificing themselves for them as you suggested, they will most likely be dying again the very next round.

  Once you get down to it in the end claim to actually agree with my feedback on the system on how to make it better. So, even if we don't 100% see eye to eye on the details, which is fine, we come to the same conclusion.

  I agree with you on how to make it better, but not on the reasons why that would make it better. But yes, ultimately it's fine and doesn't matter, even if we hadn't come to the same conclusion as to what should be done (because BHVR won't base their decisions on our conclusions).

  Like what is your point? You are just arguing for the sake of it and trying to justify the current system while simulationsly agreeing with the change I propose?

  Given how many times I'm repeating myself, I think me enjoying arguing for the sake of it has to play into this. But it's definitely gotten to a point where I don't feel like reapeating stuff anymore. And yet...

  My point originally was to explain the ways in which you were misunderstanding the system. Like many, you think it somehow cannot be working correctly if a survivor can survive in a given match while their "team" dies and "win" doing so, or if a survivor can die in a given match while their "team" lives and "lose". That is because looking at singular results cannot be used to understand the system's logic. But the system's logic is sound, and even with the per-survivor metric, it works with regards to achieving the thing it is designed to.

  Like others, you also stepped into the trap of thinking it a "reward"-based system, and continue to fail to understand that not only is your rating being adjusted up/down not a reward or punishment, but being matched with more like-minded and like-abled players (who will end up at similar ratings as you by the nature of how the system works) is actually desirable, and so if you have a playstyle where you for example sacrifice yourself for others, losing rating in such instances is if anything a "reward", since it will lead you further on the path of more often being paired with like-minded teammates that also are willing to die for their teammates (including for you!).

  You were also confused on their use of the term "skill", and what it means in the context of the system. Simply put, "skill" in this context is not just anything a player can do that could be classified as skilled, it is specifically anything a player can do in order to increase their winrates over many matches. And if they actually do win consistently, the rating will adjust to that, not because it wants to reward "skilled" players with a high rating, but because it has to assume players that win consistently are "skilled" at winning, and should be facing other players assumed to be comparably as "skilled" at winning (similarly-rated players). Because that makes for more even matches and better gameplay experiences for everyone involved, on average. It does not make an actual "skill" judgement or let alone reward anyone based on them, it just looks at the actual winrate and then the assumption that people that consistently manage to win (and do so against increasingly more highly-rated opposition) are "skilled" at the things that lead to wins naturally follows. What these things are is irrelevant for the functioning of the system, and the system doesn't care whether a player is actually "skilled", not even at the things that lead to wins. The system only cares whether a player wins more (or less) than 50% of the time, because then it needs to move them somewhere where they get closer to the 50% ideal.

  Finally, I just found it worthwhile to use the discussion to highlight that contrary to your assumption, even the per-survivor metric does account for teamplay, as the latter correlates with the former. That is not a point OP/the devs made/makes, and it is not necessary to make for the system, but I find it is a good point and something you could perhaps even experiment with yourself? Maybe try and record your personal survival rate and your group survival rate for the next 100 matches, and play 50 as you would normally, i. e. altruistically, and 50 very "selfishly". Of course, you should be honest in your play, because you don't have anyone to convince but yourself.

  Your logic has some big assumptions attached to them, if the data sample is just big enough... the issue with that is that the players don't experience that huge amount of games, they experience the far more volatile numbers at the beginning of those curves and respond to that. The system is designed for humans not the other way around, you cannot look at it in a vacuum.

  Good argument. Mind you, edge-case scenarios will still be edge-case scenarios, they aren't more likely to occur just because you have a small sample size... but they do impact the experience of players more if they do occur on small sample sizes (play 10 games a week and 2 ######### games make for 20% of your experience that week), and this is also the primary reason why I agree with the switch to even a purely group-based survival metric, because it should arrive more quickly (over fewer matches) at the appropriate ratings.

  But if BHVR is working on a hybridized approach, I can't doubt their reasoning. They have the actual numbers, the actual programming, the actual math, they are actually internally looking at proofs of their concepts and not just discussing at length in principle like we are, and they of course have their own reasons/intentions behind changes they make that may be very foreign to our perspectives on the game.

  Also the point about risk reward is that it might not often pay out, but at it stands now it never does.

  A rating increase is not a "pay out". The reward of those risky plays is the adrenaline, the gameplay they yield, and if they work out, the reward is having helped another player survive, the inherent feeling of success that comes with that.

  And that's beside the point that any teamplays that do work out (that aren't literally you going back into the map when the gates are already open) also do increase your personal survival chances over many matches.

  Game design is about more than just, is the system functioning. One has to evaluate how people respond to it. Therefore you acting like it is irrelevant is the whole difference in view point. You can state people should just change, but that is not something that BHVR has any control over. The question is whether the system is having its desired overall result. I am not opposed to a MMR system, yet I don't think that all results are desirable in its current iteration due to how the win is defined. You like using the big number analogy, but it also applies to a small % of players changing their behavior is still a ton of people and dismissing this is just showcasing a disconnect to the overall product. The MMR is supposed to make the game better after all.

  Stating that the system evaluates is on a survivor basis, but then when I point out that the killer wins overall the match as well as a survivor. To then fall back on the 4v1 overall aspect is the whole point of that argument, as it only applies to the killer. In a single match the killer and survivor are deemed winners in these cases and that is just reality. In a MMR system you shouldn't have the opposing forces both win. The survivors are not judged as a whole, so you cannot state and hold on to overall the survivors lost! Yet that one survivor won, while their opponent also won! From a pure system point of view this is undesirable. You keep stating how irrelevant the other survivors are and that is the basis of what I am talking about. The devs pointed out weird things happen to the math in cases where both sides can win and this is reflected in the survivors end of the system. It is hypocritical to state it is an individual evaluation for survivor, but when an issue with that is pointed out to then go... but the team!

  Skill is not some arbitrary word it has a meaning. The fact that the devs misuse it doesn't make it change its meaning. They use kills and escapes as a proxy for skill and I even stated that they still can if they used it as a 4v1, one team versus another. Yet those edge cases as you call it are important if you start considering individual players within a team, especially some of them aren't as edgy at all and are experienced quite frequently. That is the difference between the systems functionality and the player perspective, as they don't work with big data and just a small portion while experiencing these so called edge cases on a quite frequent level.

  I am not going to run an experiment of a 100 games, unless you are willing to pay me and hire me long term. This is the whole issue, 100 games is for many people a huge amount of games to play. Yet you go like, well just go play 100 games in an experiment. I am for the type of life I have a pretty avid gamer and I play like 20ish games a week, maybe 30? Therefore 100 is 5 weeks of pure dedication... this is my hobby not my job.

  The problem with your reward is the adrenaline, the gameplay is that people are looking at it through the lens of intrinsic motivation. From the game point of view all you can be doing is losing out. There is no reason given by the game to do it and it even states it is the wrong thing to do. If your game relies solely on players personal motivations it is bad design. The design should promote the creation of these interactions, the adrenaline pumping, the game play, the fun... not a system that says, don't do it you will lose or at best play even to what you have now.

  If BHVR makes a hybrid, more accurate, better improved version of the system, I will judge it at that time based on those premises. I however am not going to white knight for them over something they haven't done yet. There are more ways to improve the system and I am not claiming that the suggestion I am making is either perfect or the only way to do it. I judge things based on what they are now and not some misguided fortune teller premise.

  Btw. no not every teamplay move even during the map will increase your personal survival chances. Making such claims just showcases a complete lack of understanding of the game. Simple examples: Bubba is face camping, trying to body block against a Myers with a T3 at 99%, etc. etc. there is far more nuance to this game than you give it credit for. Yet the developers are supposed to consider these things in their choices, going like it is to difficult, to complex is just a flat out cop-out it is literally their job. They promoted it as a skilled based match making system, yet on that end they fall flat because they allow both survivors and killers to win in the same game.

  The fact is you are white knighting for a system you yourself believe would be improved by an approach more focused on team play. Whether you see each aspect in the same light as me is irrelevant and not of actual concern. You however act like I don't understand the systems in play while frankly I just look beyond a singular system and as a product as a whole. I consider player types, human nature and other aspects of game design that should govern the decisions made rather than, does this work in a vacuum.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta January 29, 2022

• @zarr said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2778330#Comment_2778330

  You literally ignore the human element of game design and the psychology behind it. Acting like players should care what the system believes instead of how the system impacts us. The developers cannot change people, they can change the system. You admitted a shift in overall aim to get kills and escapes compared to before and yet still act like it didn't?

  Even if the system and specifically its per-survivor survival metric had huge effects on the human psyche and thereby the way in which many people play the game, that is not relevant for the proper functioning of the system to create matches with more even chances of success, which is deemed the desirable target and its only purpose. Sure, you could then say you personally dislike the type of gameplay it "promotes" through people's irrational psychological response to it, and I could say, well, that's just your opinion; the game is not strictly a team game, a designer or indeed a player may very well see and enjoy it as a solo suvival mission experience, and you can absolutely argue that a game where you have a group of players that have the same objectives but are not strictly a team rather individual actors with possibly selfish goals makes for some very interesting and worthwhile dynamics (keyword: game theory) that a game that is actually strictly a team game where everybody either succeeds or fails only as a team-entity does not have.

  Secondly, I don't believe that it actually has that big of an effect on people, psychologically or otherwise. But sure, I believe it has a non-0 effect in that regard. Refer to the first point to see that this may not even be seen a negative effect however.

  Thirdly, even if it did have a big effect, people that themselves find it in them to get over their irrational psyche and realize that the rating isn't a ladder, let alone toward some type of reward, can simply start again caring more about and playing for whatever they actually care about in the game instead of caring about that rating and playing in ways to increase it. And they will meet more like-minded players in more even matches as a result.

  Finally, I am convinced that correct, skilled teamplay that consistently (over many matches) leads to increased survival chances and rates of groups, will also consistently lead to increased survival chances and rates of the individual players that employ it (over many matches). That's why I think the system already "rewards" (selects for, rates based on) such teamplay skills and performances even when looking at it on a per-survivor basis.

  You don't get that an MMR system that can award both sides with a win has a mathematical issue, as that is quite easily possible to achieve even.

  No, you don't get that the system mathematically doesn't award both sides a win. A 3-kill, 1-escape match is not a win for the survivor side, it's 3 losses and 1 win. There is no issue with this because not all survivor players gain rating in this case where their "side" lost (sub-50% "team" survival rate), it's only 1 survivor, and through the mathematical MMR logic of many matches, this survivor will be adjusted accordingly - if they keep surviving they have to get rating increases because their personal survival rate is meant to also approach 50%, if they are somehow managing to constantly survive and exceeding that rate, you have to assume they are that good at surviving and need tougher opposition that is better at killing... and if they aren't actually that good and would not regularly survive at higher ratings, they will start dying again and fall back to the proper rating and all is well.

  And this is again ignoring that singular matches do not affect ratings a lot, and that instances such as that are outliers that don't over many matches affect rating much at all even if they would make for big shifts in ratings after a single match. A survivor escaping through gates in matches where 3 others die is fairly uncommon and unlikely to begin with, and it gets increasingly more unlikely for it to always be a specific survivor that is the one escaping in such scenarios, particularly because that would also mean their own performance is so bad that they even find themselves consistently in matches where 75% of survivors die to begin with. And if they are actually merely carried to an escape by those 3 people sacrificing themselves for them as you suggested, they will most likely be dying again the very next round.

  Once you get down to it in the end claim to actually agree with my feedback on the system on how to make it better. So, even if we don't 100% see eye to eye on the details, which is fine, we come to the same conclusion.

  I agree with you on how to make it better, but not on the reasons why that would make it better. But yes, ultimately it's fine and doesn't matter, even if we hadn't come to the same conclusion as to what should be done (because BHVR won't base their decisions on our conclusions).

  Like what is your point? You are just arguing for the sake of it and trying to justify the current system while simulationsly agreeing with the change I propose?

  Given how many times I'm repeating myself, I think me enjoying arguing for the sake of it has to play into this. But it's definitely gotten to a point where I don't feel like reapeating stuff anymore. And yet...

  My point originally was to explain the ways in which you were misunderstanding the system. Like many, you think it somehow cannot be working correctly if a survivor can survive in a given match while their "team" dies and "win" doing so, or if a survivor can die in a given match while their "team" lives and "lose". That is because looking at singular results cannot be used to understand the system's logic. But the system's logic is sound, and even with the per-survivor metric, it works with regards to achieving the thing it is designed to.

  Like others, you also stepped into the trap of thinking it a "reward"-based system, and continue to fail to understand that not only is your rating being adjusted up/down not a reward or punishment, but being matched with more like-minded and like-abled players (who will end up at similar ratings as you by the nature of how the system works) is actually desirable, and so if you have a playstyle where you for example sacrifice yourself for others, losing rating in such instances is if anything a "reward", since it will lead you further on the path of more often being paired with like-minded teammates that also are willing to die for their teammates (including for you!).

  You were also confused on their use of the term "skill", and what it means in the context of the system. Simply put, "skill" in this context is not just anything a player can do that could be classified as skilled, it is specifically anything a player can do in order to increase their winrates over many matches. And if they actually do win consistently, the rating will adjust to that, not because it wants to reward "skilled" players with a high rating, but because it has to assume players that win consistently are "skilled" at winning, and should be facing other players assumed to be comparably as "skilled" at winning (similarly-rated players). Because that makes for more even matches and better gameplay experiences for everyone involved, on average. It does not make an actual "skill" judgement or let alone reward anyone based on them, it just looks at the actual winrate and then the assumption that people that consistently manage to win (and do so against increasingly more highly-rated opposition) are "skilled" at the things that lead to wins naturally follows. What these things are is irrelevant for the functioning of the system, and the system doesn't care whether a player is actually "skilled", not even at the things that lead to wins. The system only cares whether a player wins more (or less) than 50% of the time, because then it needs to move them somewhere where they get closer to the 50% ideal.

  Finally, I just found it worthwhile to use the discussion to highlight that contrary to your assumption, even the per-survivor metric does account for teamplay, as the latter correlates with the former. That is not a point OP/the devs made/makes, and it is not necessary to make for the system, but I find it is a good point and something you could perhaps even experiment with yourself? Maybe try and record your personal survival rate and your group survival rate for the next 100 matches, and play 50 as you would normally, i. e. altruistically, and 50 very "selfishly". Of course, you should be honest in your play, because you don't have anyone to convince but yourself.

  Your logic has some big assumptions attached to them, if the data sample is just big enough... the issue with that is that the players don't experience that huge amount of games, they experience the far more volatile numbers at the beginning of those curves and respond to that. The system is designed for humans not the other way around, you cannot look at it in a vacuum.

  Good argument. Mind you, edge-case scenarios will still be edge-case scenarios, they aren't more likely to occur just because you have a small sample size... but they do impact the experience of players more if they do occur on small sample sizes (play 10 games a week and 2 ######### games make for 20% of your experience that week), and this is also the primary reason why I agree with the switch to even a purely group-based survival metric, because it should arrive more quickly (over fewer matches) at the appropriate ratings.

  But if BHVR is working on a hybridized approach, I can't doubt their reasoning. They have the actual numbers, the actual programming, the actual math, they are actually internally looking at proofs of their concepts and not just discussing at length in principle like we are, and they of course have their own reasons/intentions behind changes they make that may be very foreign to our perspectives on the game.

  Also the point about risk reward is that it might not often pay out, but at it stands now it never does.

  A rating increase is not a "pay out". The reward of those risky plays is the adrenaline, the gameplay they yield, and if they work out, the reward is having helped another player survive, the inherent feeling of success that comes with that.

  And that's beside the point that any teamplays that do work out (that aren't literally you going back into the map when the gates are already open) also do increase your personal survival chances over many matches.

  Game design is about more than just, is the system functioning. One has to evaluate how people respond to it. Therefore you acting like it is irrelevant is the whole difference in view point. You can state people should just change, but that is not something that BHVR has any control over. The question is whether the system is having its desired overall result. I am not opposed to the MMR system, yet I don't think that all results are desirable due to how the win is defined. You like using the big number analogy, but it also applies to a small % of players changing their behavior is still a ton of people.

  Stating that the system evaluates is on a survivor basis, but then when I point out that the killer wins overall the match as well as a survivor. To then fall back on the 4v1 overall aspect is the whole point of that argument, as it only applies to the killer. In a single match the killer and survivor are deemed winners, in a MMR system you shouldn't have the opposing forces both win. The survivors are not judged as a whole, so you cannot then go but overall the survivors lost! As for that survivor they won! However their opponent also won! From a pure system point of view. You keep stating how irrelevant the other survivors are and that is the basis of what I am talking about. This creates a mathematical discrepancy and as the devs pointed out weird things happen.

  Skill is not some arbitrary word it has a meaning. The fact that the devs misuse it doesn't make it change its meaning. They use kills and escapes as a proxy for skill and I even stated that they still can. Yet those edge cases as you call it are important, especially some of them aren't as edgy at all and are experienced quite frequently. That is the difference between the systems functionality and the player perspective. These matter from the game design point of view.

  50 games can be extremely volatile, for someone that points to data sizes as much as you do I would expect that you would understand it has little meaning. It would not convince or prove a point. It is like using streaks as a statement of balance. For a player 100games can seem like much, but for a system it is peanuts.

  The problem with your reward is the adrenaline, the gameplay is that people are looking at it through the lens of intrinsic motivation. From the game point of view all you can be doing is losing out. There is no reason given by the game to do it and it even states it is the wrong thing to do. If your game relies soley on players personal motivations it is bad design.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta January 29, 2022

• @zarr said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2777335#Comment_2777335

  Yeah, matchmaking issues such as "expedited backfill" for one thing, as DesignDad pointed out. While the logic behind the ratings is sound, the system is definitely not functioning perfectly, personally I'm somewhat skeptical just how accurately ratings at the "soft" cap predict success rates and whether the top MMR realm isn't still too inconsistent for that reason, but then again, the "top" realm will always have player availability issues more than any other bracket, and even in a healthy MMR system you actually want wild matchups for players every then and again, in both directions. Not only because chaos can be fun in DbD (in the past the devs had even intended to "embrace" this chaos with the matchmaking somehow, whatever the long-scrapped ideas for that looked like), but also because they function as "checks" for the system and players alike too, think "periodic placement matches" that some games employed from what I've gathered.

  Either way, even ignoring my personal and anecdotal experiences with the system that I talked about briefly in an earlier reply to you, I find it hard to argue with the numbers. Global average kill rates are coalescing around the 50% target more closely than they've ever been (for example: 40-66% in October 2020, to 49-58% recently; from 26% to 9%, an almost 3-fold increase in across-the-board "live balance", and even if you look at the more fair standard deviation of all killer characters from 50%, you go from 4% in 2020 to 1.9% now, still a two-fold improvement), and the devs also explicitly talked some numbers on the system earlier on:

  The most recent SBMM test resulted in fairer matches across the board for players of all skill levels, especially low-to-mid skilled players. High skill players would see the most variance in their matches due to the low number of players with high ratings (it’s lonely at the top!), though their matches would still be more consistent compared to Rank-Based Matchmaking.

  During peak hours, 99% of matches formed were what we consider reasonably balanced, with your odds of escaping or killing a Survivor varying within +/- 25% of the average. Better yet, 75% of matches fell within a +/- 5% chance. This is a huge step up from Rank-Based Matchmaking where 99% of matches saw a 45% variation, and 75% of matches saw a 25% variation.

  From: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/276774/developer-update-september-2021#latest

  While the top MMR realm is likely still noticably more off the target than the global averages, I can't imagine any character is actually averaging 70-80% there like we'd seen in the red rank past (although Twins might be). And most of the top players in my region do have noticably more competitive matches more often (think 1 in 10 rather than 1 in 100).

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2777787#Comment_2777787

  You agree with me that a group-based survival metric would be better and yet try to prove me wrong.

  I never stated that the current system is not a functioning system, I stated that it promotes the wrong aspects of the game

  I agree that using a group-based survival metric would be better because I suspect it arrives at appropriate player ratings more quickly than using the per-survivor survival metric, that's it. I don't even think they arrive at notably different ratings, given large enough samples sizes.

  That doesn't change anything about it being objectively wrong that the system itself "promotes" any type of gameplay. Sure, people's false perception of it as a sort of "ranking" that "determines" "skill" and you'd have to "go up" perhaps does actually affect their feelings and therefore in-game decisions somewhat, and for that reason I can kinda see why tying it to group survival might kinda in some cases maybe lead someone to play "for the team" more than they otherwise perhaps would have (and this is nice if you find this desirable, which you however do not necessarily have to, again, the devs do not strictly think of DbD as a "team" game, and there can be arguments for and against doing so, even if I as you lean toward wanting for them to embrace it as a team-centered game more strictly), but as I've pointed out, not only do I think that this will not actually change much at all in the grand scheme of things because most people have always cared about their own survival more than that of other players and did not suddenly start doing so just because their invisible matchmaking rating is based on their personal survival and won't stop doing so just because it then isn't exclusively based on it anymore (remember: even from a group survival perspective and even if you for some reason care about rating changes more than other, tangible stuff that can inform your game decisions, risking your own life to try and rescue others is only "worth it" if it results in the survival of at least 1 more survivor, that is, if you yourself don't die and the person you rescued actually doesn't die and would have otherwise actually died, or if you die but at least 2 other persons that would have otherwise actually died as a result don't - in every other case you risking yourself is actually a bad play from a group survival perspective too!)... but even if it did actually notably change people's decisions, that would not lead to very different ratings or matchups, over enough matches, because I'm not actually convinced that people that play "for the team" die disproportionally more often than people that don't to begin with, for the various reasons I've repeatedly pointed out; on average, the people that have a higher rating now are already the people that have actually-good teamplay skills/performances, and actually-selfish players that play in ways to survive that are actually to the detriment of the group's overall survival already have a lower rating on average.

  Yet the developers themselves have stated that if both sides can win at the same time this is a reason for concern and here you are proving the point: The killer wins and the survivor wins? This is a 4v1 game, yet you are creating a situation where both sides of the versus can be winning at the same time. [...] The current system ignores the fact that the killer wins overall in the match when only one survivor escapes and still hands the win to the survivor as well.

  Yeah, no, this is just mathematically wrong. You really need to understand that the rating system is entirely mathematical, and think about what that means.

  The system does not "ignore" that the killer wins overall in a 3-kill match, because they gain rating from killing the 3. Even in the most ridiculous edge-case mis-matchups, the rating they lose from that one survivor escaping is very unlikely to make up for the rating they gain from killing the other 3 (it might actually literally be impossible), and for the vanishingly rare edge-cases where this could perhaps happen, you can again refer to the mathematical functioning of the system that lhat looks at many matches and averages, and see that such outliers will not affect things much at all over many iterations.

  I have not disputed this nor do I disagree with this statement. Yet as you admitted yourself: a group-based survival metric is better.

  Again, I agree (and have agreed since my very first post in this thread and indeed other threads before it) that using a group-based survival metric is better for reasons I have pointed out many times now. It leading to more desirable playing experiences is not one of those reasons, precisely because the system works to do that regardless of the way people play and regardless of the rating they have. I've explained this in every other post now: Even if "teamplayers" actually consistently died more often than "selfish" players as you claim, in the current per-survivor metric paradigm those "teamplayers" would populate lower rating brackets, where they get paired with other such "teamplayers" and against killers they can on average themselves escape against 50% of the time playing this way. The only thing you would change in this regard by switching to the group-based metric is that such players would all have an arbitrarily higher rating, meet each other at those new rating brackets, with killers they would still be expected to survive on average 50% of the time against... Similar players have similar ratings, and they equate to nudging them toward a 50% survival rate (personally and "as a team" because those are mathematically the same thing) in such similarly-rated matchups. That is just as true now as it would be then. The only difference I think the group-based survival metric makes is that the players will arrive at those respectively appropriate ratings where they more often have 50% success chances with fewer matches needed to get them there.

  Are they now, that is not something I have seen at all nor any implication of that based on their Q&A.

  From https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/306073/developer-qna-stream-summary-20th-january-2022:

  However, we're looking at some improvements to the current system. An example is to take team results into account with survivors, in addition to the personal result. This takes some time, there's a lot of fun math[s] which I could talk about forever, but we need to prove it's working, that's there's value in it, there's correlations, and so on. More details on that- on SBMM in general- are on our most recent dev blog.

  And from https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768672/#Comment_2768672:

  Improving the algorithm to take into account team results is also underway. Originally, we didn’t pursue this approach because Survivors can leave a game and start searching for their next one before the previous game had completed, meaning there were no results available for updating their MMR. This is one area where the solo-result system has an advantage, as soon as you are done in a game your MMR can be updated.

  In reality, the MMR adjustment from a single game is small enough that you likely won’t notice a difference in opponent from match to match as MMR adjustments are meant to show impact over many games, not just 1 or 2. Our hope is that we can hybridize the system and use both team results and personal results to generate an even more accurate MMR that contains the benefits of both approaches!

  The rating adjustments from singular matches are indeed small enough such that any potential delays in rating adjustments shouldn't matter.

  Btw. you contradict yourself with that: the system promotes nothing, it doesn't reward you, it isn't something that people aim for... while you admit that players do care more about escaping and kills. Regardless of whether they should need to care or not, human nature is to try and improve to climb the ranks and how a large portion of people respond to a system being in place is just the reality.

  That's not me contradicting myself, that's people's feelings contradicting reality. The system does not actually promote anything by its functioning in and of itself, objectively. In fact, "promote" itself is a loaded word that only comes up here because this system interacts with humans, who have subjective and at times irrational reasons for doing things. If the system were to deal with AI bots instead, those bots would just play to achieve any game objectives that has been set for them, and you could change the "win condition" of the matchmaking in any way without it at all affecting how those bots play, because it doesn't functionally promote any gameplay changes.

  Any player rationally looking at the game realizes that their decisions should not be affected by the matchmaking system in and of itself, because it doesn't have positive or negative incentives either way. The only reason why someone would actually want for their rating to increase is that they want more competitive, head-to-head, even matches than they otherwise would get or did get in the past... and that is precisely what the system is meant to do to begin with and would do regardless of it calculating ratings on a per-survivor or group basis.

  Play for Bloodpoints, hooks, chases, kills, escapes or whatever you want if you find those things worthwhile and fun or otherwise rewarding, but playing for your invisible rating to increase just for the sake of... an increased invisible rating, is just irrational. And you personally said you feel like it is not "counting" the stuff you do for your team if you die, and while I will again point out that it does over many matches do count that stuff because on average it will lead to an increased survival rate for yourself as well, even if it didn't, you would still be feeling "mistreated" by the system for no real reason. If you want to play to save teammates and don't care if you die for it, so what if your invisible rating decreases in such cases? You achieved the thing you yourself chose and played for! And if you feel more bad about your rating decreasing than you feel good about achieving your personal objective... do the thing that makes you feel better if you prefer, and play for your own survival in such cases.

  I did admit that some people are somewhat affected in their feelings by the system, and their behaviour is in part affected by such feelings, but I've also noted that overall I doubt it makes much of a difference. I'm pretty confident wagering that most of the people that care and play for personal survival to the detriment of the group's overall survival now have done so before MMR and would do so in a future without it. And most people just "casually" care for their own survival first and foremost, without even thinking about it or let alone about the system much (which, it might be worth noting, is not actually something everyone actually knows about - there's probably hundreds of thousands of players that don't actually know it's based on per-survivor survival, many likely don't even know MMR exists at all, or that it is based on killing and surviving, hell, there's still tons of people that think matchmaking is Grades-based...). To actually make the game more strictly team-centered, I'd want actual base-game changes that increase teamwork gameplay, and functionally make groups win as a team, anything short of that likely won't change much about people's desire to personally succeed regardless of their team (however, again, I'm convinced personal desire to succeed/personal success rates do correlate very closely with group success chances/rates, for various reasons, and so there isn't a real problem here in my mind anyway).

  The issue is that most people do care, you don't see as many people go back into the map for a fun and risk play as they know the system doesn't have any reward for doing it...

  Nor does it have any reward for not doing it, and doing it is often much more thrilling, engaging, fun, etc. than just ditching. People are standing in their own way, it is not the system. But even that is not really an issue, as I will explain again:

  The people that do not care about the rating and do go back into the map for someone else even if the gates are open and do die doing so will decrease in rating, yeah? That means if someone plays that way consistently and it consistently leads to them dying, they will more consistently be paired with other such players that also do not care about the rating and rather go back into the map. It's a self-solving "issue" because the people that care about surviving (or the rating) and just dip out will rise in ratings and get matched with and against other people that care more about surviving/killing (or the rating), whereas players such as perhaps yourself, will more often meet more players that care about altruistic play more, even to their own detriment in terms of surviving.

  While I might want to go back into the field to try and get that risky save, I cannot do it alone. Therefore yes, there is a reason why I care about what it promotes as a solo survivor as it affects how the team plays and it has very little to do with my number going up or down. Before the MMR system pretty much most people would try, now it is a small fraction of players and trust me dying isn't making any difference. Maybe I would need to raise my rank in the hopes the grass is greener on the other side, but isn't that exactly the issue? People want good teammates, so they want to increase their rank even if they cannot see it. They want to have a sense of improvement and the developers stated how to achieve that: escape.

  If playing that way does consistently result in "dying for the team", you would meet more like-minded players at lower ratings and should not want to go up in ratings to begin with.

  And I'll point out again that such plays would not actually be "rewarded" by the system (increased rating) unless you risking yourself actually results in at least one more survivor surviving than otherwise would have. Again, regularly such risky plays would not and do not lead to a better result from a group survival perspective either, quite the contrary. (And any teamplay that does consistently increase group survival I argue already also leads to increased personal survival of players that employ correct and skilled teamplay, and very predictably so over many matches, meaning the personal survival metric already accounts for it closely enough (just it takes more time to get there so I do want them to use the group survival metric).)

  You literally ignore the human element of game design and the psychology behind it. Acting like players should care what the system does instead of how the system impacts us. The developers cannot change people, they can change the system. You admitted a shift in overall aim to get kills and escapes compared to before and yet still act like it didn't or shouldn't?

  You don't get that an MMR system that can award both sides with a win has a mathematical issue, as that is quite easily possible to achieve even. As even elaborated in the section on hooks to evaluate MMR query.

  Once you get down to it in the end claim to actually agree with my feedback on the system on how to make it better. So, even if we don't 100% see eye to eye on the details, which is fine, we come to the same conclusion.

  Like what is your point? You are just arguing for the sake of it and trying to justify the current system while simulationsly agreeing with the change I propose?

  Your logic has some big assumptions attached to them, if the data sample is just big enough... the issue with that is that the players don't experience that huge amount of games, they experience the far more volatile numbers at the beginning of those curves and respond to that. The system is designed for humans not the other way around, you cannot look at it in a vacuum.

  Also the point about risk reward is that it might not often pay out, but at it stands now it never does.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta January 29, 2022

• @zarr said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2777025#Comment_2777025

  The problem here is perception, you purely look on whether it is a functioning system and that is not something I am arguing against. It is about the effects and what the system promotes and rewards. The 1v4 and 1v1 situations are not mathematically the same, while both options can create a functioning system and yet will not be identical. They promote different type of actions and decision processes to be made by the player base.

  Indeed, that would be a problem of your perception that the system "promotes" different types of actions. I don't know how often I have to repeat this, but there is no reward for gaining rating, none, nada. In turn, there is no MMR reward for utilizing or being good at the actions that lead to rating gains. Nor a punishment for the opposite, and as such no discouraging from any other type of actions.

  You claim it is not a team game, while stating clearly that a survivor cannot do it on their own. Yet the system promotes survivors not to care about the overall teams outcome unlike the comparisons made with team sports. Nobody states what about the goalies shot rate at the end of a season, because that is not the role they fulfill.

  It's getting increasingly more difficult for me to explain these things, because you are stepping into the same fallacious thought-traps over and over again despite me in my opinion pretty clearly pointing them out to you.

  It is not in fact a team game, and survivors can in fact "do it on their own" if by that we mean they can sometimes escape by playing in outright-selfish ways that are to the direct detriment of the team's overall chances of survival. The point is that 1. the system does not and hasn't got to care about whether the game is such or such in order to be able to function, it only cares about the win condition and how often people meet it, and selfish anti-team players fulfilling the win condition poses not a single issue for its functioning and indeed for the players (again, that would only mean selfish players face killier killers and more selfish teammates, while teamplayers face less killy killers and more teammatey teammates), and 2. playing in such ways will, over a large enough number of matches, not be beneficial for one's personal survival rate; players with teamplay skills will outperform selfish players even on the personal survival rate metric. (But before you say "no" again, keep in mind that even if that weren't the case, the system would still function and it would still not "promote" any type of gameplay, selfish or altruistic.)

  I will not even try to continue talking about the analogy.

  Saving in the end game is not worth it according to you, yet that is because the system removes any risk/reward mechanics that would be in play for instance there are 3 survivors with 0 hook states to try and do exchanges to try and get a 4th survivor out. There is no incentive to do so, because there is zero benefit to those other 3 survivors. If you have a system where the survivors are rewarded for the overall result, they could go for that play or go for the safe 3 man out and the one left behind would still gain a benefit instead of being the only person negatively impacted along side the killer.

  Playing for additional rescues in the endgame is as worth it as you yourself consider it to be. The "reward" people get for trying to rescue another survivor is the additional gameplay, the fun, the Bloodpoints, the Emblems, and the feeling of having made it happen should it work out, or perhaps the feeling of having sacrificed oneself for another survivor if you end up dying yourself instead. The matchmaking system is not supposed to set any incentives, any "rewards" for behaviour, it is only supposed to match players that are more similar in their success rates, their average performances, since that more often leads to situations where players even can make such decisions rather than being dominated so much little of it will matter.

  You really should stop thinking of the matchmaking system as something that "rewards" people. It is only supposed to match people such that their success chances are more even, and it can only do so by looking at the actual success metrics. And with regards to survival rate, it actually doesn't matter whether players play for their own or the "team" survival, because both are the same win condition mathematically, and over many matches will come out to about the same individual ratings for players. Again, I do agree that looking at group survival is beneficial, since it will arrive at those appropriate ratings faster.

  The metrics are not the same for killer and survivor, as the killers results are based on the final outcome while that of the survivors is not. All it comes down to is what is considered a win, a 1 man escape is not a win and yet the system states Yes it is. The opposite is however not true for a killer, a 1 kill is a loss from any reasonable mathematical point of view. You gain 20 and lose 60 aka a loss of 40 MMR (arbitrary numbers) if you are matched up equally, naturally it might be in a 2k a 18+16-22-24, but relatively which is what matters in a MMR system you stay about equal.

  A 1-man escape is considered a win... for 1 survivor of the team. The other 3 get a lowered rating. Again, over many matches, these rating adjustments will come out to the same results, and nudge toward 50% survival rates, which is the only purpose of MMR. More balanced matches in their chances of the players in them to succeed.

  I don't know what your math is trying to say, but even with your arbitrary numbers, the killer comes out to a -12 adjustment in that draw. Which is because 1v1 rating adjustments actually do not lead to +/-0 adjustments on the killer side either. Which is another reason why I agree that using a group-based survival metric is better, even for the killer, where you can simply look at a 2-kill result and say "the ratings should not be changed".

  Stating that there are no MMR rankings is simply false, the whole point of a MMR system is to rank people. You give them a number and place them in order. The issue people have is what the system defines as a win, you look at the game as a single player even if you join a team. Most people view it as a 4v1 game where the 4 are a team.

  The point of MMR is to match people with similarly-rated players such that they have more desirable playing experiences regardless of the way they play and regardless of the rating they have. You can play team-orientedly, you can play selfishly, you can play to win, you can play to hook, you can play to loot, you can play for BP... It doesn't matter for the system, it doesn't see a low-rated player as less "worthy" or "valuable", it only sees them as... lower-rated, for the purposes of matching them with other such lower-rated players.

  Most people care about their own survival more than any teammate's, often even in SWF. But that is just my conviction, regardless of it being true or not, this doesn't actually matter for the functioning of the system we are talking about here. A player caring about their own survival is still playing for a 50% survival rate, and 25% of "their team" (note: if 50% of 4 players achieve the goal of playing for their own survival, that adds up to 2 x 25% = 50% of the overall team survival goal also being achieved), and they also play for the "team" because the same objective completion that allows themselves to survive also allows for other survivors to survive, and in fact, other survivors surviving too allows themselves to survive more often. They do not actually have to "view" the game as a team game or "care" about their team for any of this to be true.

  You argue that it matches people in their approach to the game, but my entire argument is that it doesn't. My argument is that it would do just that if you would look at the final result and provide an increase / decrease based on how well your side did. It promotes those that will survive at any cost over those that play with a team mind set. The killers however are based on making as many survivors as possible die and would be best suited to face those with a team mind set... yet they don't climb as fast and far due to well them caring about the groups result and not their individual one.

  It doesn't promote anything. Even if you think selfish play more often leads to personal survival, why does the MMR rating play into your decision to play selfishly and for your personal survival? What reward are you getting? Tougher killers? Teammates that also have to be assumed to be selfish?

  Riddle me this: If players that care more about their team's survival than their own, and play in such ways to even sacrifice themselves for the greater good, and as a result die more consistently than selfish players... are not all of those teamplay players that care less about their personal survival more likely to end up at similar, lower brackets of the ratings, and as such more likely to end up getting paired with one another more often? This is literally what the system dictates based on your reasoning, how does it not match people based on their approach to the game? People that approach the game with the desire to win (kill/survive) as consistently as possible by using the most effective and efficient means to do so and are the best at consistently doing so even against similar players will end up at the highest ratings (and mind you, again, teamplay is absolutely part of those most effective means to consistently survive, very much so with regards to one's own survival as well), and the ratings below that will be an entire world of players with different types of approaches and levels of abilities and performances, likewise more regularly matched with more similar players. That's all the system is about.

  MMR systems don't need to go into the nitty gritty and nowhere in my argument did I say it does. Using escapes and kills is perfectly fine, the issue is that the escapes are a team effort and yet the result is not reflected on the whole team.

  I don't remember claiming you did say that, I only pointed out that the original analogy was only about that, and cautioned not to expand the analogy beyond that or to try and point out the ways in which hockey and DbD are different because the many ways in which they are indeed different don't matter, the analogy holds true with regards to the thing it was actually made in regards to.

  But all of this is pretty unnecessary at this point anyway: We agree that group-based survival should be used instead, and we know that BHVR is at least looking to implement a hybridized version of looking at individual and group survival. I should not be here anymore having this discussion anyway, I have barely used this time to instead... check the mid-chapter/event, for one thing.

  They are selling it as a Skill Based Match Making Ranking system and yet they don't account to the actual most skillful elements of a survivor: teamplay! Yet favour safe plays, risk aversion, selfish and sacrificial plays with solely your own survival in mind. One must consider the ramifications of what the system favours and how people will respond to that and is where the grievances with the system lies.

  They aren't really "selling" it, the "sale" of the matchmaking system is if anything simply the types of gameplay experiences they are hoping it will (and apparently does) yield more often. They are definitely not selling it as a "ranking" system, the ratings are literally invisible and they had literally tried - but failed - to keep the system's functioning in the background too, and we are in fact still ignorant to quite some aspects of it. And they've literally told people to "just play how they want, the rating will adjust to them". It is not a leaderboard, ladder, or rank system, at all. If you yourself think of it this way, that is your personal issue. If you die helping your team, and feel bad for getting a rating decrease for that, I'll argue you don't actually care about your "team", because you apparently feel worse about an invisible number changing in the background than you feel good about having achieved the personal objective you yourself claim to play for to begin with.

  I will admit that you are not the only one with that problem (if you have it). I think more players now care a little more about surviving (and sure, even surviving personally in certain situations where it can be detrimental to the overall "team's" survival), and a little more about killing. As opposed to other people I don't actually think camping, tunnelling, genrushing, good-window-abusing and all that stuff has suddenly sprung into existence, nor that players have now suddenly started to really care about killing and surviving (personal and otherwise) - I think overall the levels of trying to win (kill/survive) are... likely not very far from where they've always been. And for me personally, I can just play however I want anyway, and not care whether other people think the rating matters and play for it. And if they leave me to die on hook in order to get out the gates without taking a risk to save me... that's their prerogative, and I for one am not any more "upset" by that now than I had been before the introduction of MMR into DbD.

  It is funny that you claim that my perception is wrong and go on a tangent trying to prove me wrong, yet then turn around and state the following:

  Which is another reason why I agree that using a group-based survival metric is better, even for the killer, where you can simply look at a 2-kill result and say "the ratings should not be changed".

  Therefore what is your point here? I express how I believe the system could be better, while still using the arbitrary metrics of kills and escapes. You agree with me that a group-based survival metric would be better and yet try to prove me wrong.

  I never stated that the current system is not a functioning system, I stated that it promotes the wrong aspects of the game and it could be improved upon by actually looking at it under the lens of a 4v1 game, where the 4 are one team and the 1 is another team.

  A 1-man escape is considered a win... for 1 survivor of the team. The other 3 get a lowered rating. Again, over many matches, these rating adjustments will come out to the same results, and nudge toward 50% survival rates, which is the only purpose of MMR. More balanced matches in their chances of the players in them to succeed.

  Yet the developers themselves have stated that if both sides can win at the same time this is a reason for concern and here you are proving the point: The killer wins and the survivor wins? This is a 4v1 game, yet you are creating a situation where both sides of the versus can be winning at the same time. By their own accord situations where everyone wins creates weird math and does apply to these situations as much as it would to the extreme cases of 4 escapes and 8 hooks resulting in a win for everyone. The current system ignores the fact that the killer wins overall in the match when only one survivor escapes and still hands the win to the survivor as well.

  This is why I believe it would be far more beneficial to create a system that looks at the overall result for all players and based on how your side performed determine whether you should go up or down in rank.

  The point of MMR is to match people with similarly-rated players such that they have more desirable playing experiences regardless of the way they play and regardless of the rating they have. 

  I have not disputed this nor do I disagree with this statement. Yet as you admitted yourself: a group-based survival metric is better.

  But all of this is pretty unnecessary at this point anyway: We agree that group-based survival should be used instead, and we know that BHVR is at least looking to implement a hybridized version of looking at individual and group survival.

  Are they now, that is not something I have seen at all nor any implication of that based on their Q&A. It doesn't sound at all that they are considering any such system, because guess what that would need to mean that the MMR system would be lacking behind as a survivor does not need to wait for the match to finish before they enter the queue again. I believe they made it a 1v1v1v1v1 system because it was just the easier option and no delay would be in place (while I believe as it is about the accumulation over many matches that the delay is neglectable).

  Btw. you contradict yourself with that: the system promotes nothing, it doesn't reward you, it isn't something that people aim for... while you admit that players do care more about escaping and kills. Regardless of whether they should need to care or not, human nature is to try and improve to climb the ranks and how a large portion of people respond to a system being in place is just the reality.

  You can assume how I feel about anything all you want, but frankly trying to make it personal doesn't change the general result it is producing. The issue is that most people do care, you don't see as many people go back into the map for a fun and risk play as they know the system doesn't have any reward for doing it... it rewards them for not doing it. While I might want to go back into the field to try and get that risky save, I cannot do it alone. Therefore yes, there is a reason why I care about what it promotes as a solo survivor as it affects how the team plays and it has very little to do with my number going up or down. Before the MMR system pretty much most people would try, now it is a small fraction of players and trust me dying isn't making any difference. Maybe I would need to raise my rank in the hopes the grass is greener on the other side, but isn't that exactly the issue? People want good teammates, so they want to increase their rank even if they cannot see it. They want to have a sense of improvement and the developers stated how to achieve that: escape.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta January 28, 2022

• @zarr said:

  @Kalinikta

  Regarding your edit:

  The argument skilled players will more often escape, also applies to skilled players more often will get multiple people out. Yet where lies the more important metric in a 4v1 game, the one escape or the 4? It comes down to what is defined as a win, a 3k or 4k for the killer and yet a 1 escape is a win for survivors?

  Yes, this is again the problem where our intuitive understanding of a "balanced" result in a given match, clashes with the mathematical principle behind a system looking at many results of many matches. A 50% survival chance per-survivor will lead to a draw state in any game you look at out of a series on average. You can look at it from the 4v1 perspective or from the individual survivor perspective, mathematically it will be the same thing over many matches, 50%, even if in individual matches the rate is not actually 50% for every survivor (i. e. they actually lived or died, the survival "rate" for that one match being 0% or 100%).

  I've already provided a little bridge in our understand of this however, at least between the 4v1/1v1 thing: If you consider that every survivor player themselves is 25% of the overall win condition of the "team", you can start to realize how a survivor playing for their individual survivor is at the same time also playing for the "team" survival, even if they are the most heinous, selfish player that doesn't care about their team at all!

  Yet on the survivors end they throw that in the wind, it might have cost your team 3 people to die, but clearly that means you are ready for a bigger challenge?

  Actually, it does. Because if you consistently survive despite 3 people dying, that means you are somehow good at surviving. Of course, if you only survive because 3 people "died for you" (however this would even happen in one match, let alone consistently), you will only keep surviving until the 3 other people do not any longer die "for you". Which, frankly, will in all likeliness be in the very next round.

  Again, the system looks at many matches, and it is just not a thing that some survivor will consistently be surviving by the other 3 for some reason somehow sacrificing themselves for their escape, just like it is just not a thing that some other survivor will consistently be dying for some reason to somehow allow the 3 others to escape.

  The metrics are not in line with each other.

  Players better at surviving will survive more often over many matches than players worse at surviving, this is the simple truth, and it aligns perfectly simply with the killer metric of: players better at killing will kill more often over many matches than players worse at killing.

  Again, the distinction that teamplay exists for survivors is not meaningful, because the game is not strictly a team game, and doesn't have to be viewed as such in order for the game or the MMR system to basically function. It is also not meaningful in my view because I find it to be a blatant truth of how the game works that "teamplay" is just one more individual skill that contributes to individual survival chances/rates too.

  A killer is judged based on the 1v4 aspect of the game, the survivors however aren't promoted to see it as being part of the 4.

  Actually, I want this to be true and I hope in the future it will be, but it isn't true with the current system as far as we know.

  First, let me again mention that players being "judged" is not actually something somehow dramatic for them. If the system thinks they are not as good at winning as that player might think themselves they are (based on them not actually winning consistently at whatever rating they were at), worst case it will give them easier matches at lower ratings in which they have an easier time winning in (or a harder time not winning, if you will).

  But the killer is actually also "judged" (adjusted in rating) based on 1v1 maths against individual survivors. I've made a post in this thread earlier (crazy I know) lining out a simplified MMR logic based on what we currently know (https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2771002/#Comment_2771002), and in it I show that since killer rating adjustments are based on individual survivors, the killer could in theory actually lose MMR in draws (2-kill/2-escape scenarios) against mismatched groups. And against groups in which every 3-4 survivors are rated more highly than the killer, they could gain rating in a draw.

  Now let me be clear, it doesn't actually matter that the killer can lose or gain MMR in a draw, because either the draw was a fluke and they will keep up a 50% kill rate against more appropriately-rated players as well, or it wasn't and they will exceed/come short of the 50% kill rate, eventually falling or rising in rating more closely to what that average rating of those mismatched groups they drew against was. But it does mean that in the current system, a draw does not simply mean the killer gains +/-0 rating, it is not simply a draw from a 4v1 perspective in terms of MMR math.

  So not only do I agree with you that basing survivor rating adjustments on the group survival metric would be better (not primarily because it promotes seeing oneself as part of a team, but it does that too, which is good and maybe feels a little better if you die/escape "for your team's rating", even if the rating ultimately doesn't matter, and as I've said I want the game to move more in the direction of considering survivors as a "team" more strictly), but I also think killers should be judged on the group kill metric (remain at your current rating if you kill 2 survivors), and even the group average rating (rather than rating adjustments being made based on individual survivor ratings against the killer rating, they should be based on the survivor group's averaged rating against the killer rating, for every single survivor in the group).

  Survivor skill is about being capable of running the killer, breaking a 3-gen, being efficient on gens, being able to reset and all that to get as many people as possible out. Working together is required to get an escape through the doors, you won't do it solo and yet the system does not look at the final result and tries to claim a 1 escape is worthy of going up in rank while the whole reason they got out is also based on the overall teams performance.

  At this point I feel like what I'm saying is just not really getting through to you, which admittedly, might also be my fault being as verbose as I am. Let me try this in more succinct terms again:

  Survivors do all those things to get as many people as possible out, including themselves. In fact, most people probably care first and foremost about their own survival, and it just so happens to be tied to the same conditions that allow for other survivors' survival. And that's fine, the game is not strictly a team game, and either way, the MMR system can function properly regardless of selfish play, even if it were strictly a team game.

  Working together is regularly required to get an escape through the doors oneself as well. I'm not sure you had this in biology classes, but what we know as "altruism" colloquially is not actually necessarily a selfless act aimed at helping others achieve things at the exclusive cost of ourselves being able to achieve things.

  I'll leave a link to a pretty comprehensive discussion on this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological, but in order to try and keep it succinct as promised, refer to section 3.1 Altruism, Co-operation, Mutualism:

  Whatever term is used, the important point is that behaviours that benefit both self and others can evolve much more easily than altruistic behaviours, and thus require no special mechanisms such as kinship. The reason is clear: organisms performing such behaviours thereby increase their personal fitness, so are at a selective advantage vis-a-vis those not performing the behaviour. The fact that the behaviour has a beneficial effect on the fitness of others is a mere side-effect, or byproduct, and is not part of the explanation for why the behaviour evolves. For example, Sachs et al. (2004) note that an action such as joining a herd or a flock may be of this sort; the individual gains directly, via his reduced risk of predation, while simultaneously reducing the predation risk of other individuals.

  Often, people play "for the team" either because they know that will in turn increase their own survival chances as well, or simply because it is a byproduct of playing for one's own survival to begin with. Either way, in DbD it is glaringly obvious that teamplay increases the survival chances of everyone on the team, including that of the survivors that produce teamplay themselves. Over many matches, the survivors that use teamplay and are good at teamplay will themselves also survive more often than survivors do not use teamplay/are not as good at it.

  "Escape us worthy of going up in rank" - This is very loaded terminology. I will remind you again: The MMR rating has nothing to do with "worth", or the "value" of a player at large, nor is it a ladder or leaderboard, where you go "up in rank" toward some universally desirable goal at the top. Please stop thinking of it in this way, it is simply fundamentally flawed to do so. It doesn't actually matter if that survivor's rating goes up if they survive the sole person carried by the overall team performance - for one thing, the rating changes from one match are not dramatic enough to even change much of anything, but even they were, the people that died will get easier matches where their overall team performance can lead to more escapes, including their own, and the person that lived will get tougher matches where they will either keep escaping, or if they can't because they had only been carried there by the sacrifices of other players and their performances, they will then fall in rating and face more appropriate opponents again where they are able to survive more often, and without needing to be carried over the finish line by 3 survivors that die for them at that.

  Why does this matter? I am not a god runner, but I do tend to try and be a team player. The system specifically targets this play style and punishes it. While it might lead to the team winning more often, it by no means is a guarantee that the individual will escape. In the end this is a 1v4 game and I don't think the system of MMR should favor the selfish player over the team coordinated player, as the coordinated team players are exactly those that should rise the ranks.

  Again, more punitive/reward-type thinking. If you are a good team player and even willing to die for your teammates, the system is supposed to adjust your rating such that you will more often have matches in which your teamplay skills can actually make up for your other supposed lack of skills and allow you to actually contribute with your play to 2 survivors escaping on average, including yourself more often too!

  And if you don't actually mind dying for teammates, I wonder where the problem is at all, even if you consistently die to allow on average 2 other survivors in your matches to escape. That means you are achieving your personal altruistic team goal! And you falling in rating despite that should not matter to you. Again, if anything that will just mean your teamplay contributions may actually lead to more than 2 survivors escaping more often at some point.

  There are no MMR "ranks", a player at the very bottom of MMR is not a less "worthy" player than one at the very top, and there are no punishments or rewards for either player. Play however you want! Just know that the system "favours" anything that leads to winning (surviving, killing), be that selfish play, altruistic play, or everything else and inbetween, and it does so not because it finds those things good or bad, but because it wants to be able to match players based on their ratings such that they have an equal shot at winning, and more desirable matches as a result of not only that, but also the assumption that the players they are matched with and against are more similar to them, both in their survival/killing skills, but also in their approach to the game, such as how much they even personally care about survivak/killing.

  The problem here is perception, you purely look on whether it is a functioning system and that is not something I am arguing against. It is about the effects and what the system promotes and rewards. The 1v4 and 1v1 situations are not mathematically the same, while both options can create a functioning system and yet will not be identical. They promote different type of actions and decision processes to be made by the player base.

  You claim it is not a team game, while stating clearly that a survivor cannot do it on their own. Yet the system promotes survivors not to care about the overall teams outcome unlike the comparisons made with team sports. Nobody states what about the goalies shot rate at the end of a season, because that is not the role they fulfill.

  Saving in the end game is not worth it according to you, yet that is because the system removes any risk/reward mechanics that would be in play for instance there are 3 survivors with 0 hook states to try and do exchanges to try and get a 4th survivor out. There is no incentive to do so, because there is zero benefit to those other 3 survivors. If you have a system where the survivors are rewarded for the overall result, they could go for that play or go for the safe 3 man out and the one left behind would still gain a benefit instead of being the only person negatively impacted along side the killer.

  The metrics are not the same for killer and survivor, as the killers results are based on the final outcome while that of the survivors is not. All it comes down to is what is considered a win, a 1 man escape is not a win and yet the system states Yes it is. The opposite is however not true for a killer, a 1 kill is a loss from any reasonable mathematical point of view. You gain 20 and lose 60 aka a loss of 40 MMR (arbitrary numbers) if you are matched up equally, naturally it might be in a 2k a 18+16-22-24, but relatively which is what matters in a MMR system you stay about equal.

  Stating that there are no MMR rankings is simply false, the whole point of a MMR system is to rank people. You give them a number and place them in order. The issue people have is what the system defines as a win, you look at the game as a single player even if you join a team. Most people view it as a 4v1 game where the 4 are a team.

  You argue that it matches people in their approach to the game, but my entire argument is that it doesn't. My argument is that it would do just that if you would look at the final result and provide an increase / decrease based on how well your side did. It promotes those that will survive at any cost over those that play with a team mind set. The killers however are based on making as many survivors as possible die and would be best suited to face those with a team mind set... yet they don't climb as fast and far due to well them caring about the groups result and not their individual one.

  MMR systems don't need to go into the nitty gritty and nowhere in my argument did I say it does. Using escapes and kills is perfectly fine, the issue is that the escapes are a team effort and yet the result is not reflected on the whole team.

  They are selling it as a Skill Based Match Making Ranking system and yet they don't account to the actual most skillful elements of a survivor: teamplay! Yet favour safe plays, risk aversion, selfish and sacrificial plays with solely your own survival in mind. One must consider the ramifications of what the system favours and how people will respond to that and is where the grievances with the system lies.

  I wanted to highlight this section from your response:

  Actually, I want this to be true and I hope in the future it will be, but it isn't true with the current system as far as we know.

  This embodies exactly what I am stating, yet instead of hoping this is going to happen in the future I am providing feedback stating that they should update the current system to achieve this.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta January 28, 2022

• @zarr said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2775195#Comment_2775195

  I've refrained from butting into your discussion for certain reasons, but I can't help myself:

  You literally are missing the point with the goalkeeper. As that is the whole problem, they make the team win, but don't score the goal. Yet all the ranking checks is who made the goals. Similar to survivors making their team win, yet not escaping themselves. That is the analogy used by comparing it to hockey or other team sports, survivors are on a team.

  The whole problem is that you and other people are making the analogy about things they were never about, due to a lack of understanding of the system and therefore of what part of the system is analogous between the two. Yes, hockey is a team game, where two predetermined teams play against each other, and where individual players have certain roles within those teams, certain different things they do and don't do, are and aren't allowed to do by the game rules. This is different in DbD, so rather than question the intelligence or knowledge of anyone that draws parallels between the two, here is where I would caution to consider whether the analogy was actually about those things.

  The analogy pertains one thing: Skilled play leads to wins, be that goals in hockey, or escapes and kills in Dead by Daylight. In hockey, you win by scoring goals. You do not win by preventing goals. Sure, preventing goals is part of the win condition insofar you need to score more goals than your opponent, but that's it, the sport could in theory exist without dedicated, rule-dictated goalkeepers altogether for analogy's sake, and if playing without a goalkeeper and with one more offensive player instead would be more successful (consistently lead to a team scoring more goals than their opponents), teams would then do so. In fact, goalies are allowed to leave the goal and play up to center, from what I understand, but even if a rule forbade this and would outright restrict the goalie's role to always being in the goal, it wouldn't matter because we're talking principles here, analogies, not actually saying hockey is DbD.

  In DbD, you do not have such rules, and the player doing gens, rescuing players from hooks or leading the killer on a chase can be one and the same player, and any player on the "team". "Teams" also do not exist in DbD. Yes, we look at the game as a team game and I do think BHVR should embrace this fact more and design and balance the game around this more, but the game is not actually fundamentally a team game. Survivor players regularly go into matches alone, and any survivor player may only care about their personal survival. And even if every single player in the game did care and play for their own survival above all, that would not stand in the way of the functioning of the MMR system, because it would simply find ratings at which it is possible for players to survive around 50% of the time playing in those ways given their performances. Same for "teamplayers" - if there actually are things one can do that consistently lead to increasing the chances of survival of more players of a group (not the survival of just another player in your stead, but the survival of more players than would have survived otherwise) that come at the cost of consistently increasing one's personal chance of dying, then so what? Players that play in such altruistic ways would simply fall in rating, and they have no reason to care about their rating as long as they enjoy playing in that way and actually care more about helping more other survivors survive that would not have survived without them than they care about their own survival and rating, and of course, that's entirely their own choice.

  The parts people think are being drawn analogy to here aren't relevant, and even if they were, it wouldn't matter.

  But let's for a moment entertain the flawed understanding of what the analogy is about, and ask ourselves, are there things in DbD that players do that lead to "team wins" (more survivors of the group escaping alive) that are antithetical to the individual player's chances of winning (escaping alive)?

  Like OP, I don't see it. Even if you for some reason chose to be some sort of dedicated "runner", constantly trying to get the killer to chase you, if you are actually good at this and indeed good enough such that it increases the overall survival chances of survivors in that match consistently, I can't see that even that "teamplay-oriented" "role" that you force yourself into would lead to you dying more often than escaping. If playing that way actually increases the overall survival rates of players in those matches, that means the runner is so good at what they do that gens get done and gates opened, which would in turn also allow them to escape often.

  And of course, in reality you don't want to always seek the killer out, if you care about winning, you want to do anything and everything that is at any moment opportune to increase the overall survival chances of players in that match including yourself, which can be leading the killer on a chase, or just sitting on a gen, or a multitude of other things.

  A goalie in hockey wins if preventing goals has a positive effect on the win condition of scoring more goals than the opponent, and insofar the goalie manages to do this consistently and they consistently win, they have to be assumed to be skilled at being a goalie. Similarly, if a "gen-jockey" or "runner" in DbD actually had that "role" by virtue of not being allowed to do anything else or not being good at doing anything else, they would win if doing gens has a positive effect on the win condition of more survivors surviving than dying, and would be seen as skilled at doing gens efficiently or running the killer. Couple this with the reality that the "gen-jockey" or "runner" is not actually forced into any role but is included in those "more survivors surviving" because as opposed to a goalie they actually also "take shots" and do everything else that can be done on the "team", and you might be able to understand why personal survival chances/rates correlate closely with that of the "team", and likewise with things done to successfully increase the "team" survival chances/rates.

  "Skilled play" in such a context just means any play that actually does lead to wins. While I personally think the play that leads to escaping and killing in DbD consistently against equal opponents is actually also the most overall skillful, ultimately it doesn't matter whether it actually is, for the system "skill" doesn't mean being good at just anything, skilled in a vacuum, it simply means being good at winning, skilled at the things that lead to winning.

  Each time people bring forth situations where skilled play result in a win for the survivors and yet they perish, you dismiss it.

  First of all, this can be dismissed because nowhere is it stated that you should play for the team's survival rather than your own, or vice-versa. Again, everyone is free to do so and it does not take away from the functioning of the MMR system, and the functioning of the system does not take away from one's freedom to do so. You don't even have a reason to care about the system rating you differently based on this. Worst case scenario if playing for the team actually leads to players dying more often, they will... meet less killy killers and more teamplay-oriented teammates.

  It's also because it is statistically dismissable. Skilled play of individual survivors that consistently leads to more survivors surviving than dying will also lead to those survivors themselves surviving more often than they die; over many matches the situations where this is not the case will statistically matter less and less. I have explained this further up above even for a case where we pretend survivors would somehow be forced into risk-taking, team-serving roles, and as OP, I invite you to demonstrate that the best players (not only the best runners mind you, the best at doing everything that increases a group's survival chances) are actually the players that also consistently die more often than other survivors.

  You don't see it, but others do. Hiding behind no data while asking others to provide it is also such a bad practice and shows that you are not acting in good faith. Provide the numbers that showcase that skilled players are rewarded, because based on a hypothesis that it is.... a single counter example which has been given is enough to disprove it. Even the lead designer joked about it: if you did something yet it doesn't result in an escape was it skilled play? And the answer is, yes it very can well be.

  First, you should stop using the term "reward". Your rating changing is neither a reward nor a punishment. Even if rating changes were to happen completely arbitrarily at any point in time, the worst that could happen is that you get... a matchmaking system where everyone is matched with everyone, which everyone benefits or suffers from equally, and which not few people have said they would even prefer.

  Secondly, you are again making the mistake of misusing the term "skill". While I personally do go as far as saying the players that win the most are also the most generally skilled players, OP made it a point of explaining that "skill" in the context that a dev uses it in, in the context of an MMR system, simply means the ability of a player to win, by consistently achieving the system's given win condition. That doesn't necessarily mean the highest-rated players are also the best players overall when looking at every possible skill metric one might define, just that they are the best at consistently killing or surviving, the best when looking at skill metrics of things that contribute to killing or surviving. Anyway, this means that the ratings the system applies should determine a player's prowess at being able to kill or survive, right? And so say the system can predict the outcomes of matches with regards to kill/survival rates based on those ratings, that would mean the system is working, correct? Well, that is what the devs have gone on record multiple times now stating: the people that can look at these stats in high detail and actually see the ratings, say that the ratings very accurately predict the outcomes of rounds in terms of kills and escapes.

  Need more? What about the global average kill and survival rates? The system is meant to predict the kill and survival rate in matches based on rating, and it is also meant for those rates to ideally be 50%. The global average kill and survival rate are surprisingly close those this, and indeed closer to it than they ever have been. These results of many many millions of matches over several weeks and months averaging out across the board (even over all killers and maps) so closely around 50% is a gigantic, numerical argument. It's actually a huge problem for anyone that wants to argue the system does not work, even with regards to the actual matchmaking part of making lobbies happen.

  So, the devs are not hiding and proiding clear data, and unless you want to say they are lying... where's yours? Go ahead, evaluate (identify, quanitify, weigh) objectively the many different metrics of skills of a player in this game, demonstrate that this evaluation is accurate, find the best players according to this objective evaluation, and show us that these players consistently die more often than worse players (according to this evaluation) despite also consistently increasing the overall survival rates of the matches they are in, as opposed to the survival rates if they had not been in those matches. Also demonstrate that the worse players consistently survive more often despite also consistently decreasing the overall survival rates of the matches they are in.

  The game is a 4v1, yet the MMR does not treat it a such. That is what people dislike and criticize. The fact that the system uses a 1v1v1v1v1 approach, means as a result it does not promote the 4 that are supposed to be a team to approach it as such.

  The MMR seeks to instate 50% survival rates. It does this on a per-survivor, individual-player basis, but if you look at any match and assume a 50% survival chance of every single survivor in it, they will on average result in 2 escapes/2 deaths, which is a balanced result from the 4v1 perspective. The MMR does treat the game as a 4v1, because the target it aims for is based on the win condition derived from a 4v1 game state. The results it promotes is congruent with this. If it actually were based on the game state of a 1v1, it is obvious that the killer would have a 100% chance of killing the survivor as per how the game works, and as such the MMR would seek 0% survival rates if it treated the game as a 1v1 format.

  According to you it only cares about the result, but my entire argument is that it doesn't. A 3 kill game, still results in 1 survivor being deemed a winner? Yet their team lost. So... did they win or did the killer win that match? The opponents scored more points in the hockey game did they not? So, why does it matter that you were the top scorer for your team? Did their contribution not enable you to score to begin with, so shouldn't the final result reflect the outcome just as with killers?

  You are making a mistake people commonly make with this topic: the system cares about results, of many games, and you cannot look at the result of singular games to judge the system's functioning. Yes, in a 3-kill game, the escaping survivor (if they actually escape through a gate rather than hatch) "wins" (gains rating) despite their team having lost. The thing is, over many many matches, a survivor will not be likely to escape (through the gates) as the sole survivor often. Games where only 1 survivor escapes are tough matches, matches where the entire survivor team's performance - including naturally that of the escaping survivor - was not good enough for a survival rate of 50% to be attained. In such matches, it is unlikely for anyone to survive by leaving through the exit gates, and it is increasingly unlikely that a specific survivor manages to be the ones escaping in these matches consistently, and the more often you assume this happens, the more astronomically small the chances of it happening get. It is much more likely that this survivor that themselves is evidently consistently not contributing enough for the survival chances of the groups they find themselves in to be able to reach 50% to also be dying much more often than not, in such matches but also in many other matches where their failure to contribute will also lead to 4 kills.

  This is why it promotes selfish play, the game is survivors vs killer and yet the system doesn't align with that. It is a 4v1 game, so should the system not align with that result? According to the logic, that you claim to have: The match result would result in your increase or decrease in MMR and how you got there is irrelevant as more skilled players would win more of their matches, yet that is not how the system works as they sort of want to evaluate you individually even though you are on a team and don't bother however looking at what you contributed towards the final result of a match.

  First of all, you are again making the mistake of thinking the game is strictly a team game, or that the system has to treat it as such. It isn't, any player may only care about their own survival and play in selfish ways. 1v1 is still survivor versus killer, still surviving versus killing. Even if it were the case that selfish players survive more often than altruistic players, that would only mean selfish players (that are good at playing selfishly) usually have a higher invisble rating than altruistic players, and are matched more often with more higher-rated killers (killers that are better at killing) and survivors (other survivors that are good at playing selfishly), while the altruistic players are more often matched with lower-rated killers (killers that are worse at killing) and survivors (other altruistic survivors). And they would still respectively be matched such that they have about 50% survival/kill rates, which is balanced from a 4v1 perspective. No problem there, the MMR system doesn't care whether the game favours "selfish" players to survive, it doesn't even know or have to know what that is, and that the system doesn't care or know doesn't matter for the players, they can play however they want and the system will rate and pair them accordingly such that they will all have more equal chances of success in their matches, which is desirable.

  But then beyond that, even if we want the game to be strictly a team-game, I will still tell you that the current system functions well-enough under that assumption: skill/correct altruistic play that increases an overall group's chances of survival actually correlates closely with the individual survival rates of a survivor making skilled/correct altruistic plays over large sample sizes. If a player is good at those things, and good enough that it consistently increases the survival rate of groups they are in, I would argue that is a huge predictor for their own survival rate as well, because teamplay - altruistic, coordinated play - is actually immensely important for every single survivor in a match of DbD. Sure there are exceptions where this is not the case and you can get an escape through a gate letting everyone else down and die all round, but over many matches, I think it's painfully obvious that teamplayers will consistently be surviving more often, because if survivors aren't helping their team, the likeliness of one or more other survivors dying earlier is highly increased, and if that happens, the likeliness of the rest of the group also dying increases even more dramatically. A 3v1 scenario can be so tough to turn into actually escaping alive (through gates or otherwise) that even in tournaments it is a regular occurrence that teams get 4k'd even though the killer spent a good 3-4 gens camping/tunnelling out the first survivor. And that is with high degrees of teamplay of those 3 remaining players, imagine how impossible those situations become if among the remaining players there are people that do not play altruistically; if the killer hooks one of them, the round can often already be over, since the killer can then pressure another survivor, and if the third survivor is not going to save, there is regularly no realistic hope for escape.

  You do join as a team, ever entered a lobby... there are 4 survivors and 1 killer. You can sign up with a full team or asked to be assigned one, you still start the game in a team.

  P.S. notice that the criticism here is purely on how it handles the MMR from a survivor point of view.

  Unless you are in a 4-SWF, you join as a "team" of randoms you may have never seen, will never say a word to, and may never see again. Certainly, you won't be seeing them again anytime soon, and the likeliness of actually ending up with 3 other randoms again is vanishingly small enough to dismiss. DbD functionally is not strictly a team game, you cannot blindly treat it as such, a player may very well see and play the game as a solo survival mission and they would not be strictly playing the game "wrong". It has team aspects, and they are important aspects that the devs as I've already said should embrace more and more strictly design the game around, but it is not... necessarily necessary. It definitely isn't necessary for the MMR system to do what its supposed to do.

  BHVR will in the future also take group survival into consideration, and that is good. While the system does not need to do this because the game is not strictly a team game and because its goal is not to make high-rated matches be team-oriented gameplay games, but rather to make any possible game as balanced as possible based on the win condition (with keeping in mind queue times, player pools), and while the current system as per my explanations already does factor in teamplay well-enough, looking at actual group survival rates and taking that into account for individual player ratings will more quickly arrive at the appropriate ratings, i. e. less matches needed for a player's teamplay skills/performances to have the according impact on their rating.

  Just as a general (repeated) ending note that I think I didn't find opportunity to bring up elsewhere in this post: You have to stop thinking of MMR/rating as a sort of ladder toward some marvelous place where the most difficult, desirable, enjoyable, fun, etc. gameplay happens that DbD can yield. The rating is only meant to match players more equally based on their survival/killing performances, and as such the highest rating level only means those players survive and kill the most consistently, which then means they care the most about surviving and killing, play the hardest to do so, and are the best at doing so. Nothing more, nothing less. The top MMR realm is supposed to be a "sweat"-pool of people using the strongest loadouts and strategies in the most efficient and effective ways in order to kill or survive as consistently as possible, Nurses, Blights, SWFs, genrushing, Rings, BNPs, Moris, Haddonfield offerings, camping, tunnelling, you name it. It is not to be something anyone strives towards achieving, not a place anyone should want to be at unless they care about killing or surviving by any means possible and/or enjoy the gameplay that entails. If you don't, you have no reason to play in such ways, and are free to play however you want, and the rating will adjust to you, and pair you with and against other players that also do not care for and/or enjoy that gameplay, which will be more desirable for you too. There is no reason to care about the state of your rating, it does not encourage anything, it is not an incentive to do anything, it is not even shown to anyone. It is not a reward for anything, nor is it a punishment, as long as it works to fulfil its intended purpose (which it overall seems to do), you have no reason to even really think about it. Play however you want, your preferences and desires that are the only thing that should inform your decisions on how to approach and play the game. Only of course, if your preferences and desires are to kill and or survive often, to win... you will have to play with and against other players more often that also have the desire to win, and are similarly as good as you at it, and that will mean you won't win all the time, it will be difficult, especially if you are not much better at winning than most players. And that is only fair, because every player deserves equal chances to succeed by playing to the best of their abilities.

  You want to dictate that I don't understand MMR systems, while making conclusions that are simply not accurate.

  The OP acknowledged a difference between individual rankings and team rankings. The end result is what should matter and the analysis done by the system is built around the standards used for team ratings. Yet is crammed into that for individuals. While normally individual rankings are far more detailed and stat dependent for a very obvious reason.

  I am not misusing the term skill. Even if you listen to the devs the fact that they state if it didn't result in you personally escaping, it is not skilled play is the most backwards and incomprehensible analysis. Words have a specific meaning and once again trying to claim if it only has result x then it can be considered skill is utter nonsense.

  Additionally I don't look at a single game, I look at scenarios and see how the system would apply to it. The run for 5 gens is just one of which could have said result. There are many others as well, claiming that the ones showing skill will be the ones escaping is not true in all cases. The question is why would they be punished for helping their team to victory? There are many clutch plays from greeding the last gen to running the killer or making a clutch play in the end game to save two other people just for the one; which would result in a bigger loss for the killer and yet the person responsible for it now is punished compared to when they would have just ran out, you are to focused on the one example commonly used. There is no incentive to save each other in the end game for instance yet the person left behind isn't the worst player by definition.

  This is supposed to be a skilled based matchmaking system in a 1v4 game, if the developers want to take short cuts to judge people on the end result. They should do as most systems do and use the end result, else it is by design flawed.

  They are the ones that made the comparison to a team sport, yet do not use the same type of metrics to analyze the results. In all honesty it is from a system point of view logically to point out that their own example showcases the flaw in their own system. There are many different comparisons that could have been made, but they went for a team sport!

  The argument skilled players will more often escape, also applies to skilled players more often will get multiple people out. Yet where lies the more important metric in a 4v1 game, the one escape or the 4? It comes down to what is defined as a win, a 3k or 4k for the killer and yet a 1 escape is a win for survivors?

  It is the same concept as 8 hooks, 4 escapes should that mean you now face more difficult opponents, because they all got out? Or apply that to a 9 hooks and 3 escapes? Yet on the survivors end they throw that in the wind, it might have cost your team 3 people to die, but clearly that means you are ready for a bigger challenge? The metrics are not in line with each other. It doesn't matter how you got there, but it does matter what the final result was. A killer is judged based on the 1v4 aspect of the game, the survivors however aren't promoted to see it as being part of the 4. Survivor skill is about being capable of running the killer, breaking a 3-gen, being efficient on gens, being able to reset and all that to get as many people as possible out. Working together is required to get an escape through the doors, you won't do it solo and yet the system does not look at the final result and tries to claim a 1 escape is worthy of going up in rank while the whole reason they got out is also based on the overall teams performance.

  Why does this matter? I am not a god runner, but I do tend to try and be a team player. The system specifically targets this play style and punishes it. While it might lead to the team winning more often, it by no means is a guarantee that the individual will escape. In the end this is a 1v4 game and I don't think the system of MMR should favor the selfish player over the team coordinated player, as the coordinated team players are exactly those that should rise the ranks.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta January 28, 2022

• As they are not aware it is a hacker at that time, therefore the system treats it as a general match it simply sees you DC and applies the penalty. If the system would have figured out that the person you were facing was a hacker it would ban them.

  in Why do I get a disconnect penalty when I dc against a hacker Comment by Kalinikta January 28, 2022

• @Brokenbones said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2775462#Comment_2775462

  I'm not playing devil's advocate by any stretch here, but I do seem to recall one of the reasons for the implementation of SBMM/MMR being something about being able to use the data to balance the game at higher levels since they made a point that the emblem system didn't represent the "high levels" so the data from it was hard to use

  Maybe this is what was being talked about and we're seeing the result of it, MMR has been active for a good while now so there must be a significant amount of data (not even considering the data it quietly gathered in the background when the old system was still on)

  Considering the small amount of adjustments across the board, the fact that the lowest picked character in the roster was picked out to adjust in a negative manner is quite counter intuitive and no QoL or other aspects improved that would result in them being more appealing to play.

  Let someone with far more experience than I on the twins highlight the issues with the adjustments made:

  https://youtu.be/IpTbDoLun-c

  
  

  in 1.15% Pickrate for Twins (FeelsBadMan) Comment by Kalinikta January 28, 2022

• @Mileena_Kahn said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2775995#Comment_2775995

  It honestly doesn’t matter if I don’t play killer anymore nowadays. The point of the thread is not to “Troll” I’m just stating the truth, and sometimes the truth hurts. One side will always complain more and one side will never be happy. Just like I said earlier it’s as if mom and dad bought a new toy for their son but their brother is throwing a fit and crying about it even though he has plenty of toys.

  You are trolling, because you are just trying to rile people up in a Us vs Them discussion without objectively looking at the feedback people are giving on the game. Once again you fail to go into the contents of the post you made. The reason why you avoid actually going into what people stated about those perks you pointed out is because you know that we are speaking the truth about the subject matter.

  The only truth you make is that when people have negative feedback on a product they are more likely to express it. Therefore in a game like this the side with the most grievances to deal with will naturally have more to reflect upon. However, this has nothing to do with being a killer or survivor but the state of the game and the elements within it.

  The reason those specific perks are complained about, shall I repeat:

  Boil Over is such a clear bully squad perk that people don't want to face it and is why they are asking for nerfs. Go face such a squad and see how fun and enjoyable it is. It promotes and creates situations where the only option for the killer is to slug them instead of hooking them, which by all means isn't seen by many as a positive change. Overall it won't do much by most peoples account to the actual meta.

  Circle of Healing did not change the meta it was a positive and extremely strong addition to it. Consider of the 16 perks survivors bring a total of 1 of them changed... a real shift in meta? Anyone that claims that it changed the meta is just wrong, it just gave the meta a boost. It also creates the need for killers to commit to chases, downs, etc. meaning more tunneling and camping as a result; hit and run isn't as viable anymore as a clear example. It makes resetting for survivors significantly easier and removes tons of pressure that killers built up and places it on them instead. The 25% nerf is cool and all, but it doesn't really change much of what makes it so powerful the what 4 seconds extra healing isn't that big of a deal.

  Dead Hard is by all means most powerful perk survivors have, it is a general consensus to assume everyone runs it and often enough is the case. It has been the staple exhaustion perk for a very long time and with validation now is simply the best and strongest one. Even Sprint Burst which is a very strong perk is not even remotely present in comparison... guess why people complain about it?

  DS is a bit to strong in the end-game but overall it isn't complained about because while it is strong, it sits in a pretty good place now and most people acknowledge that for the most part it is where it should be.

  in Nothing pleases you killer mains does it? Comment by Kalinikta January 28, 2022

• @Mileena_Kahn said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2773239#Comment_2773239

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2775003#Comment_2775003

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2774754#Comment_2774754

  Fun Fact: Everyone who thinks or assumes I don’t play killer or never have are actually wrong. I’ve been around DBD since 2018 and I used to ONLY play killer. I play 90% of survivor now because I find killer so boring. Still, it doesn’t take rocket science to know that killers are never happy when it comes to survivor changes. It’s like when mom and dad get their son a new toy and the brother gets mad and jealous and throws a fit that they got a toy despite them having dozens of nice toys already.

  It doesn't take rocket science to know that people on both sides will complain. Yet you are picking one side to complain about while the reality is that both sides will complain. The fact that you don't actually play killer anymore is showing in your selective biased opinion. It is funny that even though I for instance went in point by point to explain why people complain, your only rhetoric doesn't actual go into the contents.

  You aren't here to have a discussion, you are here to troll and create an Us vs Them situation by pointing fingers and complaining about people criticizing the game with legit concerns and frustrations. Ever considered why Killers aren't nerfed hard in most cases?

  in Nothing pleases you killer mains does it? Comment by Kalinikta January 27, 2022

• @PlaysByShady said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2774837#Comment_2774837

  "The analogy is made by the developers and yourself. Take any team sport and the players within it have different rankings based on their personal performances and contributions, any major sport including Hockey track these records and place them in ranking. The fact of the matter is that the overall MMR system for teams does not reflect upon the individual and making that claim it this one is good because it does just that is the point you are missing."

  Err, no dude. If you'd read my responses, you'd see I know and acknowledge that the team MMR is different to the individual one... not least of all because there is no team MMR in DBD. You seem desperate to project your warped interpretation of what I've said onto me, rather than taking a step back and re-evaluating your understanding of what I've actually said.

  "The survivors are judged individually instead of based on the teams overall performance and being a star player doesn't move you into a better team, it might cause you to actually be placed in a worse one."

  There are no teams in DBD! You don't sign up as a team. You don't log in as a team. You literally enter the queue as individuals. The system ranks you as individuals because you literally go in as individuals.

  "You say these scenarios do not matter, but they do, because star players tend to place themselves in the more dangerous role of the team and that by no means that they will escape more as for that to happen they are reliant on the remainder of the team. You state they are exceptional circumstances, but that is simply false."

  Prove it with the data then... because what you're essentially saying is the best player on the team is the one who keeps dying, and I don't see that.

  "The system inherently promotes selfish plays in a team."

  Guess what... selfishness is a subjective perspective. The system doesn't care how you played. It only cares what the result was. And it has no reason, nor any mechanism to care about anything more than this.

  "You might have been that goalkeeper I am talking about with a great record on defensive moves, but because you don't take shots on goal... you drop in rank (because you don't take shots that means you score less, even though your role might have resulted in the team winning)."

  And this proves you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, goal-keepers don't take shots on goal... but they do save goals and thus help their team rise. You can infer, if their team is successful, that they're saving more shots on goal. That's the point... you don't need to know the individual things that happened within a match when there's a proxy to the same indicator that has a strong correlation. You've literally just argued against your own point.

  You literally are missing the point with the goalkeeper. As that is the whole problem, they make the team win, but don't score the goal. Yet all the ranking checks is who made the goals. Similar to survivors making their team win, yet not escaping themselves. That is the analogy used by comparing it to hockey or other team sports, survivors are on a team.

  Each time people bring forth situations where skilled play result in a win for the survivors and yet they perish, you dismiss it.

  You don't see it, but others do. Hiding behind no data while asking others to provide it is also such a bad practice and shows that you are not acting in good faith. Provide the numbers that showcase that skilled players are rewarded, because based on a hypothesis that it is.... a single counter example which has been given is enough to disprove it. Even the lead designer joked about it: if you did something yet it doesn't result in an escape was it skilled play? And the answer is, yes it very can well be.

  The game is a 4v1, yet the MMR does not treat it a such. That is what people dislike and criticize. The fact that the system uses a 1v1v1v1v1 approach, means as a result it does not promote the 4 that are supposed to be a team to approach it as such.

  According to you it only cares about the result, but my entire argument is that it doesn't. A 3 kill game, still results in 1 survivor being deemed a winner? Yet their team lost. So... did they win or did the killer win that match? The opponents scored more points in the hockey game did they not? So, why does it matter that you were the top scorer for your team? Did their contribution not enable you to score to begin with, so shouldn't the final result reflect the outcome just as with killers?

  This is why it promotes selfish play, the game is survivors vs killer and yet the system doesn't align with that. It is a 4v1 game, so should the system not align with that result? According to the logic, that you claim to have: The match result would result in your increase or decrease in MMR and how you got there is irrelevant as more skilled players would win more of their matches, yet that is not how the system works as they sort of want to evaluate you individually even though you are on a team and don't bother however looking at what you contributed towards the final result of a match.

  You do join as a team, ever entered a lobby... there are 4 survivors and 1 killer. You can sign up with a full team or asked to be assigned one, you still start the game in a team.

  P.S. notice that the criticism here is purely on how it handles the MMR from a survivor point of view.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta January 27, 2022

• @PlaysByShady said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2772463#Comment_2772463

  "There are some issues though with your analysis and that of the developers when looking at for instance Hockey and taking the parallel when establishing the MMR that should go up or down. The individuals in the team survivors are not judged upon their teams performance, yet are evaluated on their individual performance as if that is the case."

  I don't know how or why, but you're missing the point.

  The hockey comparison - which could just as easily have been any other game - was literally that you don't need to track a player's "shots-on-goals" for ranking, because you can infer that if they're winning more often, they're taking more shots! It analogy was literally restricted to this one point.

  I don't know why, but some people find it necessary to pick the analogy apart because of reasons that have nothing to do with the analogy. If I said you have to peel a banana before you can eat it, like an orange... I swear there'll be people out there saying you can't compare bananas and oranges like that because they're different colours, one is juicy and comes in segments, etc. Seriously??

  "Take the examples of running a killer for 5 gens, then being the first and only one to die. The overall score for the survivors is a win, 3 people got out and their MMR increased. The killer lost the match and loses MMR based on the outcome of the match and yet the star player of the team goes down in ranking? Meaning that their match up becomes worse, now they have to run the killer for longer as the other survivors they are match up with are less high and therefore their team mates are less sufficient."

  No it doesn't. Again, you're looking at a singular case-by-case exceptional circumstance and trying to derive a general conclusion from it. It doesn't work like that. For individual matches, the MMR movement is likely to be very small. If the "star player" of the team is really a star player, they'll win (i.e. escape) more often and over a series of matches this trend will be clearer to see. The MMR ranks you by the trend, not individual game performances.

  "If you want to take the idea of it being similar to sports..."

  I'm not even going to bother...

  The analogy is made by the developers and yourself. Take any team sport and the players within it have different rankings based on their personal performances and contributions, any major sport including Hockey track these records and place them in ranking. The fact of the matter is that the overall MMR system for teams does not reflect upon the individual and making that claim it this one is good because it does just that is the point you are missing.

  The survivors are judged individually instead of based on the teams overall performance and being a star player doesn't move you into a better team, it might cause you to actually be placed in a worse one. You say these scenarios do not matter, but they do, because star players tend to place themselves in the more dangerous role of the team and that by no means that they will escape more as for that to happen they are reliant on the remainder of the team. You state they are exceptional circumstances, but that is simply false.

  The system inherently promotes selfish plays in a team, as that is what is rewarded instead of skillful plays and teamwork. That is what people don't like about the system and find unfair. Your actions might have won the team the game, but there is no incentive to play that way if it results in you to die alone. You might have been that goalkeeper I am talking about with a great record on defensive moves, but because you don't take shots on goal... you drop in rank (because you don't take shots that means you score less, even though your role might have resulted in the team winning).

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta January 27, 2022

• @Mileena_Kahn said:

  Like c’mon, seriously? People are asking for Boil Over to be nerfed already and even kill switched. Let’s see, Circle Of Healing got nerfed from the PTB version and killers still cried about it, It’s now getting nerfed AGAIN and people still aren’t happy with the upcoming changes to it, The bone chill event was claimed to be a “survivor sided” event so claimed by SOME killer mains, and dead hard is arguably complained about more than COH and DS on a daily basis. I just don’t get it… You guys claim you’re “tired of the meta” yet when something gets changed to shake the meta up it gets called for nerfs.

  Do you ever play Killer? Because by the sounds of it you don't.

  Boil Over is such a clear bully squad perk that people don't want to face it and is why they are asking for nerfs. Go face such a squad and see how fun and enjoyable it is. It promotes and creates situations where the only option for the killer is to slug them instead of hooking them, which by all means isn't seen by many as a positive change. Overall it won't do much by most peoples account to the actual meta.

  Circle of Healing did not change the meta it was a positive and extremely strong addition to it. Consider of the 16 perks survivors bring a total of 1 of them changed... a real shift in meta? Anyone that claims that it changed the meta is just wrong, it just gave the meta a boost. It also creates the need for killers to commit to chases, downs, etc. meaning more tunneling and camping as a result; hit and run isn't as viable anymore as a clear example. It makes resetting for survivors significantly easier and removes tons of pressure that killers built up and places it on them instead. The 25% nerf is cool and all, but it doesn't really change much of what makes it so powerful the what 4 seconds extra healing isn't that big of a deal.

  Dead Hard is by all means most powerful perk survivors have, it is a general consensus to assume everyone runs it and often enough is the case. It has been the staple exhaustion perk for a very long time and with validation now is simply the best and strongest one. Even Sprint Burst which is a very strong perk is not even remotely present in comparison... guess why people complain about it?

  DS is a bit to strong in the end-game but overall it isn't complained about because while it is strong, it sits in a pretty good place now.

  in Nothing pleases you killer mains does it? Comment by Kalinikta January 27, 2022

• @Leonardo1ita said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2771764#Comment_2771764

  What I mean is that there should be mechanics that from the very beginning are studied to be counterable with the same efficiency as a solo or as a premade group.

  Euhm? In what fantasy world would this work? As showcased by the fact that a SWF can far easier deal with it than a solo crew, they will never be equal.

  in Bubba is problematic with Dead Man's Switch Comment by Kalinikta January 26, 2022

• @PlaysByShady said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2771240#Comment_2771240

  It's not even that. It goes back to what I said in the first post... the term "skill" is being used by players and devs to mean two different things.

  What Patrick was saying can be summarised in two ways (which are not contradictory to each other so you can take both meanings)

  1) Either it was a one-off thing that happened, perhaps by fluke or happenstance against a killer who was having an off-day or whatever. In such a case, it's just an exception and shouldn't affect your MMR drastically. If you really are good enough at the game that you can repeat the performance game-after-game, then you'll also no doubt be escaping a lot and therefore your MMR will increase by virtue of this. So ultimately, it doesn't matter

  2) If you play with a particularly playstyle, and it doesn't get you a win, then regardless of how well you played, was it skillfull play if it didn't earn you the objective? I may be the best shuffler on the planet, I can duck and weave. But if I can't punch my way out of a wet paper bag, are you really gonna call me a skillfull boxer because I ran around a ring for 3 hours? A person may be good in chases... but if they're not a team-player, or can only do a 5-gen chase when the other 3 survivors are proving the gens ASAP and you're wasting every pallet on the map, and they're also taking hits in between in the mean time, is that skill if it happens again and again and you keep dying?

  Basically... if you keep dying, is that skill? If you keep dying to low-rank killers, should you now deserve to go against more lethal ones?? How does that make sense.

  The problem is the players want their kudos recognise... "Hey, I ran for 5-gens... recognise me!!!" No-one cares! The system only wants/needs to know whether you should go against easier killers for you to escape, or harder killers because you're escaping more than you're statistically supposed to be.

  There are some issues though with your analysis and that of the developers when looking at for instance Hockey and taking the parallel when establishing the MMR that should go up or down. The individuals in the team survivors are not judged upon their teams performance, yet are evaluated on their individual performance as if that is the case.

  Take the examples of running a killer for 5 gens, then being the first and only one to die. The overall score for the survivors is a win, 3 people got out and their MMR increased. The killer lost the match and loses MMR based on the outcome of the match and yet the star player of the team goes down in ranking? Meaning that their match up becomes worse, now they have to run the killer for longer as the other survivors they are match up with are less high and therefore their team mates are less sufficient.

  If you want to take the idea of it being similar to sports, then you would for the survivor end need to establish a performance based rating system. Even in Hockey or Basketball player ratings and their team standings do not have a 1 to 1 correlation and they have a set team. The better teams have usually more high ranked players, because their team consists of actual high skilled individuals is more likely to win. While the goalkeeper might block 90% of all shots taken, if their attacking teammates are incapable of landing or even taking a shot... does this mean that the goalkeeper is not skillful? No... they are and in sports is highly likely to be bought by another team, as their personal rating is significantly higher than that of the rest of their team. The idea that the contribution to the team is insignificant for your standing is false.

  The overall behavior that is rewarded is safe and selfish play and not teamwork, imagine why people don't like solo queue? Let the other person run the killer, do the gens and let them hang on the hook to die while you escape. You claim it doesn't matter to climb the ranks, but that is also false as the goal is to be teamed up with others around the same level of play and now the individual that was the star can get placed in worse teams rather than better ones?

  The argument falls flat to compare this to team sports, as the survivors are judged on an individual basis instead of the teams overall performance, while the star player of the team might be punished for their skillful play that secured the overall win for their team. As in they ran the killer for 5 gens, then got left behind by the other 3 survivors.

  If BHVR doesn't want to expand the criteria for the survivors, it most likely would be better to at least treat them as a team and have their results be a reflection of the teams performance. As it currently stands, they aren't identifying skill in survivors to climb the ranks, they are identifying safe players. If you are the first to be found, you are more likely to die than being the 3rd person to be found within a match? Regardless of whether that first person ran the killer for longer or not.

  For a killer you can argue that kills are perfectly fine to use as a benchmark, they are the team and the final result of kills vs escapes falls solely on their shoulders. Yet for survivors the term "skill" is not applicable to the analogy used.

  in How the MMR works, and why what Patrick said makes absolute sense (from a dev POV) Comment by Kalinikta January 26, 2022

• @Leonardo1ita said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2771128#Comment_2771128

  As killer you're alone and "you're the entire team", so even if it'd difficult to face the most broken stuff, you could potentially do it, especially of you are not a E/F tier killer.

  As survivor, if you're solo, you cannot do anything in that situation even if all teammates were competitive players, because there's no coordination, and by the time you realise what the killer is doing, the match is already lost.

  Whether you are solo or not as a survivor, you are part of the team. The fact that you have difficultly coordination between the teammates is not the killers issue and they cannot be based on that either, they have to face SWFs as well. That is why BHVR is most likely adding the what people are doing icons to help out the solo coordination.

  The argument that it is difficult to face, but you can do it applies to both sides. You cannot tell one side to get good, while not stating the same to the other side. Use information perks, run the killer and even solos can potentially win... it might be difficult but it is not impossible.

  If you want to play as competitively as possible as a killer, just do it. As a survivor or killer you will meet people that play 'sweaty' and there is nothing wrong with it, you do your best, you win or lose and move on. Wanting to beat the most competitive setups and playstyles while being casual, relax, meme-ing about is unrealistic, either match them or know you will at times meet opponents that are very hard to beat.

  in Bubba is problematic with Dead Man's Switch Comment by Kalinikta January 26, 2022

• @Leonardo1ita said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2770553#Comment_2770553

  Well there's nothing to laugh, because if you get that as a solo, other than the face that you'll die 100% if you're the one who gets facecamped, probably you won't win that match because of coordination issues. Even with kindred likely

  Why is that an issue, it is just like facing a bully squad or a gen rush squad as a killer. Hopefully these groups will meet and have the competitive battle that they seek.

  You do you man, if that is how you want to play there is nothing wrong with it. Have fun, it is a game.

  in Bubba is problematic with Dead Man's Switch Comment by Kalinikta January 26, 2022

• You run to cancel, meaning that instead of requiring to hit the interact button to stop the action, you can just run away when the killer approaches and you will let go of the gen/survivor/gate.

  in Run to cancel? Comment by Kalinikta January 25, 2022

• Maybe look at Otz video where he explains it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acHiwnCW7eI

  As in the person that set out this challenge spells it out for you: This game favors whatever side wants to be the most cruel and unfair.

  in What does the AFK Challenge say about the balance? Comment by Kalinikta January 14, 2022

• @ObscurityDragon said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2735336#Comment_2735336

  Boil over is an utility type of perk, its bonus was to make the boiling movement of the wiggle stronger AND hide the hooks on a 16(?) M of range, and it got strongly buffed to get 100% boiling effect with wiggle progress gain when the killer makes even à small fall with you (easily abusable too)

  CdG was also an utility type of perk for à chase whos power is to give you bonus range from à lounge after a gen is done, you get 1 token per gen and it can be easily wasted, it then is usable 5 times in a game. It got nerfed in its first PTB from 100% bonus to 60% for no reason

  Both are utility type of perks, yes they arent similar, but one was already kinda used and can be used as often as you want, the other was barely touched and still got some major restraints for using it

  I can use my 1 stack of coup to down you, but you can use your infinite amount of boiling to gain wiggle progress from à little stair fall

  Oh and remember that boiling is then usefull by itself, but also through the 3 other survs that can help to prevent the hook or equip the perk,

  Coup is still à perk used only by One killer in the game and merely could allow to down each surv 1 time

  You admit they are totally different, they are used for different reasons and effects. Literally zero comparison to each other. They are both perks in the same patch, that is where the comparison stops however.

  @RainehDaze said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2735336#Comment_2735336

  They're both being updated at the same time. I'd say looking at the difference in how this update is handled is a valid one.

  They are handled in the exact same manner, individually assessed and updated according to the developers insight.

  The time of the change is literally not an equivalent of substance, it is literally comparing apples to oranges. A false equivalence with no substantive evidence to validate a comparison. You might like one of the changes, hate the other, etc. They are however not comparable.

  in Boil Over is getring à strong Buff, yet Coup de Grâce still isnt at 100% 😔 Comment by Kalinikta January 6, 2022

• @ElmosPayPig said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2735318#Comment_2735318

  Both are ######### perks that got changes.

  Boil over got turned into a useable good perk, while coup isn't even what it use to be in its original ptb(100%).

  False equivalence, just because they were changed and both perks does not mean that they are in any way similar. Literally you are comparing apples and oranges as they say.

  in Boil Over is getring à strong Buff, yet Coup de Grâce still isnt at 100% 😔 Comment by Kalinikta January 6, 2022

• I don't see the reason for a comparison between these two perks, literally they have nothing to do with each other.

  in Boil Over is getring à strong Buff, yet Coup de Grâce still isnt at 100% 😔 Comment by Kalinikta January 6, 2022