PlaysByShady
PlaysByShady
About
- Username
- PlaysByShady
- Joined
- Visits
- 362
- Last Active
Comments
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlsp39B9yhA#t=7m40s
I somehow ran through Bubba's chainsaw, and to this day, I've no idea how that happened...
-
If his traps are going to spawn some distance away, they should at least be useful, i.e. spawn next to a gen or at pallets, and be set already!
-
Step 1: Block X number of players...
Step 2: Complain that match-making is taking too long, because the system keeps finding matches where you and the blocked players are compatible, and then chucking you out because you don't want to play with them
Step 3: Complain that MMR is broken because now you're going against killers that are too easy/difficult, because the system is just back-filling you into other lobbies to give you a game, because the games it wanted to give you involved people you didn't want to play with
Repeat ad nauseum...
-
What I don't understand is, what are they advertising?? Like, who's going to give them feedback to say "yeah, I had a great time against the bot, it was very fair", etc??
Or maybe they're advertising for people to buy their own bots... for what?? What's the fun in watching a bot play your games for you? At least with streamers they're trying to provide unique content in some way. But a bot is just running through actions and breaking every rule of the game. Where's the fun in that, unless you're some kind of sadist??
Is that who they're marketing to?
-
This change would be ripe for abuse. With a 4-man SWF, you'd just take it in turns to DC first and voila, DC's all night long.
I personally don't see the problem in playing a match out if someone DC's. Sure, the survivors are unlikely to escape, so just change your mindset and see how far you get. Enjoy the chase while it lasts. You don't have to escape, there's no trophy awarded at the end. Just play the game out, get your BPs and move on.
Personally I've had some fun/interesting matches after some survivor's DC. I just chase and down the others and set them free. We enjoy several chases, I practice my blinks, they get BPs and in the end they either escape or die (they'll usually indicate they want to leave by staying next to a hook, so I'll happily oblige).
-
@adam1233467 said:
You can have all this evidence, but it will still take the BHVR 2 weeks to ban
Nah... you need video evidence and a signed affidavit to prove the video hasn't been doctored in any way before they'll even look into it
-
@Megmain80 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2879485#Comment_2879485
You’re really proving my point here… you won’t be happy until survivors have nothing to use. Also, calling survivor perks crutches is ridiculous.
Survivor's say that camping/tunnelling/noed involves "no skill" - which I disagree with. Killers have to actively adapt their gameplay to utilise any of these, weighing up risk/reward.
Conversely, DS, BT, unbreakable, etc all involve literally zero skill (aside from a skill check for DS, which is arguably still skill-less). Essentially everything that survivors accuse killers of, they embody for themselves.
-
Hmm... I play both roles.
I see killers giving free escapes and hatch if they felt the game was easy.
I see survivors tea-bagging at the gates when they found the game easy. They won't even give the killer a hook for BBQ stacks, after they've put in cakes, etc.
I also see survivors time and time again complaining about tunnelling and camping, whilst at the same time they were using boons, DS, BT, unbreakable, etc, as if all of these crutches weren't enough already.
Seems to me survivors are the real moaners (if we're going to generalise)
-
@EntityNea said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2872925#Comment_2872925
I literally offered examples of multiple things that could be used to count MMr, yet you completely ignored all of it.
Tbh i didnt even read your entire message after it was apparent you didn't read mine.
The irony here is, I did read your message. You just can't comprehend my response.
Contrary to what you say, you literally offering nothing, other than vague ideas which cannot be translated into a number. Yes, you offered ideas as to what can be measured on a match-by-match basis, which is fine. But the trick is condensing that into a number which carries forward. You offered nothing here, and this is what MMR needs... some kind of measurable metric that's based on your history of games, not just a single one-off game. You need to work out how to format all those metrics you want into this objectively comparable dataset. You offered nothing in this regard.
-
Guys, guys... if you haven't got a problem with killers holding weapons, why do you have a problem with killers throwing weapons???
-
@EntityNea said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2871282#Comment_2871282
What's so hard about it?
It's not harder than designing any kind of point counting system. You just need to know what gameplay features are dependent on skill.
A big part of that is chase length. Short length means killer did good, survivor did bad. The game already keeps track of chase length so should not be hard to adapt. As mentioned earlier, percentage of missed skill checks could be used as well, since experienced players are less likely to miss them.
These systems are not as hard to design as you seem to think. I am a programmer and could easily make a system based on gameplay actions. The problem here is that the first step is to have the right idea of what actions are considered skillful and what actions are considered less skillful, and it feels like the developers are stuck at the idea phase.
What's so hard about it?
Are you having a laugh? I literally spelled it out. How do you compose a set of numbers, or any other objectively comparable criteria (objective being the operative word, being as the comparisons is done by a machine), that adequately encapsulates everything you guys want
"Dood doood.... did you see how I jumped through a window and tea-bagged the killer... I need that in my MMR!!!!!!!!"
Please.
What's so hard about it? You tell me... if it's not hard, then please design it for us. I've love to see what you can come up with. Just the composition of the ranking, not how it's reached, etc. I just want the data of what you would see if you wanted to see anyone's MMR, according to the imaginary way you guys think it ought to work.
It's not harder than designing any kind of point counting system. You just need to know what gameplay features are dependent on skill.
See, you say this... but don't actually offer anything by way of demonstration. I can just as easily make absurd statements too.
What's so hard about flying? Birds do it. Insects do it. Heck, even planes do it. So I don't see why people shouldn't be able too. It's not so hard. Just attach wings.
A big part of that is chase length. Short length means killer did good, survivor did bad. The game already keeps track of chase length so should not be hard to adapt. As mentioned earlier, percentage of missed skill checks could be used as well, since experienced players are less likely to miss them.
That's the easy stuff. You're just looking at what happened in ONE match. The system then needs to distil that down into what becomes your ranking at that point. And that's what I want to see. What is the format.
Just to save you the trouble of the wrong answer, you might say "the rank should just be a number, and it goes up by X, or down by Y, depending on what happened in each specific game". Great. Except with this arbitrary number, there's nothing to differentiate someone who escaped 20 matches by doing nothing (and their rank went up for the escapes), or someone who did a lot of chases and escaped once against a bad killer.
Do you see the problem now? Everything you want measured has to get abstracted away at some point.
These systems are not as hard to design as you seem to think. I am a programmer and could easily make a system based on gameplay actions. The problem here is that the first step is to have the right idea of what actions are considered skillful and what actions are considered less skillful, and it feels like the developers are stuck at the idea phase.
I'm gonna call BS... not least because, as a s/w developer of over 20 years myself I've not heard of anyone refer to themselves as a programmer (but hey, maybe it's a regional thing), but mainly because you literally talk what looks like the talk, but you don't walk at all. Some people, myself included, would call this sophistry.
So, as per the post of mine which you quoted, I specifically asked "How do you assign a value - however the value is composed - that accurately reflects all the nuances you want it to reflect. Please explain. I'll wait."
You've not answered this. You've just made vague statements like "it's easy", etc, without any explanation of how the data would even be composed, let alone compared.
-
@Th3Nightmare said:
It's been just 3 weeks since the release of Sadako (Onryo), as my post says, how long will it take for us to see an adjustment/balance in her?
does she need more time for enough information to reach the devs that she is below average?
I'm going to give my opinion, it seems to me a killer "OK" but it needs some other tweaks in its power, condemne improvements and improvement of her mini-phases in chase after manifest.
I was really expecting some more adjustments in the Mid-Chapter but it seems that she will go to more time...
I have nothing more to add.
Who said the changes posted for the mid-chapter update was a completely exhaustive list?
-
This is me having to explain to someone how BBQ works and why I was able to literally see the last survivor from across the map
https://clips.twitch.tv/SpotlessSwissNikudonMcaT-fu9J1msnDXrPXAIS -
@TAG said:
I've never been crazy about Hexes because of the huge variance involved. The one idea I heard that I really liked was that Hex perks should be reworked and rebalanced to have their abilities scale with how many totems are still in play instead of having an "eggs in one basket" approach where cleansing one specific totem shuts off a hex perk completely.
The one idea I heard that I really liked was that Hex perks should be reworked and rebalanced to have their abilities scale with how many totems are still in play instead of having an "eggs in one basket" approach where cleansing one specific totem shuts off a hex perk completely.
I love this idea!
-
I get it all the time... players saying they were walking when they're clearly running, etc.
Even had one guy try to explain to me that BBQ doesn't reveal auras... nothing to do with distance, it just doesn't reveal auras, period! That it's impossible to see a survivor across the map with BBQ.
Last night I played Scratched Mirror Myers (for the tinkerer challenge). The survivors all died because the Obsession did not have a clue how PWYF works. Was literally told that SM-Myers is OP because I can see all the time. Being slower than survivors or having no lunge isn't an issue.
Survivors will just make up any excuse to save their bruised egos.
-
@EntityNea said:
I read through the official news topic here: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/315687
All it does is talk about how some people favor fast queue times while other people favor fair matchmaking,The way they describe how matchmaking tries to find people close to your MMR and then expand over time to find people further away from your MMR is normal for any kind of matchmaking system, and it sounds based on that post that they'll just experiment with these numbers.
But it doesn't adress the issue that the way people's MMR is decided to begin with is the core of the issue. Based on interviews I've read, MMR for killers seems to be purely based on whether or not you get kills or let survivors escape, and for survivors it seems to be based on whether or not you escape or die.
Do the devs understand that there's more to the game than living or dying? If you're able to play like a god (on either side) and make the match miserable for whoever you're facing, and then be able to lower your MMR anyways by choosing to die at the end or let the survivors escape... Then you can keep facing newbies forever.
And that's the problem... Not everybody plays to win, personally I enjoy dying to the killer at the end, and after reading the interviews about how MMR is calculated it made so much sense why I keep matching with newbies despite having over 1500 hours.
To fix the MMR system, they need to look at more than just whether or not survivors live or die.
the MMR system needs to look at more variables than that. For example, how long a chase lasts before the survivor goes down, percentage of missed skill checks, percentage of missed swings, how fast a killer is able to locate survivors, how much time a survivor spends idling without progressing the objective. These are just examples, the most important thing is probably how long chases go on for before a down, since that's the most skillful interaction on both the survivor's and killer's side.
I apologize if this is very long, it's just concerning that nothing about the MMR calculation itself is mentioned when they talk about changes, and that they only mention how these numbers are planned to be used while finding matches.
Honestly, this is getting so boring that people don't understand how algorithms work.
Do the devs understand that there's more to the game than living or dying?
Yes, the devs understand this. Do YOU understand that you can't put all that into a number (or numbers) that reflect your rating??
That's literally the core of the issue. How do you assign a value - however the value is composed - that accurately reflects all the nuances you want it to reflect. Please explain. I'll wait.
-
@TotemSeeker91 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2864343#Comment_2864343
And if none of them are running boons?
I don't sweat as hard.. but the possibility of a boon (or several) appearing late in the match doesn't stray far
-
@woodenEnthusiasm said:
I'm sorry to bring up something way too talked about but something has been bothering me and if I am mistaken please correct me. As I understand devs are shooting for 2 kills 2 escapes that's the definition of a balanced match for dbd. Again if this is wrong please tell me but that's my understanding. In that case who wins? it's kind of weird calling it a killer win because survivors escaped when their goal is to kill them all or at least 3 of them. And does that mean only half the survivors lost? that's kind of weird since survivors escaped. So does everybody lose? It's been really puzzling me honestly
As I understand devs are shooting for 2 kills 2 escapes that's the definition of a balanced match for dbd.
On average, i.e. you might get a game with 4k, and another with 4e. They're looking at the overall average results because individual games can go either way based off of just one thing happening.
They're not looking for each game to end with 2k/2e
In that case who wins
Who ever you want. The game doesn't care about wins. It only cares about whether you should go against stronger killer/survivors (where strength is measured as the ability to successfully complete the primary objective) or weaker opponents.
The entire notion of "Oh, my MMR needs to go up, etc" is just vanity on the part of the people making such claims. There are no benefits or downfalls to your MMR changing levels, other than being matched with similarly levelled players.
And does that mean only half the survivors lost
If a survivor died, they failed to achieve their objective, and generally speaking their ranking will fall. But since it only makes any real difference over a series of matches, you won't notice any changes immediately, and a one-off loss won't change anything if you're generally escaping.
I wrote an entire post on how the whole thing works here: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/306573/how-the-mmr-works-and-why-what-patrick-said-makes-absolute-sense-from-a-dev-pov/p1
-
I play how I like, and if they complain, my response is just "boons". Simple. The only effective counter is to tunnel.
-
@Tr1nity said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2864079#Comment_2864079
So basically only the best survivors can deal with her?
The best survivors adapt their playstyle depending on who they're facing. So yes. Only the best can deal with her, because they'll adapt to deal with her. Everyone else who tries to vs a Nurse using the tactics and strategies of other M1 killers are destined to have a rough(er) time.
-
I'm playing on an old machine (1080, 16Gb RAM) and it runs fine for me; better than it used to
-
@Cameragosha said:
Boon strong , it should get nerfed.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/Z1RGDYNCSOPY/picsart-22-03-21-21-08-23-694.jpg
I don't have an issue with the speed. I take issue with (a) it can be relit again and again, and (b) it applies to all the survivors, from just one perk!!
If they removed either of those two attributes, I think I might be fine with it
-
@EntitySpawn said:
2K 2E will never be a good and balanced match especially in my eyes, it shows an outcome but nothing that happened to get there.
I understand hooks dont paint a full picture but they paint a better one. Hooks will always show more than kills, someone who can do many many chases (downs, mindgames, outplays) etc.. show more skill over the other players
Patrick's one and only arguments that had some standing was the "is it a win, or a loss" well how about a tie/draw?
This game is a 4v1, it will never be perfectly balanced and that's just how it is but holding an asymmetric game to a similar view to the 4v4 equal games is a mistake.
My idea, balance on hooks (mostly) individual hooks =1point and a kill=2points. This way someone who can 3 hook someone and get a kill gets far more than someone just face camping.
You can decide what is a win, draw and lose. In Patrick's example 8hooks can be a draw, anything more will increase your rank (the more hooks the more you go up) and anything less would be a loss (lesser hooks mean a bigger loss)
In an unbalanced game having a draw is acceptable, both sides can play incredibly well.
In this game 3hooks on 1 person is a kill, in hockey you dont score 3 times to get 1 point. Your "shots" are downs, none are rewarded, killers arent rewarded for getting a down. Yes you're downing (taking a shot in hockey) but it doesnt mean you'll score, however hooking someone should be a score, and a kill should be a bonus like in other sports that provide more points for a better "play"
Edit: dont ban me for a discussion, no disrespect here at all just a better view or at least in my eyes.
You state Patrick is wrong, and there are better ways... this is an assertion of an objective fact from your POV, i.e. not an opinion.
Yet you failed to provide any basis to say why he's wrong, or what the better ways are? You posited scoring based on hook count, but you gave literally zero mathematical proof as to how this would work over a series of matches with survivors of varying ability, or even various scenarios.
By your metric, a killer who manages to down everyone quickly and hook/kill them all together (i.e. a strong player) would be ranked lower than someone who struggles to keep anyone on hook and has to go after survivors multiple times (i.e. a weaker player that couldn't achieve their objection quickly enough and risked the survivors escaping).
Therefore, the stronger player would then be matched against weaker survivors, whereby presumably they could keep repeating the exact same process, whilst the weaker player would go against stronger survivors, and thus encounter even more difficult games.
And when you extrapolate this, it leads to absurdities.
So please, explain with proofs, etc, how exactly your proposed solution is better and how you know more about this than the professionals who do this for a living, and have the data at their disposal to test their theories. I'm dying to learn from your fountain of knowledge.
-
@crystalkitti said:
If they healed, it should disable DS.
It's not the bug where somebody wiggles free, the Killer picks somebody else up, and then they get free, because you gave chase and hit them, which eludes the bug.
If you hit/downed/picked them up, then the syringe should've stopped working, iirc. To quote: "The effect is cancelled if the affected Survivor changes their Health State or is picked up by the Killer." (link)
So, my guess is hacking. :/
It's not the bug where somebody wiggles free, the Killer picks somebody else up, and then they get free, because you gave chase and hit them, which eludes the bug.
Also, I had the DS notification and the Obsession changed, which is why I was insistent on giving chase to them because I had the challenge to kill obsessions... which I didn't get because they dc'd
@sizzlingmario4 said:
Yeah since you downed them that should've negated the syringe since they changed health state, unless they popped their instaheal after using DS, but then that doesn't explain how they still had DS up in the first place since they were healing beforehand. Yet it also seems weird that a hacker would DC after being downed the second time since they probably could've just instahealed again if they wanted to. But unless I'm missing something I don't see how else this is possible without cheating.
Just to make sure, after downing them you didn't pick up any other survivor first before picking them up did you? Because that could've led to the known bug going around where they wiggle off for free. Because unless that was the case, then my gut says this was just a hacker trying to use a syringe to cover up cheats + they might've not realized until the game was over that you knew they were healing because you were running nurses so they thought they could get away with a decisive strike that they shouldn't have been able to use.
unless they popped their instaheal after using DS, but then that doesn't explain how they still had DS up in the first place since they were healing beforehand.
Exactly. Unfortunately I wasn't recording at the time and couldn't remember if they still had the medkit in hand after the DS, but I do know that (a) they were 100% healing beforehand because I saw them healing via nurses calling which is why I went to them (and literally had the though "you're advertising no ds!", and (b) they didn't stop running at any point to apply the instaheal. They just kept running and instahealed as they were running away.
Yet it also seems weird that a hacker would DC after being downed the second time since they probably could've just instahealed again if they wanted to.
Maybe they didn't want to make it obvious and be reported?
Just to make sure, after downing them you didn't pick up any other survivor first before picking them up did you? Because that could've led to the known bug going around where they wiggle off for free.
Nope, just them. They were all alone out in the open behind a rock on the side. And I presumed they were safe to pick up because of the healing.
my gut says this was just a hacker trying to use a syringe to cover up cheats + they might've not realized until the game was over that you knew they were healing because you were running nurses so they thought they could get away with a decisive strike that they shouldn't have been able to use.
I'm leaning to that. But I'm also open to the possibility that maybe - just maybe - there is a bug in DBD (unheard of, really?) whereby when you apply the instaheal, it doesn't invalidate the DS and somehow remains active? It's possible, would require a quick confirmation test to rule it out but I have no way to do that.
-
@Predated said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2859953#Comment_2859953
"In this particular instance, when you define "skill" as a objective measurable metric for algorithmic ranking purposes, yes! One team outplayed the other, and therefore at that moment their skill ranking was - by definition - higher."
You see, that is the problem, it's not. The team as a whole outplayed the other team as a whole, meaning the skill as a whole was better. But looking at an individual level, it breaks down completely. Considering MMR is supposed to be individual in DBD, you have an issue. My point with the losing hockey team being less skilled pretty much was directed at the individual players. Heck, it could even be that the hockey team as a whole was more skilled, but the goal keeper on their side was horrible at blocking shots, meaning that effectively 1 player lost them the game. Which is fine, but players around that player do not get devaluated because of that loss. It just means that their value would increase less substantially.
"No it wasn't. It was created to try and create "balanced" matches, where balance is defined as 2 escapes, 2 kills on average."
It was created to seperate veteran players from getting mixed up with new players. The biggest issue with the old matchmaking was players with 20 hours being matched up against players with 1000 hours. If MMR truly was made around balanced matches, then Bubba would have been nerfed weeks ago since he easily can get more than 2 kills on average by cheesing. Balance was only secondary, seperating veterans from new players was the primary reason.
"that the final score can be used as a proxy for shots-on-goal (because you can't get the score without the shots on goal)"
Oh no, I understood that, but with that reasoning, I could easily push the analogy to hits and unhooks/heals. Which dont matter. The goal for survivors is to survive. You survive through pushing your timelimit(gens) and looping the killer as long as possible(goals), the deciding "win" of the game is still killing 3 people or 3 people escaping. As a killer, you proceed to your goal through sacrificing your survivors, but there is a bit of a skill difference between a killer who has 3 minutes between hooks, and killers who have 80 seconds between hooks on average. You could need set-up time, like trapper, but hook all survivors within 120 seconds, taking 30 seconds on average. You could have very aggressive hooking like Nurse or Blight, and be able to hook survivors 10 times within 8 minutes, taking 48 seconds on average. See, the problem with comparing kills and escapes with actual goals is the following: the hockey game does not end, even if there is 1 goal, or 1000 goals, there is no end to the game untill the timer hits 0, or the opposing team surrenders. DBD ends when the combined kills and escapes hit 4. There isnt really any skill to a bubba facecamping all game, just to having NOED and Bitter Murmur to gain 2 kills for free. He literally did nothing for 2 minutes, got a kill for doing so, then m1's 2 different survivors once and wins. How is that by any means a skillful play? What did he do other than exploiting a few perks and basekit mechanics that have no counter to that point. Cleansing totems? Cant, Bubba can easily catch a survivor within 40 seconds, at which point there is physically no time to touch any totem. If you're unlucky with finding the next gen, he can down a second survivor before you finish the gen at which point he knows where both survivors are and can just slug for a 3k or even 4k. The only part containing skill that game was the first chase, the rest was literally impossible to counterplay.
So no, hooks and chasetime would be comparable to goals, because logic dictates, the shorter the average time between hooks, the closer you are to getting 4 kills, the longer the chase time as a survivor, the closer you are to getting 4 escapes. Just like goals dictate: the more you have, the more likely you are to win the game. Apply the results of the game as a multiplier(maybe even a negative multiplier), and you can gain only an insignificant portion of MMR if you personally happened to perform extremely well, just like the value of losing hockey players would increase insignificantly compared to if they won. Lets say the survivor mmr is 10 on average, you would need to survive untill at least 3 gens are done, then perform chase long enough to actually gain 10 points of MMR, because if you did 5 gens and 0 chase, you end up losing mmr.
On average, survivors would be losing MMR, and killers would be losing MMR, if they lose. There are some exceptions, but those exceptions would be an external example. It's the ONLY way you can have players have fun AND have a matchmaking that balances out gameplay in general. Because the teams are imbalanced. You cannot punish 1 survivor for something they cant do anything about, nor can you reward a survivor for practically doing nothing. That is a HUGE issue for game health. Because at one point, you cant ban players for being AFK anymore, as its been a proven strat to increase their MMR if they afk in lockers all game just to escape through the gate in the end. If MMR leads to scenario's where players who dont do a thing can increase their MMR and players who do pretty much everything lose MMR, you simply dont have a skill based MMR. Which BHVR is claiming.
Hence, comparing goals with kills and escapes is not a logical step. Escapes and Kills are the time pressure, looping and fast hooks are the goals. If survivors on average loop less long than the killer has time between his hooks(not correlated btw, hit and run would cause short loops while having quite some time between hooks, for example), then survivors tend to end up losing unless the killer makes a huge mistake. Just like survivors who loop a very long time and the killer having literal minutes between hooks on average, then the killer will most certainly lose unless survivors mess up super hard. But in both of these scenario's, that often also increases the average looptime of survivors or reduces the average time between hooks, because, lets say a match has lasted 7 minutes before the final gen pops, 2 people were hooked before, the first person was hooked on the second minute, the third person is literally just being hooked, but the killer ends up downing everyone and hooking them all in the next minute after someone tried rescuing without BT. Thats 4 consecutive hooks with 15 seconds each. That means the killer went from 3 hooks in 1,5 minute on average to 7 hooks with 1 minute on average. Since he gained 4 kills, that means his MMR would be multiplied by 2(in this case) and if the average hooktime is 40 seconds, he'd gain 67% of the average MMR, times 2(I am not gonna place the formula I have made specifically because it needs some tinkering on the survivor side, mainly how players are rewarded/punished for outliving teammates depending on the situation), but basically, 100% would be a tie, this killer would have 123% MMR, with 20 points being 200% and -20 points being 50%. AKA this killer gains about 6 points in MMR, since the average chase time for survivors went down by a lot in the end, they maybe went from just being above average to being just average, if not less. Since they lost, you divide by the multiplier, and they could still gain points, but it would be about 115% if they got chased by a killer for 5 gens and 75%-ish if they barely got chased at all, on average losing points. So they range between gaining 3 points and losing 10 points. As a whole, the team loses MMR. So how does this not compare to making goals? The killer "outscored" them in the end, the survivors had a goal lead over the vast majority of the game, but they ended up messing up and letting their opponent score a lot. You dont even need to keep track of that score, because the game naturally would head to the outcome being in favor of the side who "scored" the most.
THAT is why average time between hooks and average time being chased would be counted as goals. Because when you compare them, the killer practically ALWAYS has a better average hooktime than survivors having chasetime compared to other players at their rankings if he gets 4 kills. Even a facecamping Bubba could still do so, except that he has to hook the remaining survivors within the next 2 minutes if he wants his average to be 60 seconds between hooks. That would actually take some skill to pull off, because with all pallets in place and survivors splitting up, its extremely hard to do so. While survivors would lose a lot less MMR, even the one being facecamped, because 4 gens are done by the time he's dead. Meaning if his average chase was 30 seconds, but the average chase in general is 50 seconds, he would still lose MMR, it would just be a lot less because of the way his death has been achieved. Bubba would still gain MMR in this case, but it would be so slow that its inevitable that he would face people who brought toolboxes and actually can have 3 people escaping before the first survivor is dead to the point that he'd lose more points on average.
le sigh... did you even try to understand what I wrote, or are you just interested in having your say and you don't care about whether you're wrong or right, or even understand the matter at hand?
You see, that is the problem, it's not. The team as a whole outplayed the other team as a whole, meaning the skill as a whole was better. But looking at an individual level, it breaks down completely.
Yes... and that point was literally addressed in the next comment regarding yours, wherein I stated: "In hockey, teams are matched. You don't match based on who's playing. So the ranking applies to the team, regardless of who the participants were."
I notice you skipped this comment entirely.
I'm not involved that much in sports, but what I do know is that teams are ranked for determining which team plays which. THEY DO NOT LOOK AT THE PLAYERS. Therefore, to say a team is more skilled (again, in context of algorithmic ranking) is perfectly acceptable and correct. That is not the case in DBD because you don't enter the game as a team... you enter the game as a killer, and 4 independent survivors who may or may not be playing together. But there's nothing team defining about it, and this has literally nothing to do with the original analogy anyway, so it's a huge red herring.
It was created to seperate veteran players from getting mixed up with new players.
No, it was created to create balanced matches as I stated. To separate veterans from new players doesn't require any MMR, you can literally just separate according to hours played. But hey, you seem to know everything about it so please provide us with the exact quote where this was stated from the devs.
Oh no, I understood that, but with that reasoning, I could easily push the analogy to hits and unhooks/heals. Which dont matter. The goal for survivors is to survive.
Loooooooool
You state you understood the analogy, and then literally contradicted yourself directly after.
The goal in hockey is to score more goals than the opponent. It's not to score shots-on-goal. They, as you stated, "don't matter".
The analogy for DBD is literally in the name "survivor" and "killer"; their goals are to "survive" and "kill" respectively. So how you managed to confuse this with hits/hooks/heals is beyond me, particularly when you then concluded that the goal is for survivors to survive (which surely should be the basis of the MMR, if the survivors aren't hitting their goals, they're not doing as well).
the deciding "win" of the game is still killing 3 people or 3 people escaping
Not for MMR. It doesn't give win/loss for the game. Only for the participants. And only insofar as it updates the MMR rating.
I couldn't be bothered reading the rest of your post because you went on and on about literally something that no-one said, and I didn't want to waste any more of my life. Please try to update your understanding because you seem to be very insistent on running down the wrong path and refusing to heed advice of people who know better that your understanding is misplaced, and therefore so are your conclusions.
-
@Predated said:
So, I have been trying to make sense of it, the potential reasoning behind it, and while some people have been like "yeah, it makes some sense", I dont think the analogy is even close to being correct. The only part that I think is correct is that "the person with the most goals wins" aka, 3 kills or 3 escapes is a win. But does that mean that the losing hockey team was less skilled? Does that mean that every player on the winning team was more skilled than their opponent? Because that's what SBMM was made for, creating a somewhat seperation between skilled players.
After a hockey match, the value of a player on the losing team can increase twice as much as any player on the winning team. The value of a player is something that I would consider closer to being comparable to SBMM than the amounts of time that player has been on a winning team. Especially if teams are practically randomized each time. Their value increases on their skill portrayed in the game.
So, my analogy with hockey here is that SBMM should represent the value of a player.
To break it down even further:
Kills and escapes is comparable to the timer of a game. The game doesnt end untill the timer is over in hockey, and in dbd the time doesnt end untill everyone either escaped or got killed. In DBD this has a bit more meaning, but IMO, they should be MMR multipliers: Killers could start out with a 0.75x multiplier on their mmr with each kill adding 0.25 and hatch being closed while the remaining survivor is injured/healthy also adding 0.25. Survivors having a team-based multiplier makes it a bit hard since people leave, so for survivors it would be a gen-based multiplier, where they start out with a 0.5x multiplier, each finished generator adding a 0.2 and a gate escape adding 0.5, and opening a hatch adds 0.25(would remove the 0.25 from the killer's mmr).
I think treating the kills and escapes as a multiplier, and treating SBMM as the value that people would want to "buy" a player to have on their team would help improve the situation a lot.
Now we have a matchmaking that would work really well for a tournament setting, but you cant really have a tournament if your team is randomized every game, let alone that you face the same opponent 3 matches in a row.
So please, use the tournament MMR you created for a gamemode where everyone knows to play for a tournament. Dont pretend it's a representation of skill when it can easily do the opposite.
But what would the goals be?
Well, for survivors, it would be based on the average chasetime against that killer. If the average chase time against a wraith is 3 seconds because of his ability, and you last 8 seconds on average, that should gain you mmr. If the average chasetime against a Myers is 2 minutes and your average chase was 40 seconds, that should lose you mmr. Having low chasetime would be bad for your MMR and discourage people from mindlessly sitting on gens and hiding all the time.
Same could be said for killers, but slightly different because otherwise some killers can cheese it(looking at you stealth killers), the average time between hooks, starting from the first hook, ending with the last hook. If the average time is higher than the same killers in your bracket, you lose mmr, if its lower, you gain mmr. But the most important part: it doesnt count hooks, you could hook 5 people in a row, then kill everyone with Devour Hope and gain more MMR than someone who has been chasing someone for 70 seconds. gets a hook with Pain resonance and Ruin and then gets another hook after another 70 seconds and gain 12 hooks that way, let alone times when survivors suicide on hook.
Yeah, the chance exists that all players will increase their MMR this way, but that chance is quite low. Just as the chance is quite low for all hockey players to increase their value. This would at least remove cheesing MMR a lot.
Right now, survivors can cheese by basically locker camping next to one of the exit gates, some killers(looking at you bubs and afk pigs) can cheese mmr by facecamping or basically forcing a survivor to die without the survivor being capable of preventing their demise in any way. With my suggestion, MMR is heavily based on the 1v1 interaction between players, where arguably "most" of the skill takes place. It completely removes facecamping from the equation unless every single killer facecamps. It gives a soft MMR cap on the high and low end because at one point, YOU are the average player of your mmr bracket.
Does it fix all the problems? No, but at least players cannot be carried to a higher mmr by perks, addons or better teammates. Sure, some of them can make it a bit easier in general, but slapping on Alchemist Ring on Blight wont really reduce your time between hooks significantly. You might down survivors faster than without, but without strategic skill, that means nothing unless survivors constantly run in your face.
I am not 100% sure if the type of killer should matter, basically meaning if Clowns are compared to Clowns and facing clowns means other survivors facing Clowns, or just in general, because both have their own up and down sides.
Now, why make this a discussion rather than a suggestion? Because I want people to tear this one apart, find all the issues that I cannot see myself or am too biased to admit to to basically give the devs all the information they need to define what players count as skill. To reduce as much time necessary for the devs, and thus reduce cost from BHVR. It's understandable that BHVR wouldnt want to give the dev team a budget to work on MMR as there currently is a system that is at play even though is obviously being taken advantage of by some and pushing away others. Yeah, you cant argue that players will leave a game regardless, but you also cannot argue that the playercount has dropped significantly harder since the release of SBMM, and even the combined effort of Pinhead and Sadako couldnt bring back the players. There is a financial gain for BHVR executives to open up a budget to improve a system that is more hated than the old system. And when people start preferring the old system, there are some glaring issues.
I still don't understand how people are still not understanding this. And worse, think they know more about the situation than literally the professional experts who are building the damned game!
The only part that I think is correct is that "the person with the most goals wins" aka, 3 kills or 3 escapes is a win.
Err, yes. That'd be hard to argue against.
But does that mean that the losing hockey team was less skilled?
In this particular instance, when you define "skill" as a objective measurable metric for algorithmic ranking purposes, yes! One team outplayed the other, and therefore at that moment their skill ranking was - by definition - higher.
Does that mean that every player on the winning team was more skilled than their opponent?
In hockey, teams are matched. You don't match based on who's playing. So the ranking applies to the team, regardless of who the participants were. But this wasn't the point being made anyway, so whilst this analogy I've given right now has flaws when comparing to DBD, it's accurate in terms of answering your question.
Because that's what SBMM was made for, creating a somewhat seperation between skilled players.
No it wasn't. It was created to try and create "balanced" matches, where balance is defined as 2 escapes, 2 kills on average.
Being as you clearly misunderstood the relatively simple analogy being made - that the final score can be used as a proxy for shots-on-goal (because you can't get the score without the shots on goal) - the rest of your post really doesn't address anything based in reality.
And when you're proposing a new MMR system, it's very easy to just say things like "use kills and escapes as a multiplier", etc. Show us the maths behind it, how it accounts for all scenarios and balances out. As a software dev myself, I see too many people who think implementing something is dead easy... please, try it! Make up a spreadsheet in Excel or whatever that shows all the formulas and metrics you're tracking so we can assess whether it actually works, or whether it's just wishful thinking.
-
@Shaped said:
I never understood the argument "we are just showing it to everyone so it gets fixed".
Yeah like it is not already there and bhvr is not aware.
It is just for views and people buy it because it is all wrapped in morality. Not to mention how it gets spread and even more people abuse it.
BuT iT iS fOr ThE gReAtEr GoOd GoYs.
And then when it does get fixed or whatever, regardless of when the devs started working on the problem (which in all likelihood was well before it was heavily publicised), the content-creator can claim credit and say "we did it" like it was all down to them and their video that got this end result.
Such small minds.
-
@Phasmamain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2851944#Comment_2851944
I literally said she’d be changed to 115% to compensate so comparing them could now make sense
Which would literally make her, not Nurse. That's my point. That you want to kill Nurse (i.e. the killer who literally has to rely on blinks) to not rely on blinks, instead of working with the design as intended and "tweaking" it to your satisfaction.
Think about it. When Plague gets her infection rate up, she can one-shot the survivors. It's a permanent thing until the survivors choose to cleanse.
When Oni gets his power, it's lasts a limited duration which allows him to travel around the map and try to get the instadowns as appropriate.
You want Nurse's blink to charge in the same way. Ok. Then what? She get's one blink? Two blinks? Blinks are incredibly hard to place and extremely unforgiving. So is that it? She has to chase a survivor for a minute and then get the opportunity to use one set of blinks (that may or may not work), and then... nothing? And that's a good, viable, fair killer power to you??
-
@Phasmamain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2851606#Comment_2851606
Hard to say since I don’t think nurse’s style of power should exist at all but I’d go for a Myers or Oni type deal. She has base move speed and has to charge her power through a certain method (could be hitting survivors, staying in chase or something else). Then she gets to use her power all the while keeping base speed (could be 110% either depending)
This way we her power being as strong as it is makes sense because she has to work for it in some way. Powers like plague or oni’s are weaker then nurse’s but they still have to build it up so I don’t see why she shouldn’t
Powers like plague or oni’s are weaker then nurse’s but they still have to build it up so I don’t see why she shouldn’t
Again, they're 115% killer so have movement speed on their side. Plague not only gains passive infection status on survivors (which can spread via survivor interaction, etc) which leads to them being broken... and if they cleanse, she gets insta-down power.
As for Oni, as well as his 115%, he gets super-fast movement speed across the map and insta-down when he's using his power.
You're selectively comparing completely different things; that's not the way to make a point.
-
@Phasmamain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2851096#Comment_2851096
Her being slower is not a balanced trade off for denying loops. It was a band aid fix they made fo4 her back when she could have like 7 blinks.
The problem to me is that nurse isn’t too big an issue atm but that the more balanced the game becomes the more an issues she becomes.
Her being slower is not a balanced trade off for denying loops.
Firstly, she doesn't deny loops at all. You can still loop her. I find her easier to loop than other killers. But then I play Nurse, so I know her weaknesses. Her strength is catching you in the open. In loops - if you do it properly - she's next to useless unless you make a mistake.
But anyway, let's state things properly, eh? You're saying (i) her being slower, (ii) having to charge up her blink, (iii) irreversibly, and (iv) aim it properly or end up going nowhere, (v) suffer fatigue after the blink where her vision is obscured and (vi) wait for her blink(s) to recharge before using it again doesn't make up for "denying loops" (whatever that means...).
So tell me... what would be "a balanced trade off for denying loops" for a blink-based killer? I'd love to know how far you want to go into essentially making a killer, not a killer, so just you can maintain the same playstyle instead of learning the correct counterplay.
-
@Phasmamain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2850814#Comment_2850814
What I mean by it is that nurse doesn’t play by the rules of dbd. Looping against a nurse isn’t an option so you have to rely on LOS blocks and juking which are both inconsistent at best.
Every other killer has to play around pallets while nurse doesn’t
What I mean by it is that nurse doesn’t play by the rules of dbd.
You're literally committing tautology here. She obviously plays by the rules of the game, else the game would literally break every time she loads into a match, etc.
What you're probably trying to see is that she doesn't play by the rules you imagine killers should adhere to, which is a completely different thing altogether.
Looping against a nurse isn’t an option
It is. It depends where you loop though. You can literally run around a loop faster than the Nurse because (a) survivors are faster and (b) survivors have smaller collision boxes allowing them to hug the loops tighter.
The only option she has is to blink to where she think you'll be which is where you need to be unpredictable, and also force a short-blink in the hope that she'll misblink and end up going nowhere, and then suffer fatigue. But looping a Nurse... it's very doable.
you have to rely on LOS blocks and juking which are both inconsistent at best
Err, yes, that's the same with all killers. And yes it's inconsistent because you need the killer to miss. Take a step back and think about what you're asking... you want a consistent mechanism to be able to counter a Nurse (or any killer), i.e. the character in the power-role that has to not only chase and down you, but also three other players. You want a consistent way to prevent them from being able to do this? What game do you think you're playing, and how on earth do you expect the killers to progress their objectives??
You're literally making no sense to me.
Every other killer has to play around pallets
That's true. Now counter-balance that with attributes that every other killer besides Nurse has... namely movement speed which is faster than survivors allowing them to catch up. No wonder you think things are broken when you literally only look at one side of the equation.
-
@Phasmamain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2850150#Comment_2850150
Never said playing nurse was simple. Quite the opposite is true but that doesn’t excuse how her power ignores mechanics. She can catch up ,though because she literally has a movement power (especially with range add ons)
I’ve outplayed plenty of nurses before and have played some of her. I just don’t think she’s in a healthy place at the moment regardless of how much skill she takes or how there is some potential to outplay assume she messes up
Not necessarily related but an interesting question would be would bhvr make nurse today? I’d say that’s a pretty decisive no
Quite the opposite is true but that doesn’t excuse how her power ignores mechanics.
This is an oft-stated thing, but it's never qualified or quantified.
What exactly do you mean when you say "her power ignores mechanics"?
Literally every killer's power ignores mechanics to some degree, that's where they get their ability.
Billy gets insane speed and insta-down.
Wraith is invisible and travels very fast
Trapper can literally block loops with traps
Hag can teleport anywhere on the map when a survivor is near
Need I go on?
-
@Phasmamain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2849857#Comment_2849857
How is it perfect balance in the gameplay of dbd when she ignores pallets and windows otherwise known as the main chase tools of dbd? Surely we want to encourage gameplay around these 2 things. I agree mind gaming is important and it’s why maps like dead dawg are fun to me since the pallets allow for effective mindgames. On maps without many walls (like blood lodge, shelter woods etc) nurse ignores these mindgames since she can just go through anything to hit you and make up for lost distance fairly easily (especially with range add ons)
How is it perfect balance in the gameplay of dbd when she ignores pallets and windows otherwise known as the main chase tools of dbd?
They aren't the main chase tools of dbd. They're supplementary to chase. The main chase tool is literally to run... run away... far far away. And she cannot chase, she cannot catch up because she's literally slower than survivors.
So she gets a blink... which she has to charge up (and cannot cancel), aim (and potentially miss), actually do the travel (which takes a second or so), and then try to get a hit in a window of a couple of seconds before succumbing to fatigue and losing sight of the survivor. She then has to wait for her blinks to recharge to do it again... all the while the survivor is running away.
If you're hanging around at pallets trying to play it like you play it against every other killer, you're doing it wrong!
On maps without many walls (like blood lodge, shelter woods etc) nurse ignores these mindgames since she can just go through anything to hit you and make up for lost distance fairly easily (especially with range add ons)
Play Nurse. I mean really play her. Sink a few hundred hours into her. And then you'll learn it's not as simple as you say.
Running around rocks and small obstacles work against Nurse because (a) she can't catch up, which means she's forced to blink and over a short distance she'll either (i) mis-blink and end up in the same spot (but now with fatigue), or (ii) over-blink, miss and have fatigue again. It takes a lot of skill, and mistake on the survivor's part, for her to land an accurate blink and get a hit.
The problem I see a lot of survivors have is that, just because they cannot run a Nurse, they presume that Nurse cannot be run! She absolutely can be.
She's fine where she is. Get better at playing against her.
-
@alpaca_boyyy said:
Almost every match I've been playing as killer, I start my first chase, down them & hook them, I'm like sweet, 5 gens left, Then 3 pop at once. It's actually getting to the point where I don't enjoy killer anymore because of this. Killers usually are like "Oh I'm getting Gen rushed. No you just got screwed over by the RGN of survivors spawning next to individual gens. And yeah i could bring slowdown perks for gens, But Ruin doesn't exactly help if they're on it whilst I'm in chase, ect. Its the same with Hex totem spawns, U load in and it is cleansed immediately. It sucks and its unfair.
It's RNG, not RGN. It stands for Random Number Generator (which is essentially how computers do randomness... it's still calculated but has the appearance of being random because of the high number of end result values) 😊
Personally I'm of the opinion that survivors should spawn right on the edges of the map, instead of literally on top of generators etc. At least that way they have to move somewhere to get on a gen, and there's a chance they won't double-up.
-
@Voodoo_Thirsty said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2847759#Comment_2847759
No, that's not "playing" at all. That's not what it means. That's just having the game turned on.
People turn on DBD to actually PLAY the darn game. You know, press Shift W, M1, ctrl from time to time... Not to sit and watch a teammate aura simulator.
And do you think people don't know how to fight against a camper? The problem is in most games where most of the players are solos, it's VERY difficult to rescue someone without replacing him or her. And that means, the last person to be downed is going to be unlucky goat that gets sacrificed for a camper's greed.
When you're on the first hook, you can literally attempt to kobe. You've got an 11.5% chance to make it off the hook.
Also, when you're on the second stage, there's literally a mini skill-check game.
So, if you're just having the game turned on and not doing anything, you're not doing it right 😂
-
No Nurse bugs... yaay
Alternating between survivors who completely destroy me, or vice-versa. Had a few games where they gave up straight away though (after losing chase...)
-
@Voodoo_Thirsty said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2847311#Comment_2847311
And once again, I'm not inclined to believe that you have any experience with actual toxic killers or have played enough of survivors to fathom the problem with camping in general (and taking a simple look at your discussions, I can tell you are a killer sympathist right off the bat).
No-one is guarantee to "play the game for the entirety of the match", where did you get this idea? That's just survivor entitlement.
Entitlement? So you think it's fine for someone to bully another? Is that victim entitlement as well? Wow, you seem to be very entitled yourself. Unless the survivor did something wrong (i.e. hack) I find it morally questionable for you to abuse your power as killer to force others from playing the game.
For you to have been camped, you must have at least been chased... twitce (being as it takes two hits to down you), and your team failed to rescue you before they were hooked.
Another unlettered argument.
So out of 6 total hits you are given per match, you're telling me that losing one third of that is justifiable to be camped? Are you out of your mind? And this clearly demonstrates that you never played enough survivors.
They presumably also failed to pressure gens and force the killer away, or trade hooks.
Unless there is a mechanism that forces killers to move to an objective regardless of the input being given from the player, the killer is not obligated to budge. Meaning, camping killers are going to camp regardless.
Stop blaming the killer for literally playing the game!
Lol, can you see how rudimentary, not to mention juvenile the conversation becomes? Instead of actually seeing how forcing a person to stay on hook for an ENTIRETY of a match can be distressing and discouraging for people to play, you brush it off as "entitlement" and pretend everything's fine.
The people who paid good money to play a game should not be abused by others to the point they're either waiting to die on the hook or DC.
And if you think that's OK, that speaks more volume than your words alone regarding your character. Just sayin'.
And once again, I'm not inclined to believe that you have any experience with actual toxic killers or have played enough of survivors to fathom the problem with camping in general
Well, I've got nearly 2,000 hours in-game, and my dbd stats indicate a fair number of those were as survivor. So yeah, you can believe what you like. The evidence is on my side though.
Entitlement? So you think it's fine for someone to bully another? Is that victim entitlement as well?
If you thinking camping is bullying, then yes, absolutely. You've adopted a victim mentality. Camping is a strategy. You may not like it, but you can't deny it.
Another unlettered argument.
Yet you were unable point out a single flaw with it. You do realise that just because you say so does not shape reality?
So out of 6 total hits you are given per match, you're telling me that losing one third of that is justifiable to be camped?
Absolutely. Maybe you only got caught towards the end of the match and the killer has no choice to camp or "lose" the game. It's a way to put pressure on the others to either come and rescue you (and potentially get hooked themselves).
You seem to have some entitlement to presume that you have to be allowed to be unhooked, etc. This is plain survivor entitlement. You have no right to this. You can expect it from good team mates and a killer who isn't sweating, but it's not something you're entitled to, else it'd be baked within the game.
Unless there is a mechanism that forces killers to move to an objective regardless of the input being given from the player, the killer is not obligated to budge.
Oh good, glad you've recognised the killer isn't obligate to budge. Ergo, camping is fine.
Meaning, camping killers are going to camp regardless.
Yup. Don't get caught, and if you do, learn from your mistakes and move on.
Instead of actually seeing how forcing a person to stay on hook for an ENTIRETY of a match can be distressing and discouraging for people to play
If someone is distressed because they're playing a PvP game and lost, then I'd question whether they should be playing at all! More fool that person, I say.
I like scares... but I don't go into a horror movie and start crying because I got scared. That's just stupid.
The people who paid good money to play a game should not be abused by others to the point they're either waiting to die on the hook or DC.
Again, it's not abuse. It's literally game mechanics. You keep projecting your subjective perspective onto others.
And you're also failing to see the other side... the killers who've paid good money to play a camping killer - which is permitted by game design - are entitled to play as they wish. It's a PvP survival game... it's not a nursery designed to appease your whims.
-
@ReikoMori said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2844952#Comment_2844952
The entire point of ELO, MMR, TrueSkill rating systems is to jump the player's overall level of skill or assign relative placement value on a player to determine their competitive standing.
Wins and losses matter and should be weighted heavier, but the actual important metrics are how you get to the end result. Chess factors in not only flat wins and losses, but time spent in game and number of moves. Fighting games that used the TrueSkill rating system judged you not only on wins and losses, but factors such as offensiveness, defensiveness, execution of combinations. League and Dota take into account vision score, creep score, damage dealt, damage healed etc.
The more data points you use in your MMR system up to a point gives a better understanding of how each player approaches the game and better indicates their level of skill. We already have a game that allows both sides to "win" by default. Killers and survivors both can pip in the same game so the analogy falls apart right there. It falls apart even more when you account for their insistence of 2 and 2 balance which means as long as you get about six hooks, some decent chases, a handful or two of hits and control gen progress for the first 9 minutes of the game you can get a Ruthless Killer at best which is a pip or Brutal killer at worst which is an effective draw.
Even if you die as survivor if you've done enough things to flesh out multiple scoring events then you can pip. Even by the game's own metrics before we add in SBMM into the mix both states can be true simultaneously. A better indicator of skill in DBD by comparison was the old victory cube setup.
I agree with pretty much all of this... except when you get to this point:
The more data points you use in your MMR system up to a point gives a better understanding of how each player approaches the game and better indicates their level of skill.
You referred to the end result as "their level of skill", which indicates it's a single parameter (or in some cases, two, like in TrueSkill which used a delta and mu to indicate skill level and confidence of that level, i.e. it indicated your skill was within a particular range rather than assigning a single number).
Once you've reduced the "skill" down to a single number (or even a range), you've literally lost all the data as to how you got there. That single number doesn't include any of the pip data. There's no way to extract that data from your number.
Which then begs the question... why bother collecting and using that data in the first instance when, literally, it just makes the maths far more complicated and its lost/discarded in the end anyway? Particularly, when there's an easier proxy to achieve the same result, i.e. kills/escapes, which, when you look at the figures overall (which the devs can do, and have done), there's a close parallel... at least close enough that the overall kill/escape ratio sits at approx 50/50 which is what they were targetting.
You could argue the extra data will be fine-tuning, and this would be agreeable. But there's a point of diminishing returns, and it wouldn't change anything to any effect such that you'd see a difference. The bigger problem is the holes in the MMR process (rather than the metrics) which is the back-filling, etc. Resolving that would likely make the MMR better and have a bigger effect than implementing PIP data (once you've worked out how to attribute those pips accordingly)
-
It's an abuse of power in which killers can hold a game hostage and not let one player actually play the game for the entirety of the match.
No-one is guarantee to "play the game for the entirety of the match", where did you get this idea? That's just survivor entitlement.
You play the game to go into a trial with a killer. Whether you live or die, and how quick, it down to a combination of factors. For you to have been camped, you must have at least been chased... twitce (being as it takes two hits to down you), and your team failed to rescue you before they were hooked.
They presumably also failed to pressure gens and force the killer away, or trade hooks.
Stop blaming the killer for literally playing the game!
-
There's literally no point asking the devs to respond to anything, because there's no way for them to respond to anything without some active part of the community deliberately misinterpretting it and starting some crusade over their misinterpretation or misunderstanding. And that creates a bigger problem.
As much as I hate it, I sympathise with why they're silent, particularly given the current state of discussions (dbd = hockey still does my head in, that's literally not what they said, it's what a brain-dead strimmer said they said for luls and views)
-
Only once. It was, predictably, a Bubba. Everyone else did gens and escaped, as they should have done.
So one match out of maybe 100 or so over the last few months?
-
@Brokenbones said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2845186#Comment_2845186
If you say so buddy
All of this because I said kills and escapes aren't indicative of skill. (Which they aren't)
Also nowhere did I say I know how to fix it, or what would be better - I just said I know how MMR works and I don't like it. What more do you want? I'm not writing you an essay. Nice projection btw
All of this because I said kills and escapes aren't indicative of skill. (Which they aren't)
They absolutely are. Case in point, the DBD MMR system uses this and the results speak for themselves. And the people who've built such systems say they are. But you know this right, because you know how it all works? Nice one.
-
@Brokenbones said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2845177#Comment_2845177
I know how the system works and why it is the way it is
I just don't like it or think it's a good system at all
Also calling other people's opinions on a subjective thing "ignorance" isn't very polite is it, I didn't insult you for having a different opinion. Not that I'm surprised by it, mind you. Come to expect it from people
The word "ignorance" isn't an insult. It literally means lack of knowledge or information. You don't even have to buy a dictionary these days to learn that.
And I stand by it. Your comment literally reeks of ignorance as to how an MMR system works.
But, what the heck, let's assume you're some kind of master genius that knows something the rest of us devs don't know. Explain to us then, how do you objectively measure a 5-gen chase as compared to someone who just does gens, hides from the killer and escapes. What's the measurable ratio here that can be used for comparisons to work out results for MMR purposes?
-
@Brokenbones said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2845051#Comment_2845051
It's a bad analogy because it fixates on the whole 'kill/escapes' thing being the only thing worth measuring
We both know escaping and kills aren't indicative of skill
I wrote a very lengthy detailed post that literally explained this (and was confirmed by Patrick as being accurate).
Short version, the analogy works. You just have no idea how an MMR system could possibly work. You might think you know how it works, but you'd never be able to implement your imagined idea into an actual workable system.
I'd go into more detail, but I've already done so in that thread, which many read and were grateful for the explanation and better understanding it granted them. I'd suggest you give it a read rather than continue your position of ignorance.
Here... I'll even give you the link: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/306573/how-the-mmr-works-and-why-what-patrick-said-makes-absolute-sense-from-a-dev-pov/p1
-
@cluxdx said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2845051#Comment_2845051
Did I say they "said" that? I clearly used the word "implies" in the statement you directly quoted. No matter how you slice it it is still a terrible example to use. And like other people have pointed out it's not even a good analogy in hockey because that only factors in team results. Individual players are still rated based on how many shots they take, for example.
Using the NFL as an example (because it's more in my wheelhouse) we can say that Aaron Rodgers is a very skilled quarterback. Does he win a lot of Super Bowls? No, because the Packers on the whole are not that good. Nobody uses his team results to rate him as a terrible quarterback because that's not a fair rating. A solid example of this is Matthew Stafford. On the Lions his results sucked, yet he was still a very good quarterback with a lot of promise. Now that he's on the Rams (a genuinely good team) he managed to win a Super Bowl. If not for his individual skills taking precedence over his team results, the Rams never would have picked him up in the first place.
That said, with that point you're referencing I was more touching on the fact that even the MMR system itself is based on a 1v1x4, while DBD is a 1v4.
Did I say they "said" that?
I'm going to assume English is your first language. If not, please feel free to correct me.
I don't know why you mentioned "said" in quotes, like your contention is that they "wrote" it. In either case, your position is clearly that the devs have made such a statement because you literally said: "I love the recent comparisons with hockey because it shows the massive rift in understanding of the game between the devs and the playerbase".
The clear implication to any English speaker here is that the comparison with hockey was brought up by one of the two parties... and we know it wasn't the player-base. In fact, we even know what dev it was, and what statement you're referring to.
So whilst you didn't necessarily say the words "the devs 'said' xxx", the inference was pretty clear.
I clearly used the word "implies" in the statement you directly quoted.
Yes. I quoted you saying "The comparison to a sport like hockey implies that DBD is a symmetrical competitive game with clearly defined win conditions, of which it is none". That's literally your opinion of what the implication of the alleged statement is. It has nothing to do with your position that the devs made such a statement.
I don't know where you learned English, but your use of "implies" here does not, in any way, negate the direct inference you made that the devs are comparing DBD to hockey.
And like other people have pointed out it's not even a good analogy in hockey because that only factors in team results.
For the purpose for which the analogy was made, it's an adequate analogy. You're literally misunderstanding it, and insisting that you know what the devs meant when they used it, moreso than the devs themselves.
Using the NFL as an example...
Blah blah blah blah blah... you're literally generating a monologue and argument to something that literally no-one said. Were you writing this post in the shower??
That said, with that point you're referencing I was more touching on the fact that even the MMR system itself is based on a 1v1x4, while DBD is a 1v4
I'm actually genuinely surprised you've understood this... whilst at the same time completely misplacing Patrick's explanation of how it got there.
-
@cluxdx said:
There are a few small topics I want to touch on here, but I'd like to preface this with the obligatory do not harass the devs disclaimer. I'm not trying to direct hate towards anyone at BHVR as I know they're just trying to do their jobs, but I think all feedback is important, regardless of whether it's good or bad.
To start with, I love the recent comparisons with hockey because it shows the massive rift in understanding of the game between the devs and the playerbase. DBD is not hockey (roll credits) and I think that should be abundantly clear. The comparison to a sport like hockey implies that DBD is a symmetrical competitive game with clearly defined win conditions, of which it is none; DBD is an asymmetrical party game with a great many ways to get to the end result of either kills or escapes.
What do I mean by that? Well, in hockey the literal only way to win the game is to score more goals than the opposing team, and the only way to score those goals is to take repeated shots on goal. In DBD on the other hand, it's not that simple. As killer there are multiple ways I could go about achieving a 4k — I could 4 man slug and bleed people out on the ground, I could tunnel out one survivor then deal with the rest, I could facecamp and bank on NOED, or I could shoot for a 12 hook. I'm pretty sure we can all acknowledge which of those things is the most skillful way to play, yet the system as it stands disincentivizes that playstyle because it doesn't care about the nuances of how you play, but only the end result.
Going for a lot of hooks as killer inherently decreases your chances of getting kills, but it's typically the most fun way to play for all parties involved. Along the same vein, playing super altruistic and trying to get as many people out as possible inherently increases your chances of dying, but it's typically the most fun way to play. The MMR system actively punishes you for being the one to go for saves or for being the nice killer who doesn't like to tunnel.
Essentially what I'm saying is the notion that the current MMR system can work is predicated on the idea that all players are the same and only play with the end goal of kills/escapes in mind. The issue there is that leaves no room for anyone just playing for fun, and even I am finding myself shying away from playing weaker killers or off-meta builds anymore because of the competitive mindset that is being forced on the entire playerbase.
It's not about the metaphor itself, but more the general attitude conveyed by it. The devs believe the nuances of how you play do not matter because of the general idea that skilled players win more often. But how do we define skill? What is a win? Is it more important that people prioritize kills by any means and only run the best builds with the best items/add-ons, or more important that we just let people play the game and have fun? I'm probably not the first killer main to say I had more fun in the days of old DS and old Object, not because of unfair and unbalanced perks, but simply because despite all the broken and busted things, underneath there was a cool party game where winning and losing wasn't the only thing on my mind.
To start with, I love the recent comparisons with hockey because it shows the massive rift in understanding of the game between the devs and the playerbase. DBD is not hockey (roll credits) and I think that should be abundantly clear.
Yes, I agree completely.
The comparison to a sport like hockey implies that DBD is a symmetrical competitive game with clearly defined win conditions, of which it is none
Oh dear... and you started off so well.
LITERALLY NOBODY SAID THIS!!
There!
Not a single dev said DBD is like hockey, because as you said, they're not the same.
What Patrick did say - using hockey as an example - is that you don't need to measure shots on goal as a proxy for skill because the end result (i.e. higher score) is a suitable proxy for shots on goal (you can't get a high score without taking shots on goal).
And in the same way, you can't get kills without killing survivors. And you can't get escapes without evading the killer.
That's it. That's literally the only point being stressed. And you've gotten it amazingly wrong, and then had the arrogance to presume it's the devs who don't know what they're talking about rather than yourself.
-
@Laurie268 said:
Nurse is the only killer that ignores game mechanics, they should imo remove nurse and buff all other killers by giving them more mobility. It would stop the braindead hold W strat.
Every game I played yesterday had atleast 1 suicide or dc against a nurse because she’s broken. Her being killswitched for a month showed everyone how unhealthy she actually is in the game now that she’s back.
Pallets work against every killer except the nurse, they even buffed her pallet stun duration after blinking like she needed it. Noclipping through walls is not balanced, she should be reworked
Nurse is the only killer that ignores game mechanics
Err... which mechanics, exactly? Because every killer ignores some game mechanic to some degree... that's where they get their ability from, to be able to ignore certain mechanics. So you're going to need to be a bit more specific here (she's not the only one with teleport ability btw).
Every game I played yesterday had atleast 1 suicide or dc against a nurse because she’s broken.
You were able to ascertain the motives and intentions of every other player you played with?? Are you clairvoyent?
Her being killswitched for a month showed everyone how unhealthy she actually is in the game now that she’s back.
I don't understand what this means... showed us all, how exactly??
Pallets work against every killer except the nurse
Pretty sure Nurse gets pallet-stunned like every other killer. I know, because I had it done to me a few times. So what's not working?
they even buffed her pallet stun duration after blinking like she needed it
They didn't buff anything. They corrected a bug where she suffered the stun and fatigue. Literally no other killer goes through cooldown of both after a pallet stun, except Nurse. It was one of her many bugs that Nurse players have just had to put up with for years.
Noclipping through walls is not balanced
Well... when you make such a shallow case, it's easy to claim anything.
Decisive, Dead Hard, Unbreakable, Boons, Borrowed Time, and all the other 2nd chance perks aren't balanced. Let's see you address those too.
-
@Shirtless_Myers said:
I prefer her disabled; Nurse is busted and always has been. She becomes the true easy mode of this game once you memorize the blink distance after a few days.
Nurse is easy mode?? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
-
@Brokenbones said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2843572#Comment_2843572
I mean what is nurses counterplay apart from stealth (which nobody seems to do anymore), breaking LOS, doubling back or "mindgaming"?
I'm not asking out of bad faith I want to know what you personally think it is because not everyone can agree.
You can't really use windows, because you get animation locked. You can't really use pallets because she can go right through them and stunning a nurse out of blink isn't as rewarding anymore since she can blink straight afterwards. Supposedly it was a bug where she had the stun and the fatigue but I can't deny it felt more rewarding to pull off. Also DH, Should ppl really feel like DH is the only perk that helps against this killer?
Again, I wanna also mention something I see Nurse and Blight players do a lot which I find a bit hypocritical which is burning map offerings that favour them. Survivors do it too, of course but it's still unfair.
Some tips here: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2844449/#Comment_2844449
-
@Mtom912 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2844399#Comment_2844399
so don't just instant drop the pallet if she's charging already, and either double back or at least mindgame, very surprising that someone who most likely panicked from getting blinked on just dropping a pallet then running in a straight line with 0 fakes or los break goes down fast.
also supaalf a player that has comp experience + skill level is way higher than the average player can down a random pub player in 10 seconds? no way
like at least get a comp nurse vs a comp survivor, supaalf can probably make demo or trapper look OP vs the average player
also supaalf a player that has comp experience + skill level is way higher than the average player can down a random pub player in 10 seconds? no way
It's completely possible... but only when the player has majorly fubar'd.
It's not something innate to Nurse though. Other killers can down inside of 10 seconds too with STBFL. As well as Mickey Myers with his Tier 3, etc.
The problem is bad survivors are using cherry-picked examples of where a Nurse can over-power a player to allege that she's always that over-powering which is simply not the case.