PlaysByShady
PlaysByShady
About
- Username
- PlaysByShady
- Joined
- Visits
- 362
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Erd69 said:
Why do people complain about going against a pinhead or a nemesis? But d
Tell me you haven't played Nurse without telling me you haven't played Nurse.
Nurse is my main killer... she's buggy as hell and her blinks are hella hard to place. But also knowing how she works, what her weaknesses, etc are, also allows for me to play against her because I know the situations I can run into that's hard for Nurse players to counter.
"Know thy enemy" so to speak...
-
@xoMadii said:
If the whole MMR system is just reducing us down to a number to boost our MMR then why can’t it in another way that doesn’t account for kills/escapes only?
How is there no way to take the same thing that determines your pips, and implement that into MMR?
Each medal has its own set of numbers, kill/escape medals can be set at a higher number value than the others, and the MMR system could average out the number for the whole game and reduce you down to a number in that way, no?
The current MMR system rewards selfish players, and tunneling/face camping (don’t get me wrong, it’s a completely valid strategy, but killers should have the option to play without doing that to achieve kills).
Altruism is a big aspect of the game, so is looping, and obviously so are objectives. So why have you guys designed your whole MMR system around escapes/deaths, when you guys repeatedly say the game isn’t meant to win, it’s supposed to be more of a “draw” type situation.
The game isn’t fun when you’re constantly being tunneled out as a survivor, and for a lot of killers it isn't fun to have to tunnel one person out just to have a chance either.
Nor is the game fun when you get left to die on first hook, because locker Dwight made it into high MMR too because he hides and escapes often.
You guys say it eventually evens itself out and that it doesn’t happen as often as your player base is saying it happens.
So when does it even itself out? Because myself, and a ton of others have multiple experiences back to back, and it’s not “evening” itself out.
Also, why does the reasoning for not completing nerfs/buffs/changes always consistent of something along the lines of “it’s too hard, why would we do this when we could do that?”
Your player base is reaching out to you with ideas, and while a lot are based on opinions, or are clearly favorable to one side over another, a lot of suggestions are actually very well thought out, neutral suggestions that could really help.
Even within your very detailed description, you yourself threw in, “low blows”, towards your player base, when all anyone is doing is expressing their frustration and making suggestions.
I am 110% on board with an MMR system, I just wish you guys would listen to your players feedback and adjust your improvements based around that.
"If the whole MMR system is just reducing us down to a number to boost our MMR then why can’t it in another way that doesn’t account for kills/escapes only?"
Because you want nuance where numbers don't record nuance. Simple as.
Look... let's say for argument's sake you have a skilled player who runs the killer for 5-gens, does all the unhooks, and whatever else. Let's say his rank increases at the end of the game by 20pts... again, completely arbitrary numbers for the sake of it. This guy plays his one game and retires.
Now, you have someone else to hides all game, somehow is paired with a great team who do the gens, and he manages to escape with them. Should his rank go up? Yes... because if you're going to have a system where you rank goes down for "winning", you're gonna have a bad time. But let's just say it goes up by 1pt, the bare minimum.
And now let's say this guy plays 20 matches in a row like that (not going to happen in reality which is what's throwing people off, but hey, it's a hypothetical). His rank has now increased by +20pts... he is the same "skill" as the person who ran the gens.
It doesn't make sense, right? That's because you know how he got there. A machine doesn't. It just wants to boil things down to a comparable number and there is no other way.
"How is there no way to take the same thing that determines your pips, and implement that into MMR?"
Not only was that the old way, it literally still makes little difference to the end result for all intents and purposes. That's literally the point here. No matter what kind of metrics and calculations you use, at the end of the day the trends still don't differ from the kill/escape trend, so why bother looking at everything else when you already have a simple enough and accurate indicator?
"The current MMR system rewards selfish players, and tunneling/face camping (don’t get me wrong, it’s a completely valid strategy, but killers should have the option to play without doing that to achieve kills)."
Ah... found the problem... it's that you're looking at it as a "reward". There's no reward/penalty for going up/down in the MMR. It's literally just a means to match you with players you should (in theory) be equally matched with. You looking at it as a reward/competition is the problem.
"The game isn’t fun when you’re constantly being tunneled out as a survivor, and for a lot of killers it isn't fun to have to tunnel one person out just to have a chance either."
I agree 100%. But how else can you deal with it, except (a) to put you against killers you'll have an easier time escaping and (b) put killers against survivors they'll have a harder time catching. That's literally what the system does, and by the results, it's working well.
"You guys say it eventually evens itself out and that it doesn’t happen as often as your player base is saying it happens."
The player base has no idea what they're talking about. They don't have access to the overall kill/escape ratio. The devs do, and they've published this... and it can be seen that overall the ratio is about 50/50. It's "working" (I put it in quotes because there's still some subjectivity involved which I don't agree with). The point though, the recorded data is more accurate to what the community says.
-
@PigMainBigBrain said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2771910#Comment_2771910
"You put a good player on another team, and absolutely nothing will change."
Ok its obvious from this point you either don't watch sports or have never played. We literally have full ESPN franchises and a multi billion dollar industry based on the trading of players to other teams, BECAUSE ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING WILL CHANGE.....LITERALLY....YEARLY...
Bruh #########. If I put Kobe Bryant (RIP) on the Houston Rockets(loling thinking they could afford him), I'm sorry, but he's gonna carry the team. They might not get a championship ring, and a trade like that would be the dumbest thing LA could ever do, but what you just said is 100% bullshit. Kobe averaged 35 points per game at his best, he's worth 2 of their best players against the hardest defenses in the league. And again, while he may not be enough to get them a championship, it is enough to keep them from being the worst team in the league. WHICH IS AN ABSOLUTE CHANGE FROM BEING THE WORST TEAM IN THE LEAGUE.....WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT....Stop playin around bruh....stop.
https://media.tenor.com/images/2538ce3c1a3d53a9825c408d738950fa/tenor.gif
"Ok its obvious from this point you either don't watch sports or have never played. We literally have full ESPN franchises and a multi billion dollar industry based on the trading of players to other teams, BECAUSE ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING WILL CHANGE.....LITERALLY....YEARLY..."
We have football in the UK. I'm well acquainted with this.
What I'm less acquainted with is how you can misunderstand simple and plain English to understand something other than what I said. Forget things changing yearly, I literally mentioned in my OP that everyone's metrics is changing all the time anyway. It's a live system, so I've no idea what you think I said but I'd advise you to re-read.
The rest of your comments made zero sense to me.
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2771898#Comment_2771898
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.
"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 swing-cancel is still very much present (i.e. she can't swing/attack/lunge when coming out of a blink). You have you keep pressing the attack button to hope for something to happen, but then you've lost the opportunity for lunge had it happened straightaway.
Also, I played ~6 matches last night and in every one there was issues with blinking through objects (or lack thereof). So whatever was fixed was either extremely localised (maybe a particular hill, on a particular map, when spawned in a particular place in a particular orientation???) or didn't work (completely) as intended.
-
@PigMainBigBrain said:
"You don't need to do the complicated calculations when there's a much simpler indicator that correlates closely enough. For any sport, if you look at their league tables, you can infer the teams (consistently) at the top have the best players... because how else did they get there? You don't need to know the ins and outs of each player, etc."
So can we infer from your post, that if we put Kobe Bryant (RIP) on any team in the NBA that that team would perform the same regardless of the ins and outs of Kobe? Cause if so....thats cap.
IMO the ins and outs are what matter the most. A guy running 5 gens plays a big factor on a teams outcome, in the same way a Tristana playing in plat league with terrible CS is going to play a big factor. League of legends has more than just Win/Lose to determine LP, they have CS, vision score, KDA, DPS, and a slew of other stats to contend with. My problem with SBMM if I had to pick one, is they went from the previous system of ranking a match through individual tasks, to cutting 90% of that out into a win/lose scenario. When there was previously a fat stack of other factors that went into play. You say, "Well that guy running a killer 5 gens is going to do that consistently." I'd argue, what about that other guy making clutch heals, or that other guy stealthing and banging out gens, or that other guy who does all of the above who <---can all be killed and camped no matter how well or how poorly they performed, negating any actual value out of them as a player.
If an NBA player consistently gets 20 points a game, but his team still loses, and you don't count his ability and adjust him to be on an actual viable team guess what....you didn't create an MMR system, you created an ELO hell. Where valuable players get constantly knocked up and down in limbo for placements when their actual skill is way higher. If this game was a heads or tails contest sure, simple factors would make simple sense. But its just as complex as any other game with rankings, albeit less complex than a MOBA, but still. Besides most of what we're talking about wouldn't matter anyway where matches are forced to take place faster, where there's an empty slot, they said themselves last live stream, to prevent long queue times that slot gets filled. And as people have pointed out this month and last month alone, that slot being filled isn't always "balanced".
"So can we infer from your post, that if we put Kobe Bryant (RIP) on any team in the NBA that that team would perform the same regardless of the ins and outs of Kobe? Cause if so....thats cap."
Err... yes... that's exactly what I said. You put a good player on another team, and absolutely nothing will change. Exactly what I said. Perfect. You understand perfectly. Very big brain you!
-
@Journeywalker said:
To the OP: thank you for your thorough explanation of MMR from a dev perspective. It covers a lot of things that are misunderstood about MMR systems. That said:
HOW THE MMR DOESN'T WORK, AND WHY WHAT PATRICK SAID MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE (FROM A PLAYER POV)
Now that the hyperbolic headline is out of the way, we can dig into the meat of the issue. There are at least three reasons why the current implementation of MMR doesn’t make sense to a lot of players. Oddly enough, I’m a baby killer main, but I’m going to argue that the current system is worse for survivors than it is for killers.
Lack of Transparency (Obfuscation is not Emotional Security)
A hidden MMR system leaves a silent answer to a fundamental question: “Am I making progress?” DbD went from a transparent, non-ELO system to an opaque ELO system. Players used to have a very concrete idea of whether they were making progress. Taking that sense of progress away was a mistake (unless BHVR wanted to induce stress and addiction in the player base). Sure, there’s pipping and grades, but grades reset each month. Pipping gets harder as MMR goes up, so the positive reinforcement actually gets less frequent. If we are all within the Entity's Skinner box, the current MMR implementation feels a bit like variable ratio scheduling. That is, the positive feedback (winning) resembles a black-box slot machine. While this conditions players to continue pressing the DbD lever, I think it leaves players feeling aimless and stressed.
Proposed solutions:
Show an indication of a player's MMR. If the Super Smash Brothers community is mature enough to know an indication of their MMR, I'd hope the DbD community could handle it. People will always try to bolster their standing by listing their credentials (number of hours played or guessed MMR). Giving an indication of one's MMR will only shine light on people's toxic elitism, where it can be called out for the insecurity that it is. It'll also bring any deficiencies in the matchmaking to light, such as backfilling and MMR window widening. Currently, there's no way to know whether a 0K/4K was due to particularly bad/good play or matchmaking struggling to prioritize queue times, backfilling, and MMR.
If BHVR is dead-set on keeping MMR hidden, they should at least consider indicating MMR changes on a match-by-match and/or month-by-month basis. Apparently, the system is very good at predicting outcomes. Would it be too much to tell the killer after the match what the expected kill count was? It might provide a killer some much-needed copium after being bullied by a SWF if they knew that their 1K was actually outperforming what the game expected.
Providing statistics would also scratch that progression itch. Allow survivors/killers to see a report of their survival/kill rates for the month, their longest chases, their deviousness rating, etc.
An Imperfect Fit (It's Not Me, It's You)
MMR systems were originally designed for zero-sum games where everyone has the same tools at the beginning of the match, like chess.
DbD is not a zero-sum game, especially for survivors. Teamwork is required to complete the objective on the survivor side, and that means the best looper may be the first to be downed.
On a meta level, making DbD "fun" involves complex social structures like answering questions about, "What is fair?" These are not zero-sum problems, and MMR is not equipped to deal with them.
Dbd is not a blank-slate game like chess. It's more like a game of Magic where the perks/items are cards in a deck. A beginner player (or a recently-prestiged player) is literally at a disadvantage before the match starts, especially if it's a killer without Lightborn facing a quad-flashlight SWF. Some of these "cards" are behind pay walls, so there is an unpleasant pay-to-win mechanic in play.
Proposed solutions: Acknowledge that MMR is not perfect. Work on making the grind less grindy. Try to make more perks viable so that "vital" perks aren't behind pay walls. Lower the starting MMR. Consider implementing a small MMR modifier based on BP level to help people after a prestige.
Skill-Based Matchmaking (Under-promise and Overdeliver)As indirectly acknowledged, "Skill-Based Matchmaking" is a loaded term that didn't perfectly align with the implementation. After all, to boil it down to a zero-sum game, MMR can only look at something like kills/escapes, which is a proxy of skill, but is not skill itself. If we accept the hockey analogy, imagine if a player were payed solely based on whether their team won or lost. Or solely based on whether their goalie saved the most shots. That player would rightfully feel cheated. BHVR is hiding what each player "makes", but that doesn't make the evaluation process more fair on an individual basis. For survivors, losing means being put with worse teammates, adding insult to injury. It's why the "SoloQ MMR Black Hole" is a thing.
Proposed solutions: Don't use the term SBMM.
I did answer the points you raised?
"Players used to have a very concrete idea of whether they were making progress. Taking that sense of progress away was a mistake (unless BHVR wanted to induce stress and addiction in the player base)."
What progress?? You're looking at the MMR as a ladder to climb. It's literally not. It's just a mechanism to match like-players with like! The progress is measured by grades which are clearly displayed, visible, and rewarded based on your actual progress. The MMR is not a progression system... it was never designed to be, it was never advertised as being so, it's just a confused minority of people who are fixated with the idea of reaching "top mmr", despite the fact that it's ultimately meaningless!
"MMR systems were originally designed for zero-sum games where everyone has the same tools at the beginning of the match, like chess.
...
On a meta level, making DbD "fun" involves complex social structures like answering questions about, "What is fair?" These are not zero-sum problems, and MMR is not equipped to deal with them."
I hope you realise the implication of what you're saying is that it is by definition impossible to make a system that can match-make games in DBD to achieve any kind of balance... being as MMR (and thus your inference being any/all MMR systems, including ones yet to be designed, else it'd include the one designed here and now) aren't equipped to deal with the problem. The problem you have is explaining how the kill rates for killers across the board is now strongly centred around 50%, which is exactly what they were aiming for.
"Some of these "cards" are behind pay walls, so there is an unpleasant pay-to-win mechanic in play."
There are no cards behind pay walls... I think you've got the wrong game. We're talking about DBD here. The only things behind paywalls are certain characters (usage of those characters doesn't give an automatic win), and cosmetics... none of which I believe have any competitive advantage. I'd actually even say some have disadvantages because they expose the characters moreso than regular cosmetics.
-
@King_Rendal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2771005#Comment_2771005
Yeah you're slightly off here he did not say that directly. It's a logical conclusion from what he did say but you shouldn't refer to it as a word-for-word quote. It gives disingenuous people a chance to smugly nitpick you.
The direct quote is "If your skilled play doesn't get you the win was it really a skilled play in the first place?" the quote that is floating around about 5 gens is based on substituting 'skilled play' for an example of a skilled play. That being a 5 gen run. It's a logical implication of what was said but not a direct quote.
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.
-
@skratchh said:
If I run a killer for 5 gens and my team gets them all done. How is that NOT skillful play? That is what he said word for word. That if you ran a killer for 5 gens it was not skill. These devs do not play their own game.
"That is what he said word for word. That if you ran a killer for 5 gens it was not skill."
Please... show us the video timestamp of where he said this, word for word... 🤔
-
Still broken in 5.5.0, no acknowledgement either in the notes (although there was a fix for the wrong buttons being displayed when using a DS4 or something?)
-
https://media.giphy.com/media/Fml0fgAxVx1eM/giphy.gif@Edilibs said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2770234#Comment_2770234
It not about winning or losing a argument but i back my statements up with facts! You got the right one with me because i dont just lay down for anyone or let them invalidate me as a player so do, carry on!
#alternativefacts lol
-
@Edilibs said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2770076#Comment_2770076
Easy, i know 100% for sure because i do the best with Nemesis! I dont and havent done as well with my other killers as i have with Nemesis, its THAT simple. I cant "stomp" survivors for two weeks straight. So according to your logic im playing at a low MMR bc im 4king and 3king for absolutely nothing and its having 0 effect on my MMR and so my MMR is low! lmao see how that makes no sense?
My MMR is highest with Nemesis because no one knows me better than me and im playing at a high MMR because of my undefeated streak (2 weeks straight) Anything else?
Honestly... I wonder why I bother sometimes...
@King_Rendal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2769626#Comment_2769626
You conflate an individualised rating change with individualised ratings. All team-based games with MMR implementations already have solutions for this. You cannot gain MMR in CSGO while the rest of your team loses it. My critique of the individualised nature is that it treats the game as 4 1v1s happening simultaneously. To my knowledge no other competitive team-based game does that, and it doesn't work. Can you imagine how silly it would be if a match of CSGO tried to define a single match 4 1v1s happening at the same time such that the losing team can still have a couple winners? It's ridiculous because it doesn't reflect the nature of the game being played.
Better players do not have answers to a facecamping Bubba. If you think otherwise you are familiar with only a very low level of play and fail to consider the entire skill range of DBD. A facecamping Bubba will always get at least 1 kill if they play with minimum competence. Even if they are up against the number 1 team in the world. That is the nature of DBD and there are other similar ways to achieve this guaranteed at least 1 kill regardless of skill.
You have failed to address or consider my point regarding how playing better in chase leads to a higher chance of you dying. Instead you just pointed out at best a nitpick in my phrasing of your statemens. You said it was either a fluke or something they can repeat. Well if they repeat it they will just die the same way. Better survivors who loop the killer for too long will often find themselves facecamped and killed directly because they were too good. The system actively lowers the ratings of better players and increases the ratings of worse players. This is a functional failing.
I've been very clear this isn't about MMR increasing being a good thing or losing MMR being a bad thing. I want a functional system. That's all.
"My critique of the individualised nature is that it treats the game as 4 1v1s happening simultaneously."
In what sense now? It treats them as 4 separate 1v1s in terms of determining a win/loss for each survivor. You're saying it should assign a win/loss to the team overall... so if 2 survivors escape, that's a win, even though they lost 1/2 the team escaping?
TBH, it's an idea and I see the merit in it (the survivors who died surely did contribute to the success of those who exited), but only if you're looking at games individually. When you look at games overall (i.e. a predominant trend for any player), if the player concerned is as good as they're supposed to be, they'll inherently escape more often too and their ranking will necessarily adjust to the right place, regardless of the deaths in the minority of their matches.
I don't see how it'd change things overall, and I suspect this was explored and dismissed already.
"Better players do not have answers to a facecamping Bubba."
I literally already answered this directly and you've completely ignored what I've said, whilst quoting the post I said it in. I see the problem here. Sadly it's yours to resolve.
-
@Edilibs said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2769824#Comment_2769824
Lol how did i know that someone was gonna challenge what i say to confuse things! hahah
Well i play multiple killers and out of all those killers i do the best with Nemesis. Second with Doctor and Third with Twins. Therefore, since i've been using Nemesis mostly with this new build i have not lost for two weeks straight. If two weeks worth of playing and not just playing "winning" constantly 4king with some 3k's isnt raising my MMR i dont know what will. Have you actually aid attention to what i was saying? Aall 4ks and 3ks for two weeks staright playing everyday! I play at a very high MMR my friend dont hate..
Its really dumb at this point, why do people want to constantly challenge what i say like im crazy or something? lol
PS: Im really strong in DBD )
I'm not trying to confuse things, I'm just highlighting a knowledge gap, and also the fallacy of undistributed middle. Ultimately, *I just asked a question as to how you know what you said you know*. That's not a challenge, unless your position is that your assertions are beyond question - which I will definitely challenge!
You say you play Nemesis a lot. Fine, I believe you.
You say you win a lot (most of the time). Fine, I believe you.
You say therefore your MMR is increasing. Fine, I believe you.
But where you say your MMR is highest for Nemesis... now I've got to ask, how do you know, given that you don't see the numbers, and given that (by your own assertion) you're going against players you can easily stomp?
It's just as plausible (perhaps more so) that your MMR - for whatever reason - started out low, and whilst it is rising, you're still in the territory of players you can stomp.
-
@Edilibs said:
All i know is that my highest and high MMR killer is Nemesis! I've played for two weeks straight and have not lost a single game ie 4k's and 3k's (Yes i play crossplay) Survivors no matter who they are cannot stop by Nemesis its actually crazy!
How do you know (i.e. for a fact, rather than supposition) that your Nemesis didn't start off really low, and is just taking a while to get to the level where you're going against opponents who are similar to your skill in reality?
-
"one lead designer knows better than thousands of experienced players"
Love it! Every time I fire up DBD, I learn about algorithmic design, queue processing, statistics, computational post-game analysis.
Heck, I've played enough games of DBD that I think I'm ready to code my own now... as are thousands of experienced players regardless of knowing anything about how to code anything!
Yeesh...
-
@ScottJund said:
Guys. These discussions are meaningless. Arguing how to do a proper MMR system in an asymmetrical game with player imbalances is completely pointless. The system could assign numbers perfectly and still not work because once you are in queue for a certain amount of time, the system doesn't work anyway. If you make it more strict in terms of skill, people quit because they don't want 10 minute minimum queues. If you make it less strict, like we have now, you have literally first game players going against people with thousands of hours. In both of these scenarios, the MMR might be calcuated perfectly, but none of this matters whatsoever in an asymmetrical game like Dead by Daylight that has an uneven amount of players on each side required to play the game.
Imagine if you queued into a League or Dota match but you had to queue as solo mid, support, jungler, etc. Your queue times would either be astronomically higher or the system would widen the search range, leading to extreme variance in skill.
League, Dota, Counterstrike - any game with functional MMR is not asymmetrical. You just need ten players to start the match. That's it. The roles do not matter. With Dead by Daylight, you need the exact correct ratio to make queue times not very long, and once they are long, as they are, the system does not work.
These discussions are meaningless.
How many of your videos have been invalidated because of later updates/patches to the game? I daresay quite a few. In which case I invite you to stop making videos because it's meaningless... it'll just be out-of-date info eventually.
Or maybe, you might be open-minded enough to realise that it's important for the community to recognise where their knowledge boundaries lie, or how/why a system came to be the way it is so they can direct their frustrations more accurately, etc. At the very least, information is the cure to ignorance, so unless you're advocating for an ignorant majority community (which I suppose is good fodder to target explainer videos to), discussion is good.
-
@fblurbg said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768990#Comment_2768990
That's the saddest thing I've heard all week. "You got called out by a dev whose trustworthiness is paper-thin, so I'm going to hound you wherever you go." News flash, trying to get attention from me won't make up for the attention you didn't receive from your parents growing up.
Basically, Peanits said that their desired average is a 50% kill rate, meaning that their desired average (meaning the majority of and ideally all) matches are a 2k2e. There's no other way you can spin that in a way that isn't "We want every other match to alternate between a 4k and 4e" or "We want matches to still have wild amounts of variance between the results to the point where they are individually meaningless but hey, they collectively average out to this random number we abstractly decided was the pinnacle of balance."
Peanits more or less said "Find me where we said wanted 2k2e matches on average. What we actually want is 2k2e matches on average."
Oh dear... are you still going on about this, with zero credibility yourself? You've made a claim, and repeatedly refused to back up that claim, and now your ignorance is on show.
"Basically, Peanits said that their desired average is a 50% kill rate, meaning that their desired average (meaning the majority of and ideally all) matches are a 2k2e. There's no other way you can spin that..."
Err, no. Please, go back to school and learn maths, or leave the discussion to those that understand it. To have an average kill-rate of 50%, it's perfectly possible (and I believe most parties believe this is more likely) to have matches that'll either be a 4-escape or 4-kills. Either the killer gets pressure early and takes someone out, in which case the rest of the team will fall faster, or the team can resist and complete the gens quickly enough that they can escape. If you've played enough matches, you'll realise that the game can end in either of these two scenarios and turn on one simple thing that can occur during end game.
The point of the MMR is to provide matches that can go either way, that's how "balance" is defined. It is NOT designed to produce a match where 2 escape and 2 die because THERE IS NO WAY TO CONTROL OR DICTATE THAT ONCE THE TRIAL BEGINS.
You're literally demonstrating by your continued commentary you've no idea what you're talking about. Please, have some humility and try to educate yourself.
-
@King_Rendal said:
You've probably heard these critiques before but since I don't want to read every single post on this thread I'll voice them anyway.
First and most important issue is I disagree strongly with viewing DBD as a 1v1 game in any capacity. This would be a critique of the base assumption that the goal/ideal for a SBMM system in DBD is to achieve a state where each individual survivor has a 50% chance to survive and the killer has a 50% chance of killing each survivor. This is so wrong because that just isn't what DBD is. DBD is a 1v4 game and any SBMM system is at the very least required to reflect this nature to be even remotely effective. While it seems there is some plan to create a hybrid system, I will repeat, considering DBD a 1v1 game ever is deeply flawed and can't work. Either all survivors win or none do.
Secondly on the subject of a facecamping Bubba you're coming at this just from the wrong perspective. Better players do not have solutions to a facecamping Bubba. While you're trying to distinguish this event from player skill you are already assuming player skill to be at issue here. It is functionally impossible even for the literal best teams in comp to do anything about a Bubba that intends to facecamp. They will always get at least 1 kill, potentially even 2 regardless of their skill and regardless of their opponent's skill. This isn't even the only version of this strategy, several killers can guarantee at least 1 kill per match regardless of their opponent's skill. And even those that can't guarantee it can make it vastly more likely by giving up on 'winning' to instead earn as many kills as possible. A SBMM system that uses individual kills/escapes fails to capture these basic gameplay facts.
Very similar to the previous critique, in fact this even comes naturally as a result of the previous critique, but a survivor that does a 5 gen run and dies losing MMR is a very significant problem. You speculate that pulling off a 5 gen run and dying must be a fluke, something not necessary to be accounted for by the system. That is wrong. If you 5 gen run the killer they have quite literally no better choice than to try and confirm their kill on you. If you had allowed yourself to go down earlier the killer would have had alternative options than to camp you. The system is actually consistent in this. Being better at running the killer will increase your odds of dying in a match. Now this doesn't apply when all 4 survivors are very good but more likely than not an above average player will be matched with players a bit lower than them. The players worse than them get hooked after short chases and the killer moves on. But when they get to a higher skilled player, the chase takes much longer. So long all the gens get finished and the killer is left with no real viable option other than to try and confirm their kill. This is not a fluke it is the standard way the game works. The system not only fails to capture skill but it can actually rate a player negatively because they were just too good. There is no greater failing for a SBMM system than to consistently lower the MMR of the best player in the match but that is what this system does.
You seem to have a very deep understanding of the statistics and algorithms used for this but if you don't understand the emergent metagame in DBD you will apply your statistics incorrectly. And that's what I believe I've seen from your post. It's also quite likely why we've ended up with this system in the first place. The MMR works perfectly for some game that doesn't actually exist but it absolutely fails DBD.
Ok, here we go...
"First and most important issue is I disagree strongly with viewing DBD as a 1v1 game in any capacity. This would be a critique of the base assumption that the goal/ideal for a SBMM system in DBD is to achieve a state where each individual survivor has a 50% chance to survive and the killer has a 50% chance of killing each survivor. This is so wrong because that just isn't what DBD is. DBD is a 1v4 game and any SBMM system is at the very least required to reflect this nature to be even remotely effective. While it seems there is some plan to create a hybrid system, I will repeat, considering DBD a 1v1 game ever is deeply flawed and can't work. Either all survivors win or none do."
I get what you're saying. But the problem is everyone has to be ranked individually because they come into the game as individuals. I play solo most of the time (woe is me, I have no friends), so most of my matches are with 3 randoms (and a random killer)... how on earth is any MMR system supposed to apply a ranking to reflect this particular unique grouping that may never happen again??
It can't! It's pretty much impossible (to the point where, if there were a solution, it'd require so much effort to discover, implement, and validate that it almost becomes a self-defeating exercise).
The system HAS to look at each player as individuals to give each player their own ranking, so it can match them with other players. If you know of a better way, then I'll present you the same option as everyone else... tell us what it is!
"Secondly on the subject of a facecamping Bubba you're coming at this just from the wrong perspective. Better players do not have solutions to a facecamping Bubba."
Yes they do. Firstly, they're better in chase, so less likely to be caught. They're also more map aware so if they do go down, they'll go down where a rescue is most likely to succeed. Furthermore, better teams can co-ordinate rescues in difficult circumstances. As killer, I'll camp the hook in the EGC, and I've seen many a time survivors make a successful rescue. It absolutely can be done. Your problem now is that you think you possess the sum knowledge of all possibilities, and that's clouding your judgement severely.
"They will always get at least 1 kill, potentially even 2 regardless of their skill and regardless of their opponent's skill."
So, you're saying it's completely impossible for a Bubba player to exit a trial with 0-kills? Really? That's your argument?? Oh dear.
"You speculate that pulling off a 5 gen run and dying must be a fluke, something not necessary to be accounted for by the system."
I said no such thing, and this just goes to show you didn't read what I said with intent to understand, but rather you just tried to quote mine and cherry pick points you think support your argument.
I said in that scenario, it was either a fluke chase, or something the survivor is skilled enough to repeat. If the survivor can repeat it, they will repeat it, and when you look at their games overall you'll see they escape more often and their level will rise.
Aside from not reading and not understanding, your other problem is this supposition that going up/down in MMR level is a good/bad thing. It's not. There's no kudos or reward from having a higher level. It's literally just a mechanism to match you with similarly skilled players. It's not a comment on your level of skill. The system isn't designed to stroke your ego. It's designed to match make.
-
@shalo said:
That's all very cute and all but as an end user of the game all I care about is if I get fun, evenly-matched games that I feel I could have won if I played well. That happens in about 10% of my play time, the rest are stomps or being stomped.
So, let me get this straight... 10% of your games were winnable had you played right (so we can call them even)... and the remaining 90% you're either winning or losing such that (I'm guessing here) overall you win/lose around 50% of the time?
Seems like the system is doing what it was designed to (which is not necessarily the same as what you're expecting or wanting it to)
-
@Valik said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768695#Comment_2768695
"I'm not who you think I am, making me correct by default. I'm right and you're wrong"
Intellectualism at its finest and most condensed.
You wrote your entire comment trying to bring logic to a flawed perspective. You are now attributing thoroughness and truth as delusions of detractors. You are labeling those who want an accurate representation of skill and a less toxic model of scoring as **"People who've no clue what they're talking about will make any/every accusation and resort to logical fallacies in order to try and make a point."**
Calculating viability, skill, and value off of an end result of a complex mixture is the very definition of judging a book by its cover. You explain away many parts of development and what makes such a system easy for developers to use, or a streamlined effect that generates somewhat accurate results - but that is looking at the picture and not the landscape beyond.
You will never, ever, ever glean an accurate representation of player skill, value, or contribution by measuring W's and L's. You will always create a more boring and predictable game where the only objective is winning at all costs. You will never entice new players to stay once they start winning and face the mediocracy of all those W's.
Trying to wrap your head around a game once you strip away perks, tiles, killers, powers, items, maps, technical aspects, and interactions is a lot easier. Its very simple to strip away everything and look at a binary end result. But just because something is easy doesn't make it true. Just because something is simple does not make it healthy, and just because you think you can wrap your mind around something's development does not make you the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong.
You know what's funny about this whole dribble that you wrote... it's this sentence: "You will never, ever, ever glean an accurate representation of player skill, value, or contribution by measuring W's and L's."
Err... that's exactly what I've been saying, if only you'd care to read and understand instead of approaching it with a preconceived viewpoint that you needed validating.
In fact, I'd go further and say it's impossible to glean an accurate representation of player skill... full stop! Because how on earth are you going to measure it, without coming up with some consistent objective mechanism to measure it that produces consistent results in all match conditions, despite the fact that matches can vary wildly based on the actions of others and RNG, both of which are completely outside your control.
You're telling me to wrap my head around stuff... I'd humbly advise you to follow your own advice. It seems, from the comments in this thread, that the people who know how to built software and systems like this agree with how I've explained it. If you know better than us, then prove it. Explain in concrete terms where the flaws are and how to fix it. Let's see you implement what you think you know.
-
@AsherFrost said:
This is beautiful and I kinda want to lick your brain now. But not in a weird way.
err.... ok, I'm game :D
-
@Crypticghoul said:
As somebody who stopped playing the game entirely a few days after MMR dropped because I just stopped having any fun (and has been thinking about giving the game another try after it decays some due to inactivity), I think using pre-MMR data under the old system, not factoring in items/addons, and not being able to see our MMR as an option in the settings were big mistakes that make the system hated and feel awful.
Can you imagine the controversy if the actual MMR number was exposed to an entire community that have no understand of what it means??
"Waaah... why is my mmr X?? My friend's is Y, but I'm a better player! Check out my cosmetics!! Also I did a sexy juke and t-bagged the killer. My MMR should double because of that alone but it didn't. The system is broken. Waaaahhhh!!"
-
@DesignDad said:
First off, amazing post and follow ups. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to help break down these very complex design challenges into a more readable and understandable form!
PS – Love Trueskill, I remember reading papers about it many years ago. It solved some problems with matchmaking that are unique to videogames (ie building a fresh team for every game) in interesting ways.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768500#Comment_2768500
It’s absolutely a challenge to communicated about this topic, as it is both extremely technical and complex. When doing a Q&A stream, I am trying to boil down years upon years of research and experience into a few sentences that are understandable, correct, and quick to deliver so that we can answer as many questions as possible. As much as I would love to talk to everyone for hours about Matchmaking, the mathematical nuance of Glicko-2, and how all of this needs to be modified to apply to an asymmetrical game… At some point I need to get back to working on the game. 😊
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768605#Comment_2768605
I’ll offer up a bit of clarification about this point: There is a “soft” cap for MMR as it is considered by the Matchmaking system. A player’s numerical MMR value is allowed to go as high (or as low) as the math says it should. However, when the Matchmaking system is looking at building matches from players in the queue it will effectively round down (or up) the extreme outliers to help them find a match. This was done in direct response to one of the MMR tests we ran last year: Some players were completely unable to find a match because they were such extreme outliers, no matches could actually be formed with them involved. The soft cap is a dynamic value that we can change at any time (and we have adjusted a few times already). Right now I think it’s around 2,000, so any players who have an MMR above that value are treated by the Matchmaker as though their MMR is 2,000 for the purposes of building a match. Post-match MMR adjustment is still based on their ACTUAL MMR, though.
It's worth noting that this isn’t done because there are tons of players above the cap, it’s actually the opposite! The vast majority of our players fall within our lower and upper soft caps. The caps exist to handle the rare, but still real, edge case of extreme outliers. They deserve to play the game, too!
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768229#Comment_2768229
Sadly, in practice, it’s much more similar to the worst-case scenario. It still weighs MMR a bit when backfilling, but not in a meaningful manner. This is partially a hold-over from the Rank-Based Matchmaking days. But, as mentioned, it has been identified and is something we are actively working on addressing!
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768500#Comment_2768500
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!
As another note about the various posts talking about the 1v4 aspect of DbD as it pertains to the maths:
Our batch update logic (that’s what updating with multiple results simultaneously) is based on the Glicko algorithm. It (Glicko) was designed to handle situations where you’ve got multiple results in a short period of time where there’s unlikely to be much difference in the skill of the player between those games. To put it another way, think about someone going and playing in a one-day tournament: They win some and they lose some, but their skill level at the game was probably the same the entire time. In DbD, we use this for Killers to process the results of a single game: 4 matchups that all happened simultaneously are “batched” together to make use of this approach.
If you’re more curious about the maths, I encourage you to check out Mark Glickman’s website about it! He provides papers explaining the formula in detail. A quick search for “Glicko” on your search engine of choice should lead you there.
We have made many customizations to the formula to reflect the asymmetric nature of DbD, but the core mathematical concepts remain the same. 😊
Cheers :)
-
@fblurbg said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768587#Comment_2768587
Have you never listened to them talk about MMR and their balancing in-depth beyond this one QnA? Wanting 2 kills and 2 escapes every match is their paradigm. It's what the community has been getting at them for for a long time now, because their logic and philosophy are flawed.
I have, but you're still missing the point! It's more than likely that you've misunderstood what they're saying. Particularly because I've heard them make statements which contradict what you're saying when taken holistically.
I'm telling you the horse pulls the cart, and you're arguing the cart pushes the horse because you believe the devs said the horse should be in front of the cart (how else is it supposed to push the horse otherwise).
-
@Valik said:
'The ends justify the means, and there is no better way.'
There, I condensed the entire post into 10 words.
This just goes to show you that Behavior fanboys will say anything at all to defend something stupid and out of touch so long as it came from their favorite dev company.
Everything said in the comment about reducing people to numbers and factoring in their performance sounds nice on paper. Gotta give it to the poster for blatantly admitting the horrendous flaws of the system.
The strange thing is it seems to be functioning off the notion that there is no better system. That there's no way to correctly calculate skill in an asymmetrical setting. That such a thing can't exist or doesn't already.
The thing is, SPM.
Score Per Minute.
It is already a system that's been in use in popular games like Call Of Duty for years. Turns out, if you calculate the score of a player and average it out across their playtime, you can get a very clear picture of their skill. It doesn't have to be lopsided, it doesn't have to be confusing, and it doesn't have to be unfair.
In fact, one of the major complaints is that MMR encourages scummy playstyles (Camping, hiding in corners, bringing only the most meta perks) because these things make you survive matches or get 4K trials. Not because you are being skilled or playing well. In MMR 'The ends justify the means', and that's as good as it gets.
However, if you change the scoring events to reward more bloodpoints for positive gameplay behavior (+Fresh Meat scoring event for chasing down a new survivor that was not recently unhooked | +Braveheart scoring event for when a survivor has been in chase for over 45 seconds. | +Tireless event for both sides for chaining several scoring events together for a long period of time, etc.) this will cause players to rank up when they preform good actions and play well, as their Score Per Minute will rise when they do well and get out fast, or overwhelm survivors and crush them quickly. You will not be punished for short games like the old system, you wont reel in agony as all 4 survivors escape after a hard fought match with 8 hooks - or run the killer all game just to die to NOED. If you do well with the time in your match, your average goes up. If you do not do well with your time, your average goes down. Getting points for a hatch escape isn't going to pip you up the ranks if you did nothing for your team all game.
That, and the fact that Killers and survivors are all soft-locked to 32k BP per match means that there is a finite speed to the game, and killers and Survivors can be measured by the same metrics. One simple number can determine how well you can preform in the match.
The developers saying that they MUST have this clunky system means they lack professionality. The developers defending the negative aspects of their own system makes them pompous and short sighted. The developers refusing to implement a better system in spite of community wide backlash shows a criminal lack of competence that should not be ignored.
"This just goes to show you that Behavior fanboys will say anything at all to defend something stupid and out of touch so long as it came from their favorite dev company."
Or, the counter position is that this just goes to show how people who've no clue what they're talking about will make any/every accusation and resort to logical fallacies in order to try and make a point.
I'm in no way a BHVR fanboy. Quite the opposite, because I see all the stuff they could be doing but aren't, and often get very wrong.
But honesty and integrity also means standing up for the things that are right. And in this, they are right.
Unless we adopt some weird paradigm where literally everything they do is wrong... is that what you're trying to suggest?
-
@RainehDaze said:
Eh, my issue with the MMR isn't a lack of understanding; it's that they designed a system that doesn't select for particularly enjoyable experiences, the built-in win/loss condition can encourage pretty easy smurfing, and the choice of win conditions is inane bordering on ridiculous.
Because it only focuses on kills/escapes, success on either side of the fence will tend to push you into situations with low interactivity. It might be the best way to hard-define a win, but if the state of the game shifts glacially to adjust how things play, you're matchmaking into things people aren't enjoying.
The smurfing point isn't that special, but I'd just like to note that it's still possible to play 90% of the match in a way it's a one-sided stomp and still deliberately throw it at the last second. Being able to both lose deliberately to keep MMR down and stomp to make sure it's not fun at the same time? Ouch.
As for win conditions... it's a 1v4 game. There's an entire gameplay option for putting together proper teams. Teamwork is necessary to win. Treating matchmaking as a series of 1v1 encounters is just weird, especially given how easily one person can be snagged in endgame. It's just a bizarre choice all round--and it means that in what we're supposed to think is an even draw scenario, two people definitely gained MMR, two people definitely lost MMR, and the Killer's position probably changed based on who those are as well. In a draw. Er... just weird.
Oh, and there's the sheer comedy of prestiging a Killer leaving MMR totally unchanged, but that's not really an MMR complaint, just the sheer silliness of "give up all perks and addons now go earn them back". Stockpile 1mil BP, be forced to play someone else, or enjoy the loss streak. <_>
Let me address this point: "As for win conditions... it's a 1v4 game. There's an entire gameplay option for putting together proper teams. Teamwork is necessary to win. Treating matchmaking as a series of 1v1 encounters is just weird, especially given how easily one person can be snagged in endgame. It's just a bizarre choice all round--and it means that in what we're supposed to think is an even draw scenario, two people definitely gained MMR, two people definitely lost MMR, and the Killer's position probably changed based on who those are as well. In a draw. Er... just weird."
Yes, I agree, it's weird to us as humans. But as far as the maths go, it's sound. In the game, each of the 4 survivors had a 50/50 chance of escaping or dying, and they achieved that with perfect statistical accuracy (50% escaped, 50% died).
The ones who died, need to face less skilled killers to improve their odds of escaping. The ones who escaped should face better killers.
And apply this to a whole range of matches.
When you look at individual matches on a case by case basis, and analyse it as a human does, it doesn't make sense. But that's because the human isn't thinking how to rank the players against each other to match make. The maths is doing that and from a maths perspective it works.
I literally don't know how else to explain it any more clearly.
-
@fblurbg said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768524#Comment_2768524
And this is where your argument fails. You claim over and over that the system isn't trying to create a 50% kill/escape rate for each match... but it is. The devs have explicitly stated, over and over again, on a multitude of occasions, that this is the end goal. That is what they want. That is their ideal balance. It's not a 50% chance of escaping per Survivor, it's a match where 50% of Survivors escape and 50% are killed.
I know they've said a balanced match in their view is one where there are 2-escapes and 2-deaths... that's obviously a result of the maths I've already explained. Like seriously, what else do you want them to say: "A balanced match is 4 deaths... or 4 escapes!"
But anyway... please do provide a link/evidence to support what you're saying, since you're so confident of it. Let's have a look at what they said in context, rather than your opinion of what they said. Then we'll see whose argument fails.
-
@Smuk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768539#Comment_2768539
Aprox 55 minutes.
I am sorry as Scott is bafling through whole explanation. But after he ends his commentary monologue, Patricks finalize with statement (speed over equality)
So he addresses it at 1:09:10 in the original video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIocxDbQ-9g#t=1h9m10sHe doesn't say they ignore MMR to backfill. He says they massively prioritise speed, which I would interpret to mean the system literally pulls in whoever's in the queue with the closest value, regardless of their position in the queue. The survivor queue may be 10m, but if someone joins the queue at the right time, they may get pulled into a lobby to backfill it immediately if they're near enough the level for which the lobby was created.
That's a different thing to ignoring the MMR completely and pulling in anyone.
That said, there is a point where the two can and do overlap a lot, so depending on the actual scenario there may be little difference. But in fairness, the way he explains it (to my ears) sounds like it's still "respecting" the MMR levels, but it just becomes massively lax in the range of values it'll accept for a match for the case of a backfill (as opposed to having no criteria whatsoever).
-
@dugman said:
Good read. A few quick comments
- MMR does assign a person a number, but of course how that number is assigned is where the devil in the details lies. One debate there is whether a "kill" should be considered a win versus something like "scoring more bloodpoints than all the survivors" or "getting X number of emblem points" for example. Rational people can disagree on what actually constitutes a win versus a loss in DbD and whether or not a kill versus an escape is the best such gauge. (Personally I think kills and escapes are perfectly fine, I'm just saying that I can understand why other people might think the "winner" of a match is actually the person who got the most BP or whatever.)
- Another detail that matters is how much the MMR shifts up or down after each match. Typically these kinds of systems shift it more or less based on relative ratings of the opposing players and other factors, such as weighting the first kill more than the second kill in terms of up/down movement. There are some people who incorrectly seem to think the system just does a flat up or down each kill regardless, from what I recall other factors do play into the size of the shift.
- There's also a consideration of, even though each player has an individual rating, how do you match four people with four different ratings against one killer with another rating? The simplistic method is to just take the average of the survivor ratings, but it seems pretty likely that a more accurate system would be doing something like training a neural net to take in four survivor ratings and spit out a closely matched killer rating it should aim for. It's quite possible for example that small to moderate differences in survivor ratings make a big difference in escapes, but larger rating gaps have diminishing effects on escapes so that it doesn't matter as much if someone has three times your rating versus four times your rating, for example. If the existing system has an inaccuracy in its estimations of results based on MMRs I suspect this is one area where they could possibly improve the algorithm.
Yeah, good point re: the 2nd. I was going to mention this but decided against it because the post was becoming very long as is.
The MS Trueskill system used to assign two numbers actually... one was your rank, and the other was "confidence", i.e. how confident it was that your rank is "true". So obviously you'd start off with some arbitrary value and low confidence, but the more you play, the more accurate the rank would get, and depending on how close the match result was to what the system predicted, it'd adjust the confidence value accordingly too.
Once nice feature of the system was that, if you went up against really skilled players and won, it'd raise your rank a lot faster because it was much more aware of the discrepancy in perceived skill level... and if you lost to a player who was much higher than yourself, it wouldn't adjust your rank so much because it expected for you to lose anyway.
There's a number of ways to make such systems, but they boil down at the end of the day to reducing everything to a number. And I think that's the part that throws everyone off... because they want that number to represent how many unhooks they did, how many gens they did, how many chases they escaped, etc.
-
@Smuk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768483#Comment_2768483
Correction to 2) - BHVR QnA.
If there is nobody or somebody leaves = completely ignores MMR.
So if a full lobby has 2000 +/- 100
Killer leaves the lobby, the filler will be satisfied with killer who have just finished tutorial and wants to enter the world of dbd. SBMM does not sort killers by MMR desc and selects first available one
You as a gamer and developer. Your objective opinion, is the game in such state (from boons to DH and grab validations, size of the maps, speed of the gens etc…) is in fact suitable candidate for SBMM.
SWF has 15% more escape rate then soloQ. Comms do help a lot in the game. Even just by luring killer north while gens pop south .
In the aspect of the game, playing a killer is not something you can do to ease your mind and enjoy the game. As soon as you try to relax a bit, you will start to loose.
Queues are long as there is less killer population. So it makes sense in symmetrical game, where population is one, but here is logically divided. And as QnA dodged the question regarding ratio, in the average, i would not be suprised if its atleast 10:1
Did they say (explicitely) that it completely ignores MMR if someone leaves, or just that it widens the scope really wide very quickly to try and find someone suitable ASAP (i.e. queue-jumping)?
If it's the former, that'd be really bad... but I wouldn't put it past them.
-
@SilentShepherd said:
No OP.
The game could be designed to take into account what happens in the game.
For example. A survivor goes through a four or five gen chase. The game ALREADY records how long you have been in a chase for. So, either mark milestones at every minute of a chase or something, or just record how many Generators were done during that chase, and give that player the credit for that chase. This factors into MMR rating.
The game already records how many generators you do, unhooks, etc, because we see this with the Tome bloodpoint achievements.
Why on earth is this data not already factored into the MMR rating? Sounds like an easy thing to do - to create an overall rating based on several factors, with some factors weighing HEAVILY. It should NOT be all about escaping.
I invite you to take up the challenge... draw up an Excel spreadsheet and label all the columns with the required data that you can perform calculations on in order to arrive at a consistent and fair value.
It's all well and good coming up with your theories and suppositions, it's another thing to turn it into code, and another again to make it workable and viable.
But hey... I don't know what I'm talking about with over 2 decades of experience, nor do the devs with their collective experience of actually making the game. I'm sure you know best, so please... show us all the design of how this would work exactly.
-
@fblurbg said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768422#Comment_2768422
"if you're the kind of person who excels at looping and runs the killer for five gens sometimes, that means you're going to escape more often than you're not, or you're going to slide down to the point where you will start escaping."
And the proof is in the pudding. We can see that their measurements used for calculating a 50% win rate game in the MMR system are bad because that isn't happening. That's why people are still complaining, because the system isn't doing what it's designed to do. Matches still have wildly differing results across all the brackets, and when they are consistent, they're not consistent in the way BHVR wants, usually resulting in strings of 3-4 kills or strings of 3-4 escapes, instead of the "ideal" 50% kill/escape ratio.
I can attest to this myself: When I play Killer, I should be averaging 2 kills across my games. I'm not, and I haven't been since the release of MMR. I've been averaging 3 kills most of my matches—and at least 80% of those 3k's are 4k's where I purposefully let the last Survivor escape. I don't run even the slightest bit of sweat in my builds, I play a variety of Killers, and I play as fair as I can—and yet I'm still vastly overperforming in 9 out of 10 games according to the ideal MMR system. Does that mean I'm good at the game or some kind of comp player? Not in the slightest; I'm actually quite mediocre and deliberately choose to play suboptimally for the sake of fun. It means that MMR does a terrible, terrible job of matching me with players of even remotely similar gumption for a 50% win rate. None of my matches feel fair when they're 90% me stomping and the other 10% me getting stomped.
Sure, some players report having more "fair" matches (though if it's BHVR's definition of "fair" that they're using, then I use that term very loosely), but the vast majority of players are not experiencing this, hence the ceaseless complaining and contant clowning on the devs. More often than not, the system fails to do its job and create the ideal matchup for anyone in a given lobby.
"It's not really a skill based system, it's a system designed to produce matches where the default assumption a 50% chance for you specifically to achieve your win condition"
That's the thing. BHVR is asserting that their matchmaking system is a skill-based system. That was what the entire snippet from the QnA was about, is Patrick arguing that the things the system measures are accurate proxies of skill. Their ideal is a skill-based system that results in a rough 50% win rate for the playerbase—and neither of those ideals have been realized. It is not a skill-based system, and it doesn't average a 50% win rate for most players.
Of course, none of this is getting into the debate of whether or not BHVR's ideal is even a good one—which I don't think it is. I think even if their system functioned on any level, what it accomplished would not be a good thing.
OK, let me address this part:
"And the proof is in the pudding. We can see that their measurements used for calculating a 50% win rate game in the MMR system are bad because that isn't happening. That's why people are still complaining, because the system isn't doing what it's designed to do. Matches still have wildly differing results across all the brackets, and when they are consistent, they're not consistent in the way BHVR wants, usually resulting in strings of 3-4 kills or strings of 3-4 escapes, instead of the "ideal" 50% kill/escape ratio."
This is an example of confusing the theory with reality (which in fairness is an easy mistake to make), so let me be clear.
The system is NOT trying to create matches where 2 survivors escape, and 2 survivors die! It can't, because of the asymmetric nature of the game, and it's something the devs (implicitely) acknowledged by ascribing different values to survivors based on the order in which they die. I'm sure we all agree that once two survivors are dead, the other two are going to find it almost impossible to escape... to the point where the devs won't count the hatch as a "win" even though it's an escape.
What the system is trying to do is CREATE A MATCH WHERE EACH SURVIVOR HAS 50/50 CHANCE OF ESCAPING, i.e. given the level of all players involved at the outset, they have an equal chance of escaping or dying. That - in theory - should be a balanced match.
Mathematics dictate that with 4 survivors, the standard outcome would be 2-escapes and 2-deaths.
But that's just the theory. In practice we know it doesn't work like that, and the system isn't trying to do that.
Everyone - devs included - acknowledge that once a single survivor goes down, the odds of the others escaping decreases also, but that's outside of what the MMR was trying to predict and cater for. To do that level of prediction is stupidly hard, and unrewarding because there's no way to prove it works or not. You can get the same players to repeat the same game multiple times and have wildly differing outcomes every single time just because of a small thing that happened. I've had games where I've got from a 0k to a 4k, or vice-versa just because of some small thing.
-
@SilentShepherd said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768422#Comment_2768422
And? That person who hides to escape, STILL got to a rating they do not deserve. bad system.
And the person who actually tries to play the game and is doing everything for the team, this player puts themselves at risk more, and WILL die more, but they are an overall NET POSITIVE for the team in every game they play, as they take the heat away from others and help the team accomplish many things. This should be taken into account.
Since this is a team game, and the Lead Ded used a hockey analogy, I will use a basketball analogy.
Plus/Minus +/-
A player who does 3 generators, 3 safe unhooks, puts up 3 boons, and escapes 4 chases is an overall NET POSITIVE. And we could assign numerical values to all of those efforts and find a +13, for example. This person should climb MMR and not be held back because they died.
You're definitely not understanding... and this is the key part of your message which highlights that:
"A player who does 3 generators, 3 safe unhooks, puts up 3 boons, and escapes 4 chases is an overall NET POSITIVE. And we could assign numerical values to all of those efforts and find a +13, for example. This person should climb MMR and not be held back because they died."
You're looking at the MMR system like it's a reward/punishment system. It's not. There's no inherent advantage to climbing, nor are you being "held back" if your value doesn't change. What the system is doing is placing you with other players where it believes you have a 50/50 chance of escaping... that is it!
A player who does the gens, and escapes chases, etc, will surely also escape the trials... and therefore overall their rank will climb. A few matches here and there won't disrupt the overall balance because the system only makes small adjustments to your level anyway (think of it like a moving average).
But a player who's constantly dying all the time... regardless of howsoever that happens, will go down.
You can't tell me there's a player out there who always does 3 gens, 3 unhooks and escapes 4 chases in every game... like every game they're matched with a team doing nothing else? They'll either be doing better than their team mates and will escape, and will rise in rank. Or will die and reach a point where they can escape more consistently. What you're describing is a specific incident, whereas the system is balanced around overall behaviour.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
I personally hold three beliefs about this:
(1) The devs could benefit from improved communication skills.
If, instead of saying but what if you did all that and survived something more along 'Yes, and doing that would show you were a skilled survivor and, although you died in one match, the system is designed to take its data over a range of matches. As someone who could do all that the chance you could do all that and still wouldn't survive most games would be exceptionally low. Someone as skilled as that would be escaping the majority of their matches. The locker gnome would die in most matches since they wouldn't normally be carried so hard'. A few seconds longer, same end message, but the tone is more conducive to getting a better overall reaction.
(2) If it had been called MMR instead of SBMMR some of this contention could have been avoided. It doesn't, and can't, take every factor into account but 'skill' is a very loaded word in the gaming community and just referring to match-making rating acknowledges better the system doesn't accurately measure skill.
(3) The professional sports analogy was misplaced for a variety of reasons. It was more like comparing apples (video games) to hamburgers (sports). They're both still food (entertainment) but there are way too many intrinsic differences for the comparison to not just muddy the waters.
I understand what the devs are saying but the main question for them, I guess, is but is it overall more fun and more likely to attract and retain new players than the Emblem system? I have no idea on that myself.
I hear what you're saying, and this boils down to a phenomenon known as "The Curse of Knowledge", in that people who are very familiar with a subject often forget the nuances they're implicitly aware of when explaining to people outside of the knowledge circle.
In other words, Patrick is a developer, and understands the background mechanics of what's going on. Because of the way the questions were posed, he only explained bits and pieces of the system at a time, rather than the whole, which made it harder for people without the background knowledge to understand what he meant. I'm a developer, and I've worked with this kind of stuff before, and I understood completely what he was saying. It all makes absolute sense. But unfortunately the general community didn't.
I also do believe there are some bad-faith actors who've deliberately stirred things up for sensationalism. His hockey analogy was absolutely correct... there's no need to count/measure shots on goal when you can just measure wins overall as an indicator of a person's skill. If they're winning, they're obviously scoring more, and if they're scoring more, they're obviously taking more shots. It's all inferred, so you can cut out the middle dynamics (he said this almost verbatim).
The strimmer I happened to see comment on this literally went on a rant of "hockey is a game of equal sides, people in different roles, blah blah blah" which has absolutely nothing to do with the analogy he was making. This is a straw-man!
What's a straw-man? It's where you oversimplify the point to such a degree that it bears no resemblance to the original, and you defeat the oversimplification. You might be handy with a rifle, and you can shoot straw-men in the field all day... but when you're up against real soldiers who are shooting back, that's a completely different point.
Reducing and dismissing the point of "hockey is a different" game is exactly the same... his point wasn't about hockey! His point was about not needing to focus on the individual inner-game mechanics when the outwardly result (i.e. win/loss) is a good enough indicator as to what happened. It's the same analogy regardless of sport... but too many people who didn't understand the analogy got fixated on the wrong point and made their rants based on that. And that's embarrassing.
-
@Tranquil_Blue said:
One additional point: they said there's a soft cap for MMR, so there are obviously many players with ratings way above the soft cap. Those players are definitely playing matches at the highest possible MMR, are they not? I agree that no one should be making claims about their own MMR (since it's hidden), but I'm saying that technically there is a highest possible MMR (for matchmaking purposes).
I think this is a misunderstood or misinterpreted point.
Every player has an MMR level or number... whatever you want to call it (well, more accurately, one number per killer and one to represent survivors, but I'm going to hope you guys understand the point without me having to mention all these specifics).
So, the system is trying to match you with people who are near enough your level. They may be slightly higher or lower, but this is all relative based on the range of possible values out there who are currently looking to match-make at the same time as you.
For argument's sake, lets put some real numbers in. Let's say your level is 2000, and the system determines everyone should be within +/-100 of this... so the system will try to find a killer and survivors who each have a level of 1900-2100.
But what if it can't find any? Maybe there's not enough killers to satisfy the survivor queue, etc... in this event the system "widens" its search criteria to anyone +/-200. And it keeps widening until it's found a match.
Again, imagine you're a killer who's achieved 1000 4ks in a row, you'll have a high MMR value. And you want to play at stupid o'clock in the morning when most people are asleep. It's possible there's no-one at your level, so again the system will widen the search criteria which will invariably mean you match with people well below your rank (and those poor shmucks will end up with a killer who'll destroy them!)
It's not that your level has been capped... there is no cap. They specifically stated there's no high or low value, and that would make complete sense in a self-calibrating system like MMR. As more matches are played, and skill levels diversify, the range of values will increase (which is why your actual number is irrelevant, what matters is where you are in relation to everyone else).
Rather, the system just becomes more liberal with finding matches, because it also doesn't want you to wait an absurdly long time for a game.
So the basic mechanics are:
1) If there are players near enough your skill level, you match with them
2) If there is no-one available, and it's been a while, you'll just get matched with the closest available
There are also edge cases where people are pulled in to fill in gaps in lobbies already created when one person leaves, etc, but that's generally how it works. There's no cap. There's just fluctuating tolerance the system applies to try to ensure you get into a game soonish.
-
Hey, I can shoot straw-men in a field. I'm totally really for armed-combat.
-
Just give him glass/plastic (i.e. translucent) traps... there, problem solved!
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2762504#Comment_2762504
You're completely missing the point of the critique. If being able to run the killer for 5 gens and then getting one hooked by being facecamped while the other three leave isn't skillful according to SBMM... you are also saying the survivors who managed to hold M1 for ~5 minutes and then run out the exit gate unopposed are clearly much more skilled.
Its literally an ends justifying the means argument and a really bad one at that. Take the word skill out of the equation if you're not even going to attempt to adhere to it.
I daresay you might have missed the point of what the devs were saying. If you have the skill to run the killer for 5-gens, then overall you'd be escaping more and thus your skill would go up. It's a metric that's designed to self-calibrate over a series of matches, not move accurately after each and every single match because anomalies can occur.
The downfall though is the assumption of playing to escape. Someone like JRM might be ranked badly because, even though he's a skilled player, he doesn't play to escape. But then, he's in the minority and it makes little sense to design around these edge cases, at least in the early stages.
-
I don't understand why it needs a healing speed buff anyway... isn't the fact that it provides self-care to the whole team for the cost of one perk enough??
-
Here's how bad BHVR are at dealing with the issue... the game literally gives you the option to quit a match. If you choose that option, you are not suffering from connection issues, and in that case the game can/should enforce a ban immediately
-
Why? At that point, after the Survivors have left, the Killer has 0 goals but to camp you. What purpose would you have to wait until they leave to attempt the kobe?
The killer still has to make their way back, assuming they don't go on a detour to search for the hatch.
And it's not just one scenario, there's plenty!
Imagine being downed and hooked near the gate, and you've still got DS. It's completely possible that you could kobe, and even if you're downed before you make it out, DS (as much as I hate it in this scenario) would still grant you an escape
-
@AsherFrost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2750340#Comment_2750340
Why wouldn't you be trying to get off the hook before they leave, while he's still distracted chasing them?
Because if the killer is still close by, they can still down you ASAP. At least if you wait until there's significant distance, you have a better chance of evading and escaping.
Again, the point is being missed... you still deserve the attempt. It's not over yet.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2750340#Comment_2750340
You can kobe in that scenario before everyone else leaves.
You should also be able to afterwards too. The point being that you can't state arbitrarily there's no point even being granted the attempt.
-
@AngyKiller said:
Why are we upset over this? Seriously.
Ok, if you're the last Survivor; you are not getting away. The Killer literally has nowhere else to be. You kobe off the hook? He just smacks you, waits 60 seconds for DS, and puts you back up.
There's literally 0 reasons to let you try kobeing, because you're not getting away. It's a waste of time to do anything but kill the Survivor.
That's not true at all. Consider a scenario where you've just been hooked, and the killer chases everyone out of the gates at the other side of the map. You still deserve the kobe attempts.
Also, plenty of killers leave to look for the hatch (I do).
You can't state with absolute certainty that every kobe will result in death.
-
When survivor-mains want to further nerf a killer who has already been heavily nerfed (and suffered severe game-losing bugs for years that Nurse players had to play in spite of), and these survivors consider fixing those bugs as "buffs" (like they were reliant on Nurse being buggy to play against her), it really makes you wonder where the entitled survivor-main narrative comes from.
I'd suggest spending a few hundred hours playing Nurse first and witness first-hand how difficult she is to use, and how effective just simply holding 'w' is against her. Then you can tell us whether she needs a nerf because she's too easy... or whether you find yourself winning because you've developed the skill that survivors (generally) refuse to learn to counter.
I say generally, because I've gone against many survivors that know how to juke my nurse too easily - random pathing, breaking line of sight, and straight-up baiting. If you're getting your backside kicked by a nurse, it's because the killer is more skilled than you are, so you just need to up your game instead of calling for more shackles for killer.
-
Hold up... Nurse is slower than survivors in a straight chase, and despite the fixes coming in, she'll still have a number of bugs (problems blinking through walls/objects/etc). Her power has a recharge time. She suffers fatigue every time she uses it which almost blinds her (which is easy escape for survivors with iron will and the step-boon). She's ridiculously difficult to learn/play, and you have to sink 100's of hours in her to get to a decent point.
And you want to nerf her more?? Because the players that put the time in to master her are stopping your M1 simulator game?
-
Really? Interesting.
It broke for a lot of people after the Trickster update; there were a number of threads about it. And since then there were 3 attempted fixes (I say attempted because each time the patch note referenced it as a "possible fix"), none worked... and then they stopped try - which I found really weird because it's not like this problem was hard to test. All you had to do was plug in a DS4, so it should have been really simple to diagnose and confirm the fix for (i.e. as opposed to guessing).
But... I guess there's more important things so the image of 'inclusion' and 'accessibility' can be maintained, rather than actually putting it in practice and following through properly.
-
Great news about the incoming accessibility updates in the developer update... in addition to adding new accessibility features, how about fixing the ones that were broken and left? Like the ability to use controller + mouse which worked perfectly up until the Trickster update? It's still broken :(
-
@Shroompy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2717950#Comment_2717950
Both sides are guilty of this
Technically yes, but not equally guilty. There are levels.
I often see killers who are conscious about tunnelling and camping (i.e. avoiding it deliberately). I've yet to come across any survivors who even acknowledge faults on their side, let alone play to avoid it.
I often see killers giving hatch and escapes, just for the sake of it. I very rarely see survivors giving the killers any free hooks, even for bbq stacks when everyone's chucked in cakes, etc - not saying it never happens, but it's an exceptionally rare event.
Almost every time a new killer comes out, we see the survivors crying that they're OP somehow... they have no counter-play, blah blah blah. Yet when survivor perks are released that are OP and literally have no counter-play (boon totems... grants everyone healing, at double speed, and an indicator so all survivors can see where to go, all in one perk that one survivor can carry, which the killer has to somehow find and divert themselves away to stamp out, for it to only be relit again), then they're quiet. And many will go as far as to say that it's fine... on top of DS, BT, and all the other 2nd chance perks they need.
The two sides are not the same.
-
Like pretty much everything else in this game, the punishment is entirely driven by the survivors. If the survivors sit on the gens, then the killer gets punished. If the survivors attempt to be altruistic, then the killer could potentially profit.
Ultimately, the survivors are in full control as to how the game goes, particularly if the killer is camping.