ScottJund
ScottJund
About
- Username
- ScottJund
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,131
- Last Active
Comments
-
@INoLuv said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3195821#Comment_3195821
This is what is happening to Otz? He is streaming and i dont see it, i just see he complaining that a killer was camping and that a killer hit him on hook at endgame chat.
Actually its even worse. A better comparison would be if Brad Pitt was filming a movie and a guy poked him every 20 seconds, ruining the scene and making the movie unable to be completed. That's what the cheaters are to streamers.
-
@INoLuv said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3195795#Comment_3195795
In his case, just use the vpn like he is doing and is alright. His problem is not that awful and traumatic, LOADS of money from literally just streaming and playing, tell me you wont love to exchange a normal underwhelming job for his job which is to PLAY and sometimes make guides (still wayyy better than any other job). No, he is not suffering that much, his "harassment" is not that big of a deal, right now he is streaming as always.
If Brad Pitt has a dude following him around that pokes him in the face every 20 seconds is he just not allowed to complain about it?
-
@Adjatha said:
People who DC after getting downed need to have some EXTREMELY AGGRESSIVE penalties. Minor time-outs are clearly not enough.
Like, if your computer DCs you accidentally, that's one thing. But when the disconnect happens when you're downed or just about to be picked up / hooked, that's somebody obviously pulling the plug. It makes the game miserable for both sides and frankly, DbD doesn't need them. Lock them out for a month or something.
Literal insanity to ban someone for a month for a rage quit.
-
The only thing that needs to happen is all survivors should always spawn together. This inherently acts like a Corrupt Intervention naturally as they have to waste time going to different generators (or all group up on one, which is a bad idea)
-
Yes, it does exist, and that would be super useful in a game in which the bounds of the matchmaking weren't stretched to not have 40 minute queues, thus entirely negating the point of MMR.
-
@Seanzu said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3120472#Comment_3120472
Yes but this is an idea for those being targeted (streamers) I'm a streamer and I've have 5 hackers back to back absolutely wrecking my timeout, players who don't get held hostage will just eat the 5 minutes they always have but I won't be stuck not playing for half a day because I was chosen that day because I was live.
Did you even read what I wrote lol
-
Don't think it would fix anything tbh. Non-streamers are most likely not going to get multiple cheaters in a row so the 5 minute wait would be vastly less than the 20 minute wait. Streamers will just get lobby-injected after the 20 minutes so it doesn't fix that either.
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3117593#Comment_3117593
All streamers are not FW, you know that right? Ofcourse you do. Now cheaters are targeting them and forcing them to dc. They are not special enough? They have a lot viewers too but yet, they have not that special treatment. Some of these streamers are bigger than most of Fog Whisperers btw.
I don't think it is fair. If there is hacker issue, solution should help to all community. Not only for a small group. Community is keeping this game alive, not Fog Whisperers.
The thing is almost no one has this benefit. Tofu is the only person I know that doesn't currently have a DC penalty. This is a streamer-wide thing. Even Otz doesn't have this benefit as of right now.
-
@oporopolist said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3117593#Comment_3117593
This smacks of trying to sweep negative publicity under the carpet by "minimising" the hacking problem rather than actually doing something pro-active about it. As long as a Fog Whisperer is not seen to be sitting there being held hostage, rather than take a DC timeout, all is good with the world? The problem being, (and I'm nhot going to name names), but it is pretty obvious without needing a degree in rocket science, that if these hackers can't target Fog Whisperers, they are going to re-double their efforts on bigger streamers, not currently in the Fog Whisperer program, some of whom for the past week have been taken hostage several times per night..... BHVR are actually choosing who the hackers will now concentrate on, whether they realise it or not. It's going to result in negative publicity, one way or the other. Fixing the hacking problem and fixing it quickly is what is needed, not band aids that only apply to the chosen few "ambassadors".
PS. Isn't it ironic, that to positively represent the game, it needs to be falsely represented, by the very people chosaen to represent it, by not showing how out of control the hacking problem is? ;)
Oh that's exactly what they're doing, I'm not pretending otherwise. I'm just saying there is absolutely zero negative to letting certain people DC with no penalty
-
i genuinely don't see a problem with this whatsoever. Fog Whisperers get special treatment because they are special. they are meant to positively represent the game and cannot do that if they cannot play the game. like from a business standpoint its pretty cut and dry. i think people are channeling frustration at completely the wrong thing and should be focused on making anti-cheat do anything than hating on streamers
-
@Gindaen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3100434#Comment_3100434
Ah, lol.
Tell me something, do you think the rise in cheaters in this game this week is all the players that were suiciding-on-hook and DCing from last week. I really honestly think that the players BHVR has alienated in this patch have started using cheats to intentionally ruin the game.
Could be salty survivors tried buying cheats as a form of "protest", yeah.
-
@Gindaen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3100412#Comment_3100412
That sucks Scott, but I'm in total agreement with you. There should be some emergency developer meetings going on right now trying to get a patch in place for solo-queue by next Tuesday.
its a copypasta dude :\ im enjoying the game immensely other than the cheaters
-
That's it. That seals the deal. I am no longer a Dead by Daylight fan. I’ve been a fan since 1982 and a season ticket holder since 1996. I officially will not be renewing my plan next season nor will I play on PC ever again. Cote is officially the worst game director in history.
-
@dugman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3091682#Comment_3091682
“Some” is a slight underestimate. There are quite a lot of people quitting way too early and ruining it for everybody else. I think it’s better overall to just draw the line at “don’t quit” then “quit if things are going too badly”.
I think people on both sides of the argument are just not thinking like a rational person. People that stop trying too early are ruining the game for the rest of the players in the lobby, and people that think there are no circumstances in which you should give up are kidding themselves in thinking there is a point to playing a 3v1 at 5 gens vs an omega blink Nurse for example.
-
@egg_ said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3091626#Comment_3091626
I don't even think it's even worth debating this, it's my word against yours on how *you* play the game
I just want to say that I didn't imply you try your hardest on killer or don't try your hardest on survivor. I said that you take the game less seriously when you play survivor, which is different. When you play killer you play a lot more efficiently than when you play survivor, where as said earlier you often go for dumb plays and stuff that can effectively hinder your team
We could also argue that when playing killer there is a lot less freedom under that point of view, because there effectively aren't many creative ways to try and fool survivors and outplay them as there are on the opposite side, so you end up playing mostly in a normal way
If you still think that's not true I don't know what to say, that's the impression you give me whenever I watch your channels. Don't get me wrong this is in no way criticism to your gameplay, it's just why I don't agree with your video
Also, you didn't comment on the second part of my first post, something that I feel you failed to mention properly in your video, but that imho still plays an important role on the tunneling aspect
Eh even then I don't think its a fair correlation. I still absolutely try to escape every map, with whatever build. However, I don't mind doing a reckless end-game save, for example, if I know I can get a teammate out. Trying to win as killer and trying to win as survivor don't really have a 1:1 correlation like that because one of those involves a whole team. I actually play as efficient as possible on survivor, always separating and working on separate generators, not immediately hook diving, etc.
Still, you touched up on that on your second paragraph so I don't really think we're debating anything, its just how you view my gameplay and that's perfectly fine, just wanted to give my take.
Oh and you are totally right about the blood point thing that I failed to address in my response. No argument there tunneling results in less.
-
I don't think its really that black and white. There is a reasonable point in some matches where its clear you physically cannot win, and so its fine to just stop bothering. However, some people draw that line in the sand way too early.
-
@VoidOfMe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3091627#Comment_3091627
so you didn't say that you liked being tunneled cause that was an interaction with the killer but people complain about that and about doing gens, so maybe, they didn't like the game?
you didn't say that anywhere in your video?
Ah see you have now completely changed your sentence. I did say that. Before, three times you equated interacting with the killer and being tunneled as being the exact same thing, which implies I said "that must mean you have to like being tunneled', which I did not say. I am not being dishonest, you are just completely failing to understand what I said or are purposely being disingenuous to save face.
-
@VoidOfMe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3091610#Comment_3091610
oh hell no, I ain't watching that again so you can get the satisfaction
you don't look like a fool so don't pretend being one
What an absolutely weird comment. Just admit you're making stuff up, don't like that you got called out on it, and move on.
-
@egg_ said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3091037#Comment_3091037
This.
I'd also like to add that whenever Scott plays survivor, he doesn't play 'to win', unlike when he plays killer. He mostly ######### around and tries dumb stuff, which is totally ok if he wants to. However, that makes his opinion less agreeable with, simply because he doesn't take the game 'as seriously' as when he plays killer, where he actively tries to win most of the times.
Edit: I actually realized you said exactly the same thing. I just somehow skipped the short paragraph where you also point out that he plays to win when he plays killer (probably because scrolling on phone)! Ok so basically i just repeated exactly what you said, but I literally have the same thoughts on the matter.
Also, another thing that he didn't address in the video, or addressed poorly, is when he said that people might want to "take a break" between one chase and the other. It's not only that, it's the fact that survivors NEED to take breaks in order to gain bloodpoints from other activities. The only thing a killer needs to not do to end the game with less than 10k bps is basement facecamp. They can literally tunnel people out off hook and still end their game with 25k bps at least. Meanwhile a survivor getting tunneled all game ends his match with what, 8k bps? Or even less. That's literally a whole waste of a game.
I think that's a pretty disingenuous look on how I play the game. You imply I don't try my hardest to win as survivor, which implies I do try my hardest to win as killer, which as anyone that watches me play killer can attest, that is completely untrue. The truth is I don't try hard to win in any aspect of the game because I don't enjoy that. Frankly I think more people would have fun with DBD if they cared a bit less about it. I still try to win all of my matches, but not if it comes at the detriment to my fun.
-
@VoidOfMe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3091523#Comment_3091523
you want it word for word? you gotta be kidding me
i simplified what he said directly to him, he knows what I'm talking about, he's just pretending he didn't mean it.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3091537#Comment_3091537
But who said if you don't like being tunneled you automatically don't like interacting with the killer? You said that in your video.
The survivor roles are = interact with the killer + do gens + totems + chests + help team mates
but you said "if you don't like doing gens and don't like bein tunneled, maybe you don't like the game"
didn't you say that?
So it's that all DBD is about? either you do gens or you get tunneled out of the game to the next match, right?
Again, where? Please timestamp in my video where I said "if you don't like being tunneled, maybe you dont like the game." You keep repeatedly making stuff up. Please stop.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
scott jund makes another no effort video and people take it as the scroll of truth
more news at 11
Bro I could make a video about how I like peanut butter and there will be a thread with peanut butter activists and peanut butter deniers at each others throats, it's pretty funny.
-
@AMOGUS said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3091521#Comment_3091521
Did you maybe said that in your "Let's Talk About Tunneling" video? Maybe you threw it in somewhere and just don't remember it.
I didn't say that. Content creators curse. People will argue about ######### I didn't even say
-
@VoidOfMe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3091489#Comment_3091489
the thing is, you could say: "TO ME I love getting tunneled, but I get why people don't like it"
Instead you said: "I love being tunneled, if you don't like it, you don't like the game"
that's not a personal place on your thoughts, that's you judging the people who doesn't agre with you.
Where? Where did I say that? I said "if you don't like doing gens and you don't like interacting with the killer you don't like DBD" which is pretty damn true. Nowhere did I insinuate you had to like tunneling. I was just boiling tunneling down to its base mechanic to maybe change a perspective or two.
-
@HectorBrando said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3091351#Comment_3091351
You put yourself under the lights you are bound to get scrutiny from the comunity, its like being a political comentator and not expecting people supporting/criticizing your positions.
Yeah but its really weird when I make a personal piece on my thoughts on tunneling and then people tell me that my own feelings on tunneling are wrong. Some weird ass gaslighting. You're supposed to not 100% agree with me because you're not me. I'm not making a statement to be scrutinized to begin with.
-
@VoidOfMe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3091351#Comment_3091351
I don't think it's just here, tho
Oh I know, I'm just tired of people twisting that video into "Scott is okay with tunneling" despite saying several times in the video I know it's not good for the game.
-
Oh God please don't discuss that here I know my opinion is the minority
-
@Dead_Harder said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3087193#Comment_3087193
Oh yeah, stbfl is nuts on some killers now. Survivors get 1.1 second of distance at 8 stacks. Thats ... impressive : D
that is all sorts of not true
-
@konchok said:
What you can achieve with slow-down perks is undeniably greater than the previous patch. And the greatest slowdown of all is removing a player from the match. So, your post where you're talking about purposefully leaving people alive to get bigger numbers is just wrong. You're not playing to get max stacks, you're playing to slow things down long enough to get a survivor killed. If you've managed to kill a survivor before 4 gens have been completed you should win. Especially if you've spread out hooks.
But honestly you could just use dead lock and camp someone to death and win that way too.
The hell it is. I've won games with old Ruin's regression alone.
-
I think we just simply nerf range addons and see how everyone adjusts to that. It seems like a no-brainer that everyone agrees with.
-
@Veinslay said:
Who cares. I stopped listening to Jund when he said that Spirit was unfair and needed to be nerfed because the survivor "didn't know what she was doing" while simultaneously talking about how fun and cool Iron Will is because the killer doesn't know what the survivor is doing
I've seen you say this multiple times. I hate Iron Will. I have videos about how much i hate iron will. Why do you keep saying this
-
@GoshJosh said:
Another fun Nurse match yesterday, resulting in another escape! She even got to pick the map this time, and brought those busted range and recharge add-ons!
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/XJPAK3YCB1C0/nurse-ormond-escape-10-july-2022-filtered.jpg
Why do people ever post screenshots like this like it means anything
-
@BrokenSouI said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3054647#Comment_3054647
Her first blink goes almost nowhere without some form of range. Its abysmal, and proven to be SLOWER then a 4.6 walking the same distance. Nurse has drawbacks. She literally has to use her power to get hits unlike every other killer on the roster. She fatigues hard if she swings and misses. She gets thwarted by simple LOS blocks and making you guess 50/50 on what the survivor is doing..Much less on if the survivor is actually reading what you're about to do.
What? Her first blink can go 20 meters in 1.5 seconds with 0 addons. One blink has a total recovery of 4 seconds. Blink takes 2 seconds to charge, during which she travels about 3m/s. During the 4s recovery she moves 1m/s, so she covers (20+(3*2)+4) 30 meters with one blink + fatigue.
30/ (6s charge and fatigue combined) + 1.5 seconds of travel = 30/7.5 = 4 m/s. This is with zero addons, which drastically alter this calculation and make the effective movement faster than 115%.
You could also do two blinks for 12 more meters.
42 / (3s of travel, 4s of charge, 2.5s of fatigue) = 42/ 9.5 = 4.4m/s, or Huntress movespeed.
The math isn't perfect or anything its just to illustrate she can navigate better than almost everyone as long as there are things in the way, which is every map.
-
@TeleportingTurkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3054300#Comment_3054300
I don't think you should use that as an argument, because you can make up a lot of idealistic scenarios, but none of which would be close to the reality or would consider different variables that affect them and you can twist it in your favour as much as you want. That's the same kind of argument as "good nurse" or "4 man deathsquad". It is an abstract concept that pretty much never collides with reality and can be interchangeable depending on the interpretation.
I could say thing like
Doing a single gen takes 80(90) seconds. A full chase against a good survivor can easily last up to 70-80 seconds if they don't make mistakes, predrop, blah-blah... By the time you get your first hook (1/12 of the objective), survivors get 3/5 of theirs.
And then twist it to push whatever killerbiased point I want, starting from saying that "tunneling/camping/slugging shouldn't be nerfed or patched because this" to "gentimes need to be increased to 2 minutes".
I would purposely ignore time it takes for survivors to reach the gen, that they can do other things, the killer might win the chase faster or switch targets or that the game doesn't end after 3 gens being done and so on, but even if you bring those up, I can just discard them by saying that I'm only describing a situation with ideal conditions and it shouldn't be possible regardless.
The ideal conditions are called ideal because they are ideal and beyond the reach of a player in field conditions, thus shouldn't be a valid argument, at least not as a standalone one.
I don't say this invalidates your point about range addons specifically, I agree with it, but I want to make that part clear.
Eh the problem is the scenario I described is not even close to the same level of unrealistic as "4 man comp squad" in a match. Its extremely common for a Nurse with double range to get a hit within 5-10 seconds of the match starting with Lethal Pursuer.
-
@TeleportingTurkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3054294#Comment_3054294
Yeah, exactly, range addons.
That's probably the only thing about Nurse that needs to be nerfed, because they make her counterplay irrelevant, as the delay between choosing the "end location" of a blink and actually getting there decreases drastically, which greatly reduces the window in which survivor can react and adjust their movement pattern.
Although even in your scenario this is idealistic situation for Nurse. Survivor who is revealed might be able to pull off something to delay being hit&downed, they might have spawned separated, etc. Although it would indeed be much harder against range addons, but not utterly impossible.
of course its an idealistic scenario, the point is that even with ideal conditions that should never ever be possible
-
match starts. Nurse has Lethal Pursuer and double range. She hits a survivor within 5 seconds of the match starting. Survivor has absolutely nothing to work with as they just spawned in the map. They go down, infectious fright reveals another survivor. Game is basically over 10 seconds into the match. No other killer, not even Blight with double speed, can do this. Honestly its mostly range addons at this point. They are so absurdly busted and the fact that a moderator said its intentional to working like that blows my mind
-
Whoever is better at the game.
-
The amount of delusional people thinking that the game maintaining the ability to play with your friends is a factor in determining its decline, not it's maintaining of a playerbase, is staggering.
-
@RiskyKara said:
Wait how is this any different than locking both?
Scenario 1 -
You lock one locker, and he breaks it down. You lock the other locker, he automatically goes to that and breaks it down.
Scenario 2 -
You lock both lockers. He teleports to the set twice and has to break both lockers.
There only advantage to locking only one locker is that you're saving that resource for other survivors. Otherwise he can break out, 180, break the second lock, then continue the chase. Wouldn't that be considered a good counterplay against him though? Maybe that was an intentional counterplay design decision.
I think you underestimate how much of a time loss it is for the killer if he has to break out of a locked locker, then hit another locker, then start chasing.
-
ive been doing it for 5 years and im bored
-
@DesignDad said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2777335#Comment_2777335
Simple answer: It can happen, but it is not intended.
As I mentioned in the Q&A: There's a major issue with the matchmaking system right now with how it handles backfilling lobbies. Specifically, it almost entirely disregards the MMR of the replacement player in favour of filling the empty spot as quickly as possible. This can and does result in inappropriate matchups, especially when it's the Killer who is replaced. This is not the fault of the MMR system itself, but rather the matchmaker not using the MMR value correctly.
To be clear: This is being actively worked on. No ETA on when it will be resolved, matchmaking systems are very complex.
There is another situation where this can occur, and it can be a touchy subject so please do not infer that I am talking about you or anyone specifically...
There are players who absolutely love playing DbD and who are not especially good at it from an MMR point of view. While there is a general correlation between time played and increased MMR, that is not a causal link. There are people with 1,000+ hours who happily live in the lower end of MMR. So long as these players are still "winning" about half the time against new players, then this isn't a problem. Rather, it's an intended feature of the system. They should be allowed to have fun, too!
All that in mind, I completely understand that this case is NOT what you mean when you ask "Can a brand new survivor get killers with thousands of hours as their first game?". The truthful answer to a literal interpretation of that question is "Yes", for the above reason.
However, I think a fair way to reword that to get closer to your intended meaning would be "Can a brand new survivor get killers who are extremely good as their first game?". And while the answer to this is still "Yes" right now, our intention is to eliminated these scenarios as much as possible. There are already a number of systems in place to prevent this: New players start at a very low MMR, currently I think it's around 900. The maximum search range cuts out a lot of the upper tier of players, currently I think it's +/- 400. This starts very low and increases up to 400 the longer you wait in the queue, so this also helps to reduce mismatches. (Note: These are dynamic values that we tune based on the current statistics, so don't presume they have always been this way or will always be this way.) These should cut out a lot of the mismatches, but unfortunately it is dramatically undermined by the Backfill issues I mentioned previously.
I hope that helps clear some things up!
Appreciate the response. I do think you are in an unwinnable situation. If you extend the matchmaking range past +/- 400 MMR, queue times are better but accuracy decreases. If you make it more strict, people (survivors mostly) can't play the game for large portions of time. Whether or not the backfill changes you are making address this, how do you address the imbalance of killer to survivor players either resulting in massive queues or negating the accuracy of the system? I don't see how you can fix that problem short of simply having more killer players.
Additionally, I can't think of any other MMR system in which people playing their first game could go against someone with potentially thousands of hours. The only exception I can think of is smurfing, which people don't really do in this game because there is little need to, and plus you can just check people's hours and see they have in the scenario I'm describing. Games like Starcraft have placement matches to situate you, so I'm curious why DBD does not? Queue times too long? If so, back to my first point.
-
@zarr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2777025#Comment_2777025
The problem here is perception, you purely look on whether it is a functioning system and that is not something I am arguing against. It is about the effects and what the system promotes and rewards. The 1v4 and 1v1 situations are not mathematically the same, while both options can create a functioning system and yet will not be identical. They promote different type of actions and decision processes to be made by the player base.
Indeed, that would be a problem of your perception that the system "promotes" different types of actions. I don't know how often I have to repeat this, but there is no reward for gaining rating, none, nada. In turn, there is no MMR reward for utilizing or being good at the actions that lead to rating gains. Nor a punishment for the opposite, and as such no discouraging from any other type of actions.
You claim it is not a team game, while stating clearly that a survivor cannot do it on their own. Yet the system promotes survivors not to care about the overall teams outcome unlike the comparisons made with team sports. Nobody states what about the goalies shot rate at the end of a season, because that is not the role they fulfill.
It's getting increasingly more difficult for me to explain these things, because you are stepping into the same fallacious thought-traps over and over again despite me in my opinion pretty clearly pointing them out to you.
It is not in fact a team game, and survivors can in fact "do it on their own" if by that we mean they can sometimes escape by playing in outright-selfish ways that are to the direct detriment of the team's overall chances of survival. The point is that 1. the system does not and hasn't got to care about whether the game is such or such in order to be able to function, it only cares about the win condition and how often people meet it, and selfish anti-team players fulfilling the win condition poses not a single issue for its functioning and indeed for the players (again, that would only mean selfish players face killier killers and more selfish teammates, while teamplayers face less killy killers and more teammatey teammates), and 2. playing in such ways will, over a large enough number of matches, not be beneficial for one's personal survival rate; players with teamplay skills will outperform selfish players even on the personal survival rate metric. (But before you say "no" again, keep in mind that even if that weren't the case, the system would still function and it would still not "promote" any type of gameplay, selfish or altruistic.)
I will not even try to continue talking about the analogy.
Saving in the end game is not worth it according to you, yet that is because the system removes any risk/reward mechanics that would be in play for instance there are 3 survivors with 0 hook states to try and do exchanges to try and get a 4th survivor out. There is no incentive to do so, because there is zero benefit to those other 3 survivors. If you have a system where the survivors are rewarded for the overall result, they could go for that play or go for the safe 3 man out and the one left behind would still gain a benefit instead of being the only person negatively impacted along side the killer.
Playing for additional rescues in the endgame is as worth it as you yourself consider it to be. The "reward" people get for trying to rescue another survivor is the additional gameplay, the fun, the Bloodpoints, the Emblems, and the feeling of having made it happen should it work out, or perhaps the feeling of having sacrificed oneself for another survivor if you end up dying yourself instead. The matchmaking system is not supposed to set any incentives, any "rewards" for behaviour, it is only supposed to match players that are more similar in their success rates, their average performances, since that more often leads to situations where players even can make such decisions rather than being dominated so much little of it will matter.
You really should stop thinking of the matchmaking system as something that "rewards" people. It is only supposed to match people such that their success chances are more even, and it can only do so by looking at the actual success metrics. And with regards to survival rate, it actually doesn't matter whether players play for their own or the "team" survival, because both are the same win condition mathematically, and over many matches will come out to about the same individual ratings for players. Again, I do agree that looking at group survival is beneficial, since it will arrive at those appropriate ratings faster.
The metrics are not the same for killer and survivor, as the killers results are based on the final outcome while that of the survivors is not. All it comes down to is what is considered a win, a 1 man escape is not a win and yet the system states Yes it is. The opposite is however not true for a killer, a 1 kill is a loss from any reasonable mathematical point of view. You gain 20 and lose 60 aka a loss of 40 MMR (arbitrary numbers) if you are matched up equally, naturally it might be in a 2k a 18+16-22-24, but relatively which is what matters in a MMR system you stay about equal.
A 1-man escape is considered a win... for 1 survivor of the team. The other 3 get a lowered rating. Again, over many matches, these rating adjustments will come out to the same results, and nudge toward 50% survival rates, which is the only purpose of MMR. More balanced matches in their chances of the players in them to succeed.
I don't know what your math is trying to say, but even with your arbitrary numbers, the killer comes out to a -12 adjustment in that draw. Which is because 1v1 rating adjustments actually do not lead to +/-0 adjustments on the killer side either. Which is another reason why I agree that using a group-based survival metric is better, even for the killer, where you can simply look at a 2-kill result and say "the ratings should not be changed".
Stating that there are no MMR rankings is simply false, the whole point of a MMR system is to rank people. You give them a number and place them in order. The issue people have is what the system defines as a win, you look at the game as a single player even if you join a team. Most people view it as a 4v1 game where the 4 are a team.
The point of MMR is to match people with similarly-rated players such that they have more desirable playing experiences regardless of the way they play and regardless of the rating they have. You can play team-orientedly, you can play selfishly, you can play to win, you can play to hook, you can play to loot, you can play for BP... It doesn't matter for the system, it doesn't see a low-rated player as less "worthy" or "valuable", it only sees them as... lower-rated, for the purposes of matching them with other such lower-rated players.
Most people care about their own survival more than any teammate's, often even in SWF. But that is just my conviction, regardless of it being true or not, this doesn't actually matter for the functioning of the system we are talking about here. A player caring about their own survival is still playing for a 50% survival rate, and 25% of "their team" (note: if 50% of 4 players achieve the goal of playing for their own survival, that adds up to 2 x 25% = 50% of the overall team survival goal also being achieved), and they also play for the "team" because the same objective completion that allows themselves to survive also allows for other survivors to survive, and in fact, other survivors surviving too allows themselves to survive more often. They do not actually have to "view" the game as a team game or "care" about their team for any of this to be true.
You argue that it matches people in their approach to the game, but my entire argument is that it doesn't. My argument is that it would do just that if you would look at the final result and provide an increase / decrease based on how well your side did. It promotes those that will survive at any cost over those that play with a team mind set. The killers however are based on making as many survivors as possible die and would be best suited to face those with a team mind set... yet they don't climb as fast and far due to well them caring about the groups result and not their individual one.
It doesn't promote anything. Even if you think selfish play more often leads to personal survival, why does the MMR rating play into your decision to play selfishly and for your personal survival? What reward are you getting? Tougher killers? Teammates that also have to be assumed to be selfish?
Riddle me this: If players that care more about their team's survival than their own, and play in such ways to even sacrifice themselves for the greater good, and as a result die more consistently than selfish players... are not all of those teamplay players that care less about their personal survival more likely to end up at similar, lower brackets of the ratings, and as such more likely to end up getting paired with one another more often? This is literally what the system dictates based on your reasoning, how does it not match people based on their approach to the game? People that approach the game with the desire to win (kill/survive) as consistently as possible by using the most effective and efficient means to do so and are the best at consistently doing so even against similar players will end up at the highest ratings (and mind you, again, teamplay is absolutely part of those most effective means to consistently survive, very much so with regards to one's own survival as well), and the ratings below that will be an entire world of players with different types of approaches and levels of abilities and performances, likewise more regularly matched with more similar players. That's all the system is about.
MMR systems don't need to go into the nitty gritty and nowhere in my argument did I say it does. Using escapes and kills is perfectly fine, the issue is that the escapes are a team effort and yet the result is not reflected on the whole team.
I don't remember claiming you did say that, I only pointed out that the original analogy was only about that, and cautioned not to expand the analogy beyond that or to try and point out the ways in which hockey and DbD are different because the many ways in which they are indeed different don't matter, the analogy holds true with regards to the thing it was actually made in regards to.
But all of this is pretty unnecessary at this point anyway: We agree that group-based survival should be used instead, and we know that BHVR is at least looking to implement a hybridized version of looking at individual and group survival. I should not be here anymore having this discussion anyway, I have barely used this time to instead... check the mid-chapter/event, for one thing.
They are selling it as a Skill Based Match Making Ranking system and yet they don't account to the actual most skillful elements of a survivor: teamplay! Yet favour safe plays, risk aversion, selfish and sacrificial plays with solely your own survival in mind. One must consider the ramifications of what the system favours and how people will respond to that and is where the grievances with the system lies.
They aren't really "selling" it, the "sale" of the matchmaking system is if anything simply the types of gameplay experiences they are hoping it will (and apparently does) yield more often. They are definitely not selling it as a "ranking" system, the ratings are literally invisible and they had literally tried - but failed - to keep the system's functioning in the background too, and we are in fact still ignorant to quite some aspects of it. And they've literally told people to "just play how they want, the rating will adjust to them". It is not a leaderboard, ladder, or rank system, at all. If you yourself think of it this way, that is your personal issue. If you die helping your team, and feel bad for getting a rating decrease for that, I'll argue you don't actually care about your "team", because you apparently feel worse about an invisible number changing in the background than you feel good about having achieved the personal objective you yourself claim to play for to begin with.
I will admit that you are not the only one with that problem (if you have it). I think more players now care a little more about surviving (and sure, even surviving personally in certain situations where it can be detrimental to the overall "team's" survival), and a little more about killing. As opposed to other people I don't actually think camping, tunnelling, genrushing, good-window-abusing and all that stuff has suddenly sprung into existence, nor that players have now suddenly started to really care about killing and surviving (personal and otherwise) - I think overall the levels of trying to win (kill/survive) are... likely not very far from where they've always been. And for me personally, I can just play however I want anyway, and not care whether other people think the rating matters and play for it. And if they leave me to die on hook in order to get out the gates without taking a risk to save me... that's their prerogative, and I for one am not any more "upset" by that now than I had been before the introduction of MMR into DbD.
Simple question. You are going into great in depth responses so I want to see a simple answer. Why, assuming this system is somewhat functional as you claim, can a brand new survivor get killers with thousands of hours as their first game, in the middle of the day? This is not an outlier situation.
-
@zarr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768964#Comment_2768964
I'm not convinced queue times would get prohibitively long if we made the matchmaker a little more strict. Crossplay off queues (at least prior to MMR when lots of people still played on it) used to be pretty reasonable in my region, yet also much more consistently paired notably higher-level players of both roles. The players are out there, queueing at the same time, the matchmaker just seems to usually match them away before they can find each other.
Obviously we don't want Dowsey-tier hour-long queues, but if the system would at least look for much stricter rating matches during the first 5 minutes, I think things could already be much more consistent. And this could even be implemented with a cut-off point, where only players above a certain MMR threshold (starting at high mid to high range) are more strictly queued among their brackets in those first minutes, which might help with queue times overall since less of them will be paired away into lower brackets, more remaining available for "bracket-exclusive" pairing, and since it also won't affect lower bracket queue times much as they can still be matched more liberally even in the first 5 minutes, including with players from the upper brackets that have at that point already been waiting for more than 5.
Obviously I don't know any of this, we would have to see actual numbers on this stuff, and it might be fair to say that since BHVR is not doing it they may have already decided faster queue times are more important... but I for one would be okay with ~5 minute average high MMR queues if it more consistently led to closer matches. Although you as a streamer are probably not quite okay with that.
Interesting. People who have turned crossplay actually notice their games are even more mismatched than ever. I think CoconutRTS did an experiment with that as well (as anecdotal as it is). It would make sense, as you would have longer queues with it turned off, thus leading to wider variance.
Its also a slippery slope. You might be okay with 5 minute queues every time, but a lot of people wouldn't be. This would in turn, lead to less players, leading to longer queues, leading to wider variance, in an endless cycle.
-
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.
-
Great now go over the point where none of this matters because player imbalance resulting in long queues causes all matchmaking to be ignored despite how accurate the number assigned to you is.
-
@Bwsted said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2754449#Comment_2754449
You have to keep in mind that the system itself is designed to force you into an artificial 50% win rate.
The easiest way to accomplish this is not to make balanced match-ups. Quite the contrary. It's by making a series of lopsided trials that average out to the desired outcome.
So, have you been escaping more than your 'fair' share? Congratulations! Now you have to boost someone else's mmr who's got a bad streak.
Are you on a downswing? Worry no more! We'll put you in a gg ez game.
It doesn't matter how many hours you have. It only matters if you're winning as much (and only as much) you're expected to.
why do people keep saying this? this 50% winrate thing comes out of nowhere. if you lose 10 games in a row you'd lose like 200 MMR. a 1700 can match with a 1900, so even if you were 1900 and lost 10 games in a row you'd still be going against literally the exact same people. there's no "50% winrate switch"
-
Its certainly an interesting topic. I've tested various times and regions and found no notable difference because each experience was completely random. I've had complete babies in the morning and complete gods late at night, with no noticeable pattern. I don't think its something you could ever prove one way or the other without thousands of games to mitigate the insane RNG that goes into the data. I've heard claims of literally anything which to me, means there can't much truth to any of them. I've heard only good survivors play in the morning in EU, but the good survivors are in the evening in NA.
If the claim is that in the morning there are people that don't have jobs / school that can afford to play DBD all day, that also implies SWF isn't as big of a deal as people claim it is as there would obviously be more SWF whenever people get home from work / school. I've also found the weekend has no real impact which also negates this theory.
tl;dr none of it makes sense because the system doesn't work to begin with. All discussions on the subject are pointless because nothing can ever be proven.
-
@woundcowboy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2737899#Comment_2737899
Implying old Ruin Undying was anywhere near as strong as survivor perks.....
Do you know how absurd 3 Ruins was on Blight with Tinkerer
-
@gendoss said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2739627#Comment_2739627
So you or Otz don't think the game is generally killer sided from an average-high level standpoint? Even with emerging stats from tournaments that show it to be at least balanced?
It is but only for a handful of killers. If we are comparing averages, then no, survivor is objectively stronger.
-
Idk where you got the idea that Otz or I said the game was killer sided because it is not. It's sided to whomever brings the sweatiest stuff.
-
I don't think adding more BS is the solution, they just need to nerf Circle of Healing