illusion
illusion
About
- Username
- illusion
- Joined
- Visits
- 577
- Last Active
Comments
-
It's not necessarily that you are matched with bad players. The SBMMR system only uses kills and escapes. From what I have experienced, survivors play much more selfishly now. It is no longer a 4 v1, but a 1v1v1v1v1. If there is some risk to them escaping, you are out of luck.
I think maybe another contributing factor is that everyone is focused on gen rushing. Popular streamers have got it into so many people heads to not rush to save the survivor and finish your gen, and someone else will get them that, in some cases, nobody goes for the save. I saw a recent video from a very popular streamer, where he did exactly that. He ignored the survivor, on their first hook, while he worked on gens. He assumed someone else would go for the rescue, but nobody did, because I assume they all believed the same thing. Of course, very few people run Kindred, especially now that Boons have been introduced.
It used to be that survivors were overly altruistic, now it is just the opposite, it is about gen rushing and escaping, even if it is at the expense of other survivors.
-
They don't do anything to stop the obvious, extremely blatant cheating, so there is no way they will catch the subtle stuff.
-
Of all of the absolutely terrible killer perks, that is the one you have a problem with? It provides benefit, which puts well above the majority of killer perks. It slows the beginning part of the game down for survivors, while they have to run to gens further away. Plus, the killer knows they don't have to head to those gens and can head to closer gens, likely leading to earlier chases, and possibly downs.
-
Speedy Gonzales movement speed
She is just a normal 115% movement speed killer like most of the rest. The only time she gets a speed boost is when she first crawls out of a TV. She actually slows down when she manifests.
As for the rest they are limited in how they can create killers due to the limitations of the game design. We already have a slow killer that can teleport (Nurse). There is no mind-game that can make up for being slow, illusions either. We already have normal speed characters with illusions, and all killers can mind-game. That simply can't beat holding W and outrunning you. For killers the game is about patrolling gens and chasing survivors. There is really no place for slow killers. They would have to redesign the game to make killer designs in the way you would like them. As things are, they have to make the killers to work with the game as it is.
-
First, I always think that it is better to buff rather than nerf. If we want more variety in perks, but the non-meta perks to make them worth using.
Also, you can't nuke meta perks without addressing the problems that make people use them. You can't nuke anti-tunneling perks when tunneling is still a thing. You can't nuke perks that help against camping, when camping is still a thing. And you can't do anything about camping and tunneling, while gen rushing is still a thing, and kills is the only criteria a killer has for winning. Which also means you can't nuke perks that help killer with those things.
The devs need to acknowledge the fundamental problems with the game and make a concerted effort to fix those first. Then they can focus on making the weaker perks worth using, so that people have a legitimate choice. I think that is much better than forcing people to use crappy perks by taking away the good ones.
-
They think it's OK because there are no ramifications from it. Engaging with them just encourages them more. Being toxic back doesn't help, it just fuels more toxicity. Just move on and let them talk to themselves.
-
I remember when they made the changes to Ruin, and they said that it had to be a totem perk, because it was so powerful as a late game perk. The problem, obviously, is that it can be destroyed long before you get any benefit out of it. Not so with Boon perks, and I would consider CoH a powerful perk. It's a terrible double standard. Now I play a lot more survivor than killer these days, and I love when CoH is in a match, but I know that it has to be ridiculously frustrating for killers. It's just one more thing to make killers justify camping and tunneling in their heads, which hurts survivors. I have it, I have used it, and i like it, but I understand that it needs to be changed.
-
@Ramondiola said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2818529#Comment_2818529
True, but it wouldn't be that big of a deal if the game wasn't so fast paced. I still believe that getting higher mmr by escaping makes survivors focus on repairing and escaping, making gens go fast. And that's why an extended chase is unacceptable to the killer.
Instead of dead hard, you could face a well timed fast vault plus lithe and lose a lot of time too.
Then your post really should about fixing the game as a whole.
-
Dead refers to the size of the player base. That discussion seemed to be about perks, which has nothing to do with whether the game is dead or not.
-
It's not all doom, and some things may take some additional playtime to fully evaluate, but there are some unmistakable issues that we don't need a longer time playing her in order to recognize.
-
They should buff her, but I seriously have no idea what this dev team will do, anymore.
-
No, they need to stop using perks as band-aid fixes, rather than addressing the underlying issues. If they made it so camping and tunneling were not necessary, there would be no need for perks to address those. If the devs, themselves, hadn't encouraged camping, tunneling, and slugging as legitimate playstyles, maybe it would not have become as prevalent as it is. It wasn't always like this, but the devs keep trying to fix perceived problems with perk and addon changes, and it just keeps making things worse. The SBMM system did not help either. making it all about kills, led killers to do whatever it takes to get kills. That's all on the devs. We don't need more perks to fix the symptoms, we need them to come up with a fix for the disease(s) that is/are creating the symptoms.
-
Firstly, flashbangs and firecrackers don't go off by simply dropping them. There is a process more complicated than clicking a button to turn on a flashlight. Secondly, if you are that insane, then you don't even know what that item is, let alone how to use it. You are more likely to try and eat them than to use them properly.
-
It seems lately that when people don't like certain things they come to the forums and say that it's "boring". I have to guess that they think if the devs read that something is boring they are more likely to change it.
"...you never feel safe"
As a survivor you aren't supposed to feel safe. Every killer should make you feel unsafe. The game is flawed if you feel safe around any killer. I would say feeling safe playing against a supposedly terrifying serial killer would be "boring".
-
Not going to disagree with you that the game has problems, but what people are trying to point out to you is that it is not hypocritical to have an event. You are inferring some meaning into it that doesn't exist, it's just an event.
-
No, we don't. When developers do things that make the game worse you provide feedback. What they do with that feedback is up to them, but no one should ever just accept things that are bad. That is how games with potential die. You are free to just blindly accept whatever they implement, but don't tell others they need to do the same.
-
Yeah. Definitely report any situation like that. That also includes stuff like deliberately body blocking you so the killer can get you. Accidents happen, so not all body blocking counts, only the stuff that is 100% obvious that it was deliberate.
-
@zarr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768626#Comment_2768626
Completing generators is not 100% of the survivor objective, escaping is part of it. Besides, players can very well die before all gens are completed, even in games where eventually all gens do get completed and 2 survivors escape, and so those players that died earlier did not complete the gen objective before the game was over.
Regardless, they aren't aiming for either 2 escapes every match or an alternating cycle of 4-escape and 4-kill matches, they are aiming just for a 50% kill/survival average, "per-player" but over all matches, which in the results of the individual matches can mean much of anything, inlcuding games where 1 or 3 people escape.
What a perfectly-balanced round of DbD (or any game) ultimately truly is is another question entirely, and one that basically cannot be answered since different people see different things as differently important. But contrary to what you said, defining surviving and killing as win conditions is... the opposite of ridiculous in Dead by Daylight. Those are the clearest, most obvious criteria by which to measure success, and they are also what most people mostly care about. Maybe DbD could be better if it instead revolved around hooks, and killers could win with less-than-3 kills if they get enough hooks, and lose with more-than-2 kills if they didn't get enough hooks... but that is not the reality of the game, and so regardless of whether people would like such a game, the MMR cannot possibly be based on hooks as is, that would actually be ridiculous and lead to absurd consequences, the game would have to be redesigned in some major ways to make this possible.
As for @TheSubstitute's question whether MMR - the success-based, "skill-correlated" matchmaking system - is preferable to other matchmaking systems like the one we've had before... I for one think it is, both based on my personal and anecdotal gameplay experiences, and also on my conviction that people ultimately care about killing and surviving above all, and will have more "fun" with the game if they do so often enough, which MMR is meant to ensure, as opposed to the old system where again, average kill rates were very high, due to having very lopsided matches. I think it is no coincidence that most of the complaints about MMR seem to come from killer players, who have on average suffered a decrease of 10-20% in kill rates down from what they were before. They are actually averaging around 2 kills now as the system is intending (and good players still average much above that, since the system not seldomly does not and often simply cannot supply them with similarly-rated players, due to lack of such players in the pool), but they are having a harder time than in the past, getting less kills, and are often seemingly not happy with averaging around 2 kills.
Of course, if enough players (on either side, for whatever reason, justifiably or understandably or not) are dissatisfied with the game due to the system, having less "fun", playing less or not playing at all anymore, and if this actually leads to the game being less successful, and does so to such an extent that BHVR considers it to be too detrimental to (new) player retention, then it probably should and in all likeliness will be changed. Perhaps the game needs to be designed around average kill rates of around 70% since humans just want to be favoured in their average playing experience of being a killer in such a game, more than they feel they should be as a survivor. Those could be reasonable assumptions. But so far I have no reason to assume this is the case, the decline in player numbers over the last few months is not major and a more steep downtrend to be expected given that the game had experienced its by-far biggest surges in player activity in the months before that, with the RE chapter and Covid affecting things - and beyond that, the fact that BHVR went and reworked such an integral system to their game's experience to begin with that they knew would notably decrease global kill rates if it worked as intended, and are still not showing signs to be reconsidering on (to scrap the system), suggests to me that they have concluded (based on many more insights than we have of course) that it is actually beneficial for the game.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2768684#Comment_2768684
You are basically taking every point the OP attempted to explain, and showcasing again the flaws in understanding those explanations are meant to alleviate.
We've already had a matchmaking system based on Emblems, and as you yourself point out, it had problems. In fact, BHVR can see with hard numbers that it was vastly more imbalanced than the current system. As you allude to, there are problems with the things Emblems count and how those things are weighed. And there are things it does not count at all. The main problem with the ranking system based on Emblems and the matchmaking in turn based on ranks was that pretty much everyone ended up at rank 1 sooner or later, and that's how ridiculous kill rates approaching 80% even on average could happen in red ranks. They just did not track player skill and performances well at all, otherwise you would not have had 100 hour Megs at rank 1 every season. The problem with trying to track all the things that go into playing DbD (or indeed any game) is that they are basically uncountable and unquantifiable, and even if you could define, determine and detect all of them, you would then run into the next essentially-impossible task, of deciding concrete tiers of how important they all are in relation to each other.
The solution is to simply look at the results that all of these things lead to: wins. Looking at that will account for all of those things well-enough, and it will automatically weigh the many different skills because those skills that are the most conduvice to winning, naturally lead to winning more than others that aren't as conducive to winning.
So much for the explanation why skills are best accounted-for by looking at results in terms of wins/losses (every MMR/Elo system in existence does this, it's what MMR is designed to be). Keep in mind however that accounting for skills is not actually the reason why these systems look at win results - winning is what people play for, they compete in these player-versus-player games in order to succeed, the vast majority of players does not play in order to not succeed. As such, the system that pairs players should give them a chance to be able to succeed. Ultimately games are about fun, and people usually have fun in games if they succeed, especially if the games are designed to yield good (engaging) gameplay in competitive contexts. The MMR system gives players this chance, it uses algorithms to predict outcomes and pair players such that roughly equal chances of success are at play more often than not. You don't want a chess grandmaster regularly playing against beginners - but not because the chess master is more skilled and therefore a superior person that a beginner doesn't deserve to play against, but simply because neither player involved would enjoy that experience much, let alone if they had to play such lopsided matches all the time (and more problems with this exist if they're playing for prizes of course). Skill merely correlates with winning, it is not the reason why we use MMR in games in and of itself.
For the team aspect thing... While it is true that a team-based rating could (and apparently will in the future) be used, you are failing to see how the per-survivor survival rate ultimately will also account for their teamplay performance. Teamplay also leads to increased chances of succeeding (surviving), and so while it is certainly possible to die despite having done a lot for the team, a player that is good at teamplay will still over many matches survive more often than a player that is not good at teamplay and does not contribute a lot. Your assumption that such players that do not contribute get even better teammates as they rise in rating and players that do contribute worse teammates as they fall is glaringly flawed in various respects. First of all, this is one match, the rating adjustment won't mean much. Secondly, if the survivor that did not contribute much would consistently survive, so would others that do not contribute, and so at higher ratings they would be less and less likely to encounter teammates that can carry them, instead they would all hide. You see quickly how this leads to an absurd scenario. And this is because people that do not contribute on average do not actually survive, they will never surpass players that do contribute in average success rates. Over enough matches, the players that do stuff, are even good enough to "carry" a team among which are people that barely contribute at all, will always outperform those people that do not contribute, in terms of success (survival) rates. You are also failing to account for the fact that players that do nothing but rise in rating would face increasingly tougher killers against which surviving is less likely, especially playing in that way, and that players that do a lot but fall in rating would face increasingly less tough killers, against which surviving is more likely, especially playing in that way.
As for your last point, it's funny how starkly you contradict your earlier point about how this game is played as a team, but suddenly hockey is not fit for an analogy because it is a team game. Regardless, as pointed out, the analogy didn't pertain all of those aspects of hockey, just like it didn't pertain the aspect of hockey that people play on ice and wear helmets. The analogy specifically pertained the fact that as in hockey, the team that wins (scores more goals) is also automatically seen as a better team and matched with better teams in turn. They do not have to use very complicated means to evaluate a team's performance/skill levels to decide who they should play against, and they definitely don't let the team that lost (scored less goals) proceed in the brackets and leaderboards to face the better teams just because someone analyzed the game and said that the team that lost in terms of goals is however still better... No, they just look at goals for that stuff, which does also account for performance and skill levels, but ultimately is just what the game is about, winning, by achieving clearly-defined, diametrically opposed win conditions, advancing if you do so, not advancing if you do not. That's the point of the analogy, and Patrick could have used essentially any competitive PVP game in existence to make this point, he just chose hockey because he's Canadian.
Dude, you are trying so hard to defend the system that you are not comprehending the things you are disagreeing with. I clearly stated that the emblem system was flawed, but it contained all the skill based information needed to create a skill based system. I also said that it ranked people up too easily. There is no flaw in my understanding. I pointed out that all that was really needed was to tweak the numbers so that wasn't the case and to remove anything that boosted rank but had nothing to do with skill.
I also did not contradict myself. I pointed out that it is a team-based game, but it ranks players as individuals, not as a team, therefore the analogy to hockey is completely flawed. How did you not understand that? If the survivors all won or lost as a team, then you could compare it to a team sport....maybe, but this system does not rank players as a team. Some members of the team go up, some go down, so nothing like hockey. If you are going to try and correct me, get it right. Yes, hockey looks at goals when it comes to who wins the game, but that does not reflect the skill of each individual player. Every player has their own stats, which is how they are ranked in the league regardless of how the rest of the team plays, and which is why good players on bad teams still get invited to the all-star games.
Also, that whole "it will balance out" thing does not work. When you lose, you are matched with even worse players, so you have an even greater chance of losing the next match and matches after that. That logic expects that you will somehow solo carry a 4 man team to victory, which is ridiculous.
-
Skill checks are annoying. We already have enough of them in the game, I really don't want to see more of them. It's not fun. Why do they keep adding elements that aren't fun. The first thing they should think about before adding or changing anything is "is this going to make the game more fun". Granted, spamming buttons isn't fun either, but it is not annoying either. Now, I get that some people may prefer skill checks. Great, make it optional.
-
The game already tracks skill based player objectives in the emblem system, so saying that it can't be done makes zero sense. The only problem was that the numbers needed to be changed to properly reflect the value of each of the actions. Also, there were some actions in that system that don't require skill and they should be removed.
Plus, survivors play as a team but are ranked individually, so if one of the players plays extremely well and carries the team, but dies on their first hook, they get put onto a worse team next match, while players that do little in the match but hide, get higher mmr scores and get placed with better teams that will carry them even more. How is that remotely fair and balanced? Who could possibly call that a good system for ranking players?
Now, no one really cares that bad players get ranked up. They will eventually get to a place where their playstyle just doesn't work with far more skilled killers. The problems is that good players can end up in a snowball of losses because they keep getting teamed with less skilled players.
And, to act like Patrick's comments were valid, when he used a hockey analogy that doesn't reflect the situation in DbD, is ridiculous. This is not a team game. You don't win or lose as a team. You win or lose as individuals, so individual skill should absolutely be taken into consideration. And since they already track that stuff, and were using it in the previous MMR system, you can't say it can't be done. It just needed to be tweaked.
-
@WholesomeNebula said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2767715#Comment_2767715
You can’t just judge a perks effect if it’s a hex perk, that’s ridiculous on Otz’ part. Yeah the effects are S tier, but not as a hex, since it’s likely to be gone before the match is half over. It stands a great chance of being gone in the first 30 seconds if your spawn isn’t great. Otz saying Ruin is S tier kinda proves his analysis/opinions don’t deserve the almost God-like respect many in the community seem to give him.
NOED on the other hand is a great perk. It can save the late game, and with how meta boon perks are now, survivors rarely cleanse all totems so you’re almost guaranteed to get use out of it if the survivors make it to the end game.
You most certainly can judge a perk based on its effect. As I said, if you watch the video, he points out exactly why he rates where he does and he points out the downside of it. Hexes are all risk vs reward. If you don't think it is worth the risk, you can choose not to use it, but when it stays up it can be a huge benefit. Also, if you run it with undying, it has a better chance of staying up. You can decide that it is not worth the risk, but that doesn't mean that your opinion is right and his is wrong. He gives you the information you need to judge for yourself.
-
Yeah, it is probably S-tier, but it depends on you. For players that are already good, it is probably s-tier. It will probably not be anywhere near as good for mediocre players. Also, like all Hex based perks it has its drawbacks. If it spawns in an easily visible place, it can be cleansed before you can get any use out of it. Also, teams dedicated to cleansing dull totems can remove its potential to spawn in the first place.
Everyone has their own opinions on the ranks of perks, so take those opinions with a grain of salt, especially if they don't provide any reasoning for it. Otz has a 16+ hour video where he explains every perk in the game and why he ranks them where he does. I wouldn't just look at his tier list without listening to his explanation for why he ranks them as he does.
-
Ruin being an S tier perk is under the assumption that it stays up for a decent amount of time. If it gets cleansed early, bad luck, but extremely valuable if it stays up until late game.
@Warcrafter4 said:
Just looking at the list it seems like the list has quiet a few perks pushed up a tier because the bottom tiers ran out.
I mean how in the world is "Hex: Thrill of the Hunt", "Monitor and Abuse"(core on some killers but useless on the rest aka niche), "Agitation", and "Hex:Retribution" not all niche perks? Just to name a few.
Edit: Aka take the positions with a grain of salt due to perks being pushed up.
He doesn't have a tier for "Niche" perks, only "weak niche". Those are niche, but not weak.
-
There have always been players like that, and always will be. It is, however, not the norm, even if you are playing with potato survivors. And I really do blame you for DC'ing. Just because one player exposed you once, you DC'd and ruined the game for the other 2 survivors. Just keep playing and don't help the person that wronged you. Don't screw over the remaining players.
-
Wish I could offer some suggestions, but we are at the mercy of the skill-based matchmaking system that doesn't take skill into account. If your teammates suck, it is very easy for things to snowball like that, as you get worse teammates. But, since there are far fewer newer killers, you don't get balanced matches that will even things out. Even if you get a baby killer for a match, and you escape, the next match will likely be with a more experienced killer and potato survivors, and you will be back in the same boat. Welcome to SBMM.
-
I don't know why people keep asking for perks and addons to be added as base kit. They are perks and addons for a reason. You need to make a choice. If a character is weak, then buff them (though artist is not), and only extremely rare situations should a perk/addon be considered for a base kit. Not sure why it is suddenly being the default ask in every situation.
-
The emblem system didn't accurately represent skill. Players, especially survivors, could rank up way to easily. This led players to thinking they were better than they actually were, and the matches would be mismatched because you could reach red ranks just from playing a lot, regardless of your skill. This, of course, led to a lot of calls for nerfs and/or buffs based on a misconception of a power imbalance.
That said, all of the information and tools were in the emblem system to create a true skill based system, they really just needed to tweak the numbers. When the devs said they were working on a skill based MMR system, everyone was excited. I don't think anyone expected them to take the route they took and give us a system that was even less based on skill.
-
@Shaped said:
They can take your cosmetics. They can take your basement. Cut you loose from all you know. But if it's your fate, then every chainsaw sweep will always be a step closer to home.
LOL Nice. :-)
-
It would definitely be nice if, after waiting in a long queue, and a player disconnects while loading in cancelling the match, that you get blood points for it. You are essentially having to wait in multiple queues with nothing to show for it.
@MrPeanutbutter said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/306387/long-queue-suggestion
The answer to long queue times (which is almost always for survivors) is to incentivize more people to play killer. Right now the game is so imbalanced against killers at mid to high levels that few people are willing to take the abuse of playing killer. Either make quality of life changes to improve killer or at least rewards with more BP/shards to compensate for the abuse.
Yeah. I think incentivizing people to play killer would be extremely helpful for the average queue times.
-
I don't think anyone hates Bubba, just the way that some players use him. I have played against a lot of good Bubba killers that didn't just face-camp. Nothing wrong with Bubba, himself.
-
@zarr said:
I'm actually baffled how backwards a lot of people are taking this whole MMR thing. This is like the third or fourth entirely-too-long post I make about this topic, but I somehow find it difficult to express in simple, short terms just how backwards people are looking at this system.
I think it wasn't a good decision to call the matchmaking system "skill-based", but not because it doesn't factor in skills (it does), but because people are getting way too hung up on that word and losing out of sight completely what we are talking about here. We are talking about a matchmaking system. People seem to believe this is some kind of ultimate judgement system, that rates players and somehow they are then only worth as much (or as skilled) as the system says, as if a good rating would be a reward, or as if it granted some sort of reward, and as if it would be unfair if it didn't correctly rate someone based on all of their skills.
First of all, realize that the system is only meant and indeed only used to create matches, and specifically matches that are more even in terms of chances of success for all players involved. There is no reward for being highly-rated, your rating is not even shown, and the state of your rating does not signify anything but the pool of players you will (ideally) more often be paired with and against, namely players close to that rating. Even if the system did not rate players based on skill whatsoever (which it again absolutely does), why does anybody care whether it actually assesses skills? Sure, if there were an actual, notable reward for achieving a high rating, like cosmetics or Shards or whatever, I could understand a little better complaints about how the system would not fairly or accurately rate players, that they think it does not account for the types of skills they may have that may also be important... but there are no such rewards, the only thing that changes if your rating increases is the rating of the players you are supposed to be matched with.
I find it perplexing that people take issue with the idea that the system does not rate people fairly based on skills, not only because it ultimately doesn't have to (and despite the fact that it ultimately does), but also because often when I hear other suggestions for matchmaking systems, they are stuff like "just throw everyone in one giant pool", or "use emblems", which are both basically describing the same thing, the old matchmaking system, and only go to show that people often don't actually care about consistently having opponents roughly around their own skill level, they if anything seem to want a completely willy-nilly matchmaking again. And so even if we do assume that the current matchmaking system does not actually match people based on skills, why is that then an issue for so many?
More than that, the most common complaint I see about the current matchmaking system is players saying they have a hard time killing survivors. Yet the system is literally meant to make players average out to around 2 kills. So either they are saying they want to have a system in which they can average more than 2 kills (which would be silly of course), or they are actually fine with what the current system is designed around, only they think it does not actually fulfil its purpose since they do not average around 2 kills (which they however could already very well be).
Either way, let's tackle the arguments of Scott here.
"Killing/surviving does not really determine skill."
In no game in existence MMR is simply about "skill" itself. I will refrain from touching on the hockey analogy because it is not important, but the gist of what Patrick said is completely true. Namely, MMR systems are concerned with winning. Not with winning in the most difficult, fancy ways, just winning by any means possible as long as those means consistently lead to winning. In any proper MMR system, people only advance if they consistently win. Consistently winning requires skill. The skills required to win correlate with winning. The MMR therefore factors in those skills. That doesn't mean the MMR system is about skill, it's about winning, and skills only factor into this if and insofar they respectively correlate with winning. It's an important distinction to make between skills that correlate with winning (which is: to contribute and lead to winning), and skills that are merely fancy, difficult things one can do, but that do not necessarily increase one's likeliness to win, and in fact can even do the opposite. You could separate them terminologically by speaking about survival/killing skills as the one that matter for MMR, as they pertain skills that correlate with winning. As such, you would specify "skill-based" MM as "survival/killing skill-based" MM, or "skill-correlated" MM.
Sure, there are a lot of things in these games people can be skilled at, but if they are not things that lead to wins, they cannot and indeed should not be factored into MMR. You can be the best moonwalker in the game, but if you can't use that skill to actually increase your survival rate, it has nothing to do with MMR, and it would be absurd to argue it should. Basing matchmaking on skills just on the basis of how difficult they are rather than on the basis of whether those skills translate to increased chances of winning is completely backwards and misguided understanding of what MMR and its purpose is. What would high-MMR gameplay look like in a system that looked at difficult stuff for difficulty's sake? You would have 360 youtube montage survivors spinning around in one corner of the map, and a skybilly going for trick montages in the other. Endlessly of course, because nobody would ever do gens which is unskillful and purely, primitively survival-oriented, and Billy would never kill anyone but rather try to win an infinity-approaching amount of chases with tricksaws in a single game.
I hate to break it to people, but hooks are not actually the win condition in this game, and in its current state absolutely cannot be. The win conditions are killing and surviving, and you would have to redesign the game in major ways that shift its entire character to change that. Yes, someone might be very skilled at chasing survivors and therefore gets many hooks, but if they cannot convert those hooks into kills or get enough hooks that this naturally happens, they are not skilled at winning, which is what matters for MMR. For MMR only actually winning is important because its entire purpose is only to match players such that their chances of winning are more even, because that leads to healthier competition and more satisfactory playing experiences where players' win/loss ratios are more balanced, i. e. where they are more likely to succeed at least around half the time, which is to kill/survive, which in turn is also what most people actually mostly care about.
Now mind you, a player that is very skilled at chasing survivors is absolutely likely to often kill survivors, and so if they for some reason consistently end up only getting hooks and not kills, they are not converting their chase skills into wins, thus they are lacking other skills, such as macrostrategic skills (or they are going out of their way to not kill survivors, meaning they are actively hampering their own performance for difficulty's sake, which is again something MMR cannot and should not account for, just like it should not rate people higher that play perkless for some reason, or with a steering wheel, or put other such artificial limitations on themselves).
Getting many hooks is certainly indicative that a player is skilled at chases, but if they are not killing survivors that way, they are evidently not skilled enough at them for it to make up for other skills which allow other players to kill survivors with less hooks. Camping, tunnelling and slugging exist, they allow kills to happen with less hooks, and they absolutely require skill to make use of against good opponents that know how to play against them, which you in an MMR system would be expected to go against. As long as it is possible to kill without hooking survivors 3 times each, hooks cannot possibly be a win condition, and therefore also not possibly what MMR concentrates on. Base MMR on hooks and low MMR will be a realm of 99% kill rates where bad and new players get demolished by campers, tunneller, and sluggers constantly. Base MMR on hooks without making survivor MMR also be based on hooks and both sides can win simultaneously, rendering MMR useless as tons of players will be inevitably gaining MMR and ending up at around the same ratings. Base survivor MMR on hooks and they can kill themselves and leave each other on hooks and guarantee "wins" that way, meaning you would have to get rid of hook timers, of the ability to kill oneself on hook, and remedy situations where all survivors are hooked or slugged, allowing them to unhook themselves and recover. Basically, you have to remove camping, slugging and an entire sphere of strategy from the game. Rework the game like that to make hooks the win condition and you alienate the character of the game as well as a lot of players because killing and surviving absolutely is what the game revolves around and what most people care about.
Besides, why stop at hooks? What about the tons of skills that merely looking at "hooks" does not directly account for? Whether you won your chase with a fancy long-range hatchet shot rather than a point-blank one, or with a mindgame on a safe pallet rather than an unsafe pallet? Whether you used good chase perks, or chase perks at all? Add-ons that helped you? The map you were on? The killer you played? How many red stain mindgames you went for and succeeded with? How well you zoned? Shouldn't these things as well as the thousand other things that require skill be measured and accounted for by the MMR system? Aren't these things to hooks what hooks are to kills? Wouldn't we have to acknowledge that the system would become impossibly convoluted and impossible to design altogether, if we wanted to define, detect, evaluate and weigh the countless different skills that can go into the gameplay? Wouldn't we come to the realization that we can and in fact must simply look at the results that these things lead to and that we effectively, over large enough sample sizes, account for all those things by doing so?
The higher MMR levels are not supposed to be some holy realm where the most fun, fancy, difficult, noble, interactive, exciting, etc. gameplay happens. It is not something players are even meant to want to achieve. It is not some ladder to climb that people should fight their best to make it to the top of. It's a system entirely in the background, and only meant to match players with more like-minded and like-abled players when it comes to winning, without them even thinking about it, and at the top levels of that it is simply and precisely about pairing players that care the most about winning and are the best at doing so. That doesn't mean they need to be the best at getting 12 hooks, or the best at getting cross-map hatchet snipes or whatnot, it means they are the best at killing or surviving consistently, with everything that entails, the most effective and efficient, absolute "sweatiest", most "tryhard" loadouts and playstyles, filthy busted-setup-abusing, DHDS genrushers, mean 4-slowdown Nurse/Blight camper-tunneller-sluggers. And yes, consistently winning (killing/surviving) in that environment where you face off against other players that are increasingly also better at those same things, does require a lot of skill. Players in tournaments are also absolutely some of the most skilled in the game, and they too play for killing and surviving more than hooks, and it is actually not easy to kill by camping/tunnelling/slugging/just-doing-gens in that environment, a wide variety of high-level skills are at play, and chase skills specifically are definitely highly important for success there as well, the most successful tournament players are likewise some of the best 1V1 players that consistently get some of the highest chase times in 1V1 competitions. And believe it or not, plenty of people even have fun and find it exciting playing to win by any means possible in highly competitive contexts, that competition and playing-to-win and winning is desirable in itself to them, camping-et-al included.
If you personally do not enjoy how the game is played when everyone tries their hardest to win (to kill or survive), and if you consider other types of goals in the game to be more desirable or noble or even skillful (such as getting many hooks, even if it costs you kills you could otherwise get), then you are absolutely, completely free to play in those ways, MMR will not "punish" you for that one bit, on the contrary, you will even benefit from the MMR system, since you will be separated from those sweaty tryhards further above in the ratings that only play to win, as you will of course not be winning as consistently as they are. Instead, you will more often be paired against like-minded players that also do not care as much about killing and surviving, and you will have more desirable game experiences as a result, and games where you can actually average around 2 kills by going for many hooks (something that is indeed not possible at higher levels of play, the game at that level is not balanced around hooks but kills).
"Consistently" is another keyword to counter an argument of Scott with here: he points to instances where lower-skilled players in a team may survive without having contributed much to that win, or where higher-skilled players die despite having contributed a lot to the round, or yet where a higher-skilled killer gets 9 hooks but only 1 kill, whereas a lesser-skilled killer gets 2 kills with 2 hooks... And the answer to this is completely obvious and apparently lost on so many: over large enough sample sizes, the higher-skilled player that contributes a lot to the rounds will survive much more often than that lower-skilled player that contributes little; the higher-skilled killer that ends chases so fast that they can get 9 hooks in that round will over large enough sample sizes kill much more survivors than that 2-hook 2-kill player that must rely on cheap tactics (primitive facecamping) that get more and more impractical to be successful with the better your opponents are. MMR is about consistently winning, and it's completely obvious that better players will win more consistently, the correlation between skills and winning is blatant, and the scenarios he and other people point to are edge-case exceptions to a rule that would over large enough numbers of scenarios always prove true and lead to the player rating rather accurately accounting for those skill differences. Sure, if that 9-hook killer goes out of their way to always make sure they don't hook survivors they've already hooked, they might not surpass the hardcamper in kill rates, but if that killer wants to win they will of course do precisely the opposite. If they on the other hand aren't going out of their way not to kill but in fact simply cannot consistently kill despite getting many hooks, they are simply lacking crucial other skills that also play a role in this game, since this game is not at all only about chases.
The lower-skilled players that only do gens, hide, facecamp, suck at chases, etc. will hit an MMR barrier much earlier than those higher-skilled players, since they will at best stagnate playing in those ways over many matches. But that they gain MMR in rare exception matches where they are hard-carried by better teammates or stupid decisions of opponents is not actually a problem either: you actually want those players to gain MMR such that they face better opponents that are better at killing/surviving and as such punish those playstyles and that lack of skill. You don't want the locker hero or the facecamper Bubba to get easier and easier opponents every time they succeed, opponents against which they will be even more successful playing that way; rather, if they are successful playing that way, you want them to face tougher opposition such that and until they aren't anymore.
I'm not saying the game could not be extensively reworked to actually become about hooks vs. preventing hooks rather than about killing vs. surviving, and I even agree that it being changed to at least shift somewhat more from being about kills to being about hooks is a desirable direction, but the reality of the game as it is simply is not that, and without major redesigning it cannot be. Simply tying MMR to amount of hooks without doing anything else would be absurd. And anyway, I do think camping/tunnelling/slugging have a place in the game, they are integral aspects of the "macrogame", the strategical side, they involve decision-making and play-making and therefore different layers and degrees of mental and mechanical skills of their own, and they on top of that add a "danger" factor to the game by being capable of in a short duration turning matches around and ending matches altogether, which makes the game more exciting, thrilling, differentiates the trial-to-trial gameplay experiences much more, and is a big part of what makes the game a horror-type game on top of that (including that it is about killing and surviving specifically, which are clear and thematic horror-type conditions, as opposed to... "achieving X hooking actions" and "preventing X hooking actions from happening" - again, people at large will never feel as if they won a game of Dead by Daylight if they all died, or if they had all survivors escape, no matter how much you tell them the hooks actually matter more).
I do obviously agree with the last section of Scott's argument here though, namely that the matchmaking system actually has to match players with similar ratings if it is to make any sense at all to calculate ratings to begin with. And it currently doesn't really do that all that reliably. It does so reliably enough to still be a much better system than the rank-based system in my experience and that of the people I know and follow, but it's definitely far from perfect in that regard. It could also very well be improved by looking at group survival rather than per-survivor survival, but as per my earlier explanations, it doesn't actually necessarily need that for ratings to accurately-enough represent player skill over large enough sample sizes - survival/killing skills of individual players very closely correlate with individual survival rates/per-survivor kill rates over many matches. But perhaps the rating adjustments would be a little more reasonable if based on the average rating of groups, rather than that of the individual survivors in them, so that could be an actual improvement.
Finally I want to note that looking at hook stages (not hook events) would account for kills and hooks simultaneously, and it would not require any changes to the game either. So yeah, I guess that's my suggestion for a compromise between the MMR system we currently have and that fits the reality of the game, and the MMR system some people wish to have that however does not fit the game's reality: Use hook stages to support the kill-based rating adjustments.
Yes, entirely too long, and it still misses the point. It has nothing to do with people wanting to be in higher ranks they don't belong in, it's about not being punished because you didn't "win". For survivors, when you "lose" you will get matched with worse survivor teammates in your next match which can lead to a snowball effect of losses. Unfortunately, the game has a severe lack of new and casual killers, so you often don't get easier killers, just worse teammates.
Also, the system makes survivors play far more selfishly, because now it is all about escaping. It's no longer a 4 v 1 it is just a bunch of individuals, many of whom will throw you under the bus the first chance they get if it benefits them. We have gone from survivors that were overly altruistic to players letting their teammates die on their first hook because they don't want to risk going for a rescue, and they want to focus on the gen rush. Selfish gameplay is rewarded, not skill.
It also forces killers to play a certain way, by only going for kills. It encourages face-camping and tunneling, and i think everyone knows how much survivors enjoy that. It should be obvious to anyone that a killer that gets 8 hooks and 2 kills if a much more skilled player than a face-camping Bubba that gets 3 hooks and 3 kills, but the Face-camping playstyle is what is rewarded.
This, in addition to the already glaring balance issues, makes the game far less fun for a lot of people and is making it even more of a niche game than it already was. It will continue to lose players, and that is not good for any multiplayer game. But, by all means, keep defending it.
-
@legrosporc69 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2766112#Comment_2766112
No because the survivor in the match had the same issue but this hapoen only when freddy is in the game
Ah. That could be why I didn't see it. I did not have Freddy on that map.
-
@legrosporc69 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2766094#Comment_2766094
Maybe its a freddy thing
Could be, or it could be a driver issue.
-
I played it several times tonight and didn't see anything like that.
-
It really wasn't good. I guess it let many of us know that the game won't be making any positive changes to the overall state of the game, so good in that regard, I guess. The lame answers, and bad analogies were terrible, and the arrogant attitude that was dismissive of players concerns was definitely off-putting.
@Gwinty said:
I am fine with the Q&A.
Nothing to exciting and nothing I did not anticipate.
Addressing cheaters is not possible and they explained the arms race character pretty well, not making fixed time tables is good and it seems that they have learned a harsh lesson here and announcing that things are "on the radar" is good enough.
People complain about the Hockey analogy...well, that was a given. Anything where people feel like "their skill" does not get a reward makes them feel bad. I will continue to ask people who talk about players just "warming the bench" if we should just exclude reserve players from receiving the rewards and the cup at the end of season if their team won...
That is just continuing the bad analogy. That is a situation of team play where everyone wins or loses regardless of how players do individually. Do we have that in DbD? No. If all survivors lost if one died, or they all won if one escaped, then that would fit, but that is not the case. The players warming the bench are not as skilled as the players on the ice, that is why they are on the bench. The league tracks individual player stats: Goals, assists, shots on goal, etc... Benchwarmers have a bunch of goose eggs on their stat sheets. The best players tend to go to the all-star games even if they are on a team that lost the majority of their games. They also get much higher salaries. And if you play in fantasy leagues, all of the players stats are used to determine their rank, and their owners' scores for the week/season, regardless of how that player's team did. Why? Because it is based on the player's skill. Individual skill matters, even in team sports. Having a skill based system that doesn't actually take a player's skill into consideration is ridiculous.
-
They don't. Both sides are equally bad or good about it. Many survivors are extremely chill, including streamers. Many killers are extremely try-hard and toxic. It goes both ways. People are individuals, and everyone is different.
-
Not sure how the topic got skewed. The OP did not mention content creators. They suggested listening to the player base, they did not specify solely content creators. And while players certainly can't be relied on for unbiased suggestions on all matters (perk balancing and such comes to mind), things like a skill based matchmaking system actually taking skill into consideration seems like something the devs should take seriously.
-
There is no scenario where the survivor has the right to complain about that. That is a self-inflicted situation. You crawl to a corner and bleed out, that is on you.
-
@SOULWARRIOR71K said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2765482#Comment_2765482
I completely understand the point that is being made, but my point is that it doesn't matter. The "win" condition for survivors is escaping. If you don't escape, you don't get credit. I'm not saying they have to like this, I'm saying that's how it is. Running the killer for 5 gens may be fun and that's great, but the game doesn't care about this. If you are doing things for fun, the end result/MMR doesn't matter anyway. If you are playing to win, then you have to play the game as a 1v1 with a focus on your individual objective (escape as survivor, kill survivor as killer).
The SBMM system was supposed to be skill based, and they chose to exclude skill-based factors. The fact that the devs made escapes and kills the "win" condition is the problem, so saying that people are not meeting the win condition shows a complete lack of understanding of what people have a problem with.
-
Scott isn't the only streamer that found those comments troubling. Many others have posted videos on the subject. For those of us that watched the Q&A it was already disturbing, so it is good to see some of the most popular streamers putting it out there for those that didn't see it.
The worst part about it was how arrogant he came across while making that stupid, and completely off base, sports analogy. It's almost like he doesn't understand hockey either, and that some players have far more skill than others regardless of how the rest of the team plays.
-
All insults and harassment should be banned. Why make this a one side vs the other side type post?
-
The emblem system contains skill-based information that should have been implemented in the SBMM, no question. However, the emblem system was most definitely flawed. Of course, you never thought your score was unfair. Everyone likes to think they are better than they are. The emblem system ranked you up far too easily, especially on the survivor side. It gave you far more points than you deserved and did not accurately represent the actual skill of the players. You could easily get to red ranks just from playing a lot, regardless of actual skill. It could have, however, been modified to work as a skill-based MMR system if they changed the values, imo. They were already using a lot of skill-based elements. I'm not sure why they went with something so basic that still doesn't represent actual skill.
-
It should be obvious that there are fewer killers. The number of newer, or more casual survivors greatly exceeds the number of newer and/or casual killers. Mostly what is left are the hardcore killer mains. Sure, there are a few casual killers and people that play both, but there are nowhere near as many as their used to be.
-
Is it too much to ask to enjoy DbD? Yes. The game has a plethora of problems, and people have every right to complain about them. That said, some people do tend to do it in an immature way. Others do it just to irritate other people. For some reason they find that entertaining.
-
Could be they were just frustrated by survivors being toxic to them, and they were acting out. However, you don't need to recover to use the hatch. If they dropped you at the hatch and you just laid there recovering, they may have decided they didn't want to wait anymore and closed it. No malicious intent.
-
It wouldn't make the game more difficult, it's just that the devs cannot balance everything perfectly. That is why we have perks and addons that are meta while others are almost useless. It would be nice if they could balance everything, but I would not hold my breath waiting on that.
-
The number of people posting on the forum is not an indication of the number of people that actually play that role.
Ironically, I have seen a lot of survivors complaining today. Both sides complain about equally, about the other side. Let's stop with the finger pointing.
-
A) People are toxic or not. It is not necessarily in response to someone being toxic to them.
B) They want you to focus on them because they are likely good loopers in a good location and want to waste your time. Focus on the other players unless you have some advantage over the clicker.
-
OP, if you are in that situation, you have already done a lot wrong in the match or were simply outplayed. You let them complete all 5 gens and you let them 99 the gate. You can open the gate yourself, if you don't like that it is 99'd, but it is my guess that it would not change the outcome much.
There was a time when the EGC did not even exist. It was added to prevent people taking the game hostage indefinitely, not to make it easier to get kills.
-
It was a terrible explanation. He essentially said that they don't take skill into consideration in a skill based matchmaking system. The idea is not that hooks be the only skill that they base MMR on, just something that is factored in, in addition to kills and other skills. We were promised a skill based matchmaking system and they went with the most basic system anyone could have come up with, that doesn't take skill into account.