knell
knell
About
- Username
- knell
- Joined
- Visits
- 7,862
- Last Active
Comments
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2789836#Comment_2789836
The game also has numerous references to working together and helping your team, as another person already cited for you in this thread, but there is no point in cherry picking. That's also the easiest way to explain the game to a new player because it's the simplest thing to understand. "You want to escape" is much simpler than "You want to escape, but like, sometimes you'll be able to make so much more BP by not escaping, and sometimes your rift challenge is worth hanging around for, and sometimes you're playing with a friend and you really want to save them, and..."
My point Re: the opponent is simple. If you are helping your opponent do their objective, that should be negatively reflected in your MMR, because MMR is based on the principle of a zero sum game where a loss for one side equates to a win for the other side. The fact that it doesn't in the current system means the system is flawed. You don't need to care either way. It is what it is.
MMR does reward selfish plays that lead to players' own escape, yes. 100% agreed. That is a problem. There is nothing skilled about waiting in a locker for your teammate to die in a winnable match. There is nothing skilled about leaving through the exit gate instead of taking an easy save because 10% of the time you'll end up dying for your teammate. MMR thinks so, though, and will tend to boost the rating of players who do these things. This is a problem.
Selfish players are not "stuck with" more skilled players. They are being carried by them, and necessarily so, because they're also facing killers that are too good for them. This just incentivizes more selfish behavior, since these players get disproportionately stomped whenever they interact with the killer. It also hurts the experience for their teammates. This is a problem.
You have every right to be an unapologetic, "screw you I got mine", political compass meme of a DBD player. Nothing wrong with that. The fact that the system rewards that style of play results in worse experiences for everyone, though, including you. When I say that selfish play is "rewarded", I'm talking strictly in terms of MMR. MMR itself is worthless outside of matchmaking and you get nothing of value from having a higher rating. If you're laser focused on surviving all the time, you should actually consider the opposite (getting matched with weaker killers) to be a reward. A higher MMR is more like a punishment. I'm surprised you wouldn't prefer to play the game in a system that lets you face weaker killers and escape more frequently, even well over 50%? That's the only way for you to complete that selfish objective more often. In the current system, you'll always get dragged down to roughly 50% because that's what matchmaking is based around.
*The game also has numerous references to working together and helping your team, as another person already cited for you in this thread, but there is no point in cherry picking. That's also the easiest way to explain the game to a new player because it's the simplest thing to understand. "You want to escape" is much simpler than "You want to escape, but like, sometimes you'll be able to make so much more BP by not escaping, and sometimes your rift challenge is worth hanging around for, and sometimes you're playing with a friend and you really want to save them, and..."
Go ahead, show me an official reference in which working together and helping your team is identified as being the winning condition to the game.
*My point Re: the opponent is simple. If you are helping your opponent do their objective, that should be negatively reflected in your MMR, because MMR is based on the principle of a zero sum game where a loss for one side equates to a win for the other side. The fact that it doesn't in the current system means the system is flawed. You don't need to care either way. It is what it is.
The problem is the you continually assert that there is only two sides without providing any evidence to show for it. In fact, there is five sides, one for each of the survivors and one for the killer. Never will it ALL go up, and never will it ALL go down. It's functioning exactly how it's supposed to.
*MMR does reward selfish plays that lead to players' own escape, yes. 100% agreed. That is a problem. There is nothing skilled about waiting in a locker for your teammate to die in a winnable match. There is nothing skilled about leaving through the exit gate instead of taking an easy save because 10% of the time you'll end up dying for your teammate. MMR thinks so, though, and will tend to boost the rating of players who do these things. This is a problem.
Disgree. The purpose of any game is to figuring out the path to victory. Thus, skill, in the context of games, is defined by whether the player have the knowledge, and the actual ability to carve out the path to winning. It's important to understand that it has nothing to do with "effort" that one may put in, nor how "difficult" the ability is obtain. For example, even if a player is able to somehow memorize every random map formation and figured out a way to predict every pallet spawn location so that he/she is able to throw every pallet down within the first 20 seconds of the game by taking the shortest route before even the killer can find him, would that be considered "skill" in this game? Unless that player's ability is shown to provide consistent victory, it's absolutely meaningless. Sure, it might have taken lot of effort to learn it, and it may be difficult to pull off, but unless it somehow correleates to his/her escape rate, it's irrelevant to his/her skill. So ultimately, it's always a question of "Am I doing what it takes to earn my victory?"
So yes, if you are consistently able to pull of a win majority of the time simply by hiding all game, guess what, it's a marvelous skill to have. But honestly, how often does that happen? Every time I've seen players like that, the player ends up either dying, or simply getting the hatch (which doesn't affect the MMR). Leaving another survivor to die while escaping? Why wouldn't it be a skill? On the other hand, I've seen overly altruistic survivors running headlong into a one-hit camper and dying off - displays of horrible decision-making ability that would counteract any good skills they may have demonstrated during the game - so they go down in MMR as they should.
*Selfish players are not "stuck with" more skilled players. They are being carried by them, and necessarily so, because they're also facing killers that are too good for them. This just incentivizes more selfish behavior, since these players get disproportionately stomped whenever they interact with the killer. It also hurts the experience for their teammates. This is a problem.
Why would it be a problem? Eventually (and probably really quickly), they'll start running into killers that are too strong, and survivors who won't be able to carry him/her. After all, the game is balanced in a way that on average, four players must play well (at least in the beginning) for any of them to have a chance of surviving.
*You have every right to be an unapologetic, "screw you I got mine", political compass meme of a DBD player. Nothing wrong with that. The fact that the system rewards that style of play results in worse experiences for everyone, though, including you. When I say that selfish play is "rewarded", I'm talking strictly in terms of MMR. MMR itself is worthless outside of matchmaking and you get nothing of value from having a higher rating. If you're laser focused on surviving all the time, you should actually consider the opposite (getting matched with weaker killers) to be a reward. A higher MMR is more like a punishment. I'm surprised you wouldn't prefer to play the game in a system that lets you face weaker killers and escape more frequently, even well over 50%? That's the only way for you to complete that selfish objective more often. In the current system, you'll always get dragged down to roughly 50% because that's what matchmaking is based around.
The reason why a player is focused on escaping is, wait for it, it's literally the point of the game. That is the win condition. And trying to achieve the wincon is the fun aspect of ANY game. Figuring HOW to get there. It's not about being a "selfish" player or "altruistic" player - it's about figuring out what needs to be done so that wincon can be fulfilled. MMR is neither reward or a punishment - it's just a matchmaking tool that allows you to find opponents that are around the similar level as you in your thirst for victory.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2789667#Comment_2789667
The game does not frame the survivor's objective as an individual one. It remains agnostic.
Many people, including myself and the others replying to you in this thread, treat this as a team game. Even if you disagree, you should agree that those who play selfishly should statistically hurt the overall survival rates in their lobbies, meaning that their presence in a match increases the chance of the killer completing their objective regardless of whether or not they survive. I feel they should be punished for that from an MMR standpoint.
Designing the MMR system as a 1v1 rewards selfish play as much as it rewards skill. An MMR system designed as a 4v1 would do a much better job of putting similarly skilled players (i.e. players that do more gens, chase longer, save their teammates more reliably, etc.) in higher skill brackets. So, even if you're the guy leaving me to die on first hook every match, you should want an MMR system that doesn't reward that. You'll just end up going against killers who are better than you.
*The game does not frame the survivor's objective as an individual one. It remains agnostic.
What is agnostic about:
- Under the current in-game tutorial: "Survivors: How To Win - The primary objective of a Survivor in a trial is to escape."
- On DBD's official webpage (under game objectives - how to win): "As a Survivor, your main objective is to escape the map and live another day."
Nowhere does it indicate helping other survivors escape. Or perhaps you are concluding that because it doesn't say anything about helping other survivors escape, we should make random assumptions about it? Maybe because it doesn't say anything about tea-bagging the killer ten times to win, we should all just assume that it's also part of the win condition?
*Many people, including myself and the others replying to you in this thread, treat this as a team game.
You treat it how you want; the game allows all kinds of behavior, bad plays as well as good plays. It doesn't have anything to do with what the win condition is though.
*Even if you disagree, you should agree that those who play selfishly should statistically hurt the overall survival rates in their lobbies, meaning that their presence in a match increases the chance of the killer completing their objective regardless of whether or not they survive. I feel they should be punished for that from an MMR standpoint.
Why do I care about how the opponent does in the matchup? The objective of the game is for me to escape, not to make sure the killer gets least number of kills as possible.
*Designing the MMR system as a 1v1 rewards selfish play as much as it rewards skill.
MMR system will only reward selfish plays if the selfish plays lead to the player's escape. If the selfish plays end up in their own death (or they have to take the hatch), then it's not rewarded in any way. Part of "skill" is in knowing when selfish plays will help them reach the goal of escaping, and knowing when cooperative plays will help them instead.
* An MMR system designed as a 4v1 would do a much better job of putting similarly skilled players (i.e. players that do more gens, chase longer, save their teammates more reliably, etc.) in higher skill brackets.
Why should this "selfish" player who consistently is able to achieve his goal of escaping be stuck with players who constantly do gens/chases/saves but always end up losing/dying?
*You'll just end up going against killers who are better than you.
As I should be, until I reach the level of killer in which that same tactic won't work on anymore. What's the problem?
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2789227#Comment_2789227
DBD is absolutely a team game. Survivors all have the same objective and they need to show some level of coordination and altruism in order to succeed. That's not to say there aren't selfish players, but the core concept is a 4v1, not four concurrent 1v1s. This is true for solos and SWF alike.
Survivors each have the same objective of individually escaping. And to do that, they need to cooperate and show altruism to a certain point until their own survival is ensured. What is your point?
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2789408#Comment_2789408
This is about the statement win condition not changing, the quote of the same game developer within the same interview:
"One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition. It's more of a gradient of did I have a good game, do I feel like I’ve accomplished much, was it fun?"
Are you going to use only the cherry picked aspect of the same interview that falls in line with your argument or look at the entirety what was said at the time? You use it as an undisputable point, while ignoring literally the rest of the interview.
The fact of the matter is that the developers have avoided for years to create a clear message on what a win/lose condition is. They now state it is escapes and kill based and compare it to a team sport. Their choice of a comparison, there are enough solo sports that it could be used and yet they picked a team sport. There is a reason the emblem system was created to look at the different aspects to let you climb, it was about more than just kills/escapes and tried to embody the gradient.
The definition of the feature of Survive With Friends is a direct statement of them trying to survive together, therefore your pretend to be a team is simply inaccurate it is an active choice of the survivors, one the game explicitly offers to the players. They join as a group, a party, a team to face off against a killer, to try and survive with this group. Also, simply read up on the perks;
- Strengthens the potential in your and your team's Aura-reading abilities.
- We have to work as a team, I need you to survive so that I can survive!
- You are able to organise a team to cooperate more efficiently.
There are tons of references that survivors are/can be part of a team, claiming that you are all lone wolves going at it alone is simply not true. Can you decide to be more selfish and a lone wolf, sure. Yet survivors can choose to cooperate and work as a team. Does the current system hold any regard to treating the survivors as a team, it is an option that the game presents to us after all. Yet none of the plays, risks and actions that correspond to working together as a team are equivalently rewarded when successful. The win solely looks at the lone wolf approach.
People talk about teammates, not other sole survivors and you can dismiss this all you want. Claim it is a misconception of the player base, but these are the people that play the game. These are the people that for a large part have been extremely negative about the MMR system and are the people that the company relies on to keep playing. They listen to the community, according to the article that you yourself mention and that the product is no longer just theirs, but all of ours.
We’ve learned that this is not just our game anymore, there are a million people playing every month and these people are part of what the game is and what the game should be. And they should have a say in what the future of the game is. So we pay quite a lot of close attention to what comes from our community.From the developer himself. Well guess what... people aren't happy, people are complaining that if they do well and feel that they had a good game, that they have accomplished much and their team as a whole has more escapes than those that were killed... if they are the sole survivor that died, they are not granted the win like the rest, they are told they lost. The vast majority of players will look at the end result, a 4k, a 3k, a 2k, 1k, 0k and understand whether their side won or lost. Just like with hockey, people get the concept of an overall score.
The win condition didn't change right? To many people it has changed, significantly punishing those that play in the other survivor style; as a team. People say they cannot remove SWF because, that is their money maker, that is what the game runs on... guess what these for the vast majority see themselves as a team. I am not disputing any of these claims, SWFs are a vital reason why the game is where it is today.
Look at it from a business, how many people approach the survivor end of the game as the lone wolf choice versus how many approach it from the team choice? Who exactly do you want to keep happy and have the system account for? You can support both, but that would require expanding the parameters, considering solo performance on top of just the kills/escapes at the end of a match (in my opinion the better option). Yet if the developers want the easy clear cut win/lose condition of kills vs escapes, the team approach would be the better and smarter move.
*Are you going to use only the cherry picked aspect of the same interview that falls in line with your argument or look at the entirety what was said at the time? You use it as an undisputable point, while ignoring literally the rest of the interview.
If you want to look at the full context of the interview without cherry picking it, that answer was provided specifically in regards to its failure in the e-sports scene. And yes, when you look at the Killer's win condition, unlike the Survivor's win condition, it doesn't have a clear-cut win/lose condition. (DBD website - "The Killer's main objective is to please The Entity by sacrificing Survivors on Hooks found in the environment." - it doesn't specifically mention how many sacrifices are required for a win.) As such, it doesn't really work out in regards to esports/tournament scene. But Survivor's win condition has always been very clear cut. And it never had to do with the total number of survivors being able to escape.
*The fact of the matter is that the developers have avoided for years to create a clear message on what a win/lose condition is.
Actually, win condition has never changed. In its official webpage, as well as in the tutorial, it has always been straight forward and clear cut. However, you are absolutely right that developers have always muddled this fact - it's a reflection of the lack of confidence they've had in this game design from the very beginning. The only reason why they have become more honest about its win condition now is only because they found out that the wincon of the game must be directly correlated with its matchmaking system for it to have any worth. Otherwise they would still be hiding it under the rug - disgusting.
*They now state it is escapes and kill based and compare it to a team sport. Their choice of a comparison, there are enough solo sports that it could be used and yet they picked a team sport.
Haha, you are reading way too much into it. They could have picked ANY pvp game in the world and the analogy would still have worked - hocky was simply the first thing it probably popped up in his head. The message is simply about how the meaning of "skill" in games are directly related to its win condition, and nothing else.
*There is a reason the emblem system was created to look at the different aspects to let you climb, it was about more than just kills/escapes and tried to embody the gradient.
If you believe that, then you must also understand that there is also a reason emblem system is no longer used for matchmaking.
*The definition of the feature of Survive With Friends is a direct statement of them trying to survive together, therefore your pretend to be a team is simply inaccurate it is an active choice of the survivors, one the game explicitly offers to the players. They join as a group, a party, a team to face off against a killer, to try and survive with this group.
Sure, you can aspire to survive together - but it has nothing to do with the win condition, which is for each individual to find a way to escape. Like you said, it's just a feature - not a win condition.
*Also, simply read up on the perks
You are right - some of these perk description probably should be fixed to more accurately reflect the game design, and not the lore - since it's probably confusing to people who are desperately looking for a reason to believe that it's a "team" game.
*Can you decide to be more selfish and a lone wolf, sure. Yet survivors can choose to cooperate and work as a team. Does the current system hold any regard to treating the survivors as a team, it is an option that the game presents to us after all.
That's just it. Players can be selfish and a lone wolf - they can choose to cooperate and work as a team. There are plenty of options within the game. But at the end of the day, what is the win condition? What is the ultimate goal? What's the objective? Simply to escape.
*Yet none of the plays, risks and actions that correspond to working together as a team are equivalently rewarded when successful. The win solely looks at the lone wolf approach.
Of course not. The cooperation and the alliance in the game are definitely rewarded - if done correctly: it's rewarded with the player's personal escape - because that's the entire point of playing. And the lone wolf approach? - again, if done correctly, it's rewarded with his/her escape - again, because that's the entire goal. For most players, it's not one or the other - they have to figure when it's the correct approach within the match, and when it is not.
*People talk about teammates, not other sole survivors and you can dismiss this all you want. Claim it is a misconception of the player base, but these are the people that play the game. These are the people that for a large part have been extremely negative about the MMR system and are the people that the company relies on to keep playing. They listen to the community, according to the article that you yourself mention and that the product is no longer just theirs, but all of ours.
And that's why it has become such a problematic game - instead of being true to its game design and sticking to it, the developers started relying on its players to define the game for them. Wincon is the most basic tenets of any game design - yet they compromised its existence for years. No wonder players are unhappy - they are being told "no" for the first time.
*The win condition didn't change right? To many people it has changed, significantly punishing those that play in the other survivor style; as a team. People say they cannot remove SWF because, that is their money maker, that is what the game runs on... guess what these for the vast majority see themselves as a team. I am not disputing any of these claims, SWFs are a vital reason why the game is where it is today.
Look at it from a business, how many people approach the survivor end of the game as the lone wolf choice versus how many approach it from the team choice? Who exactly do you want to keep happy and have the system account for? You can support both, but that would require expanding the parameters, considering solo performance on top of just the kills/escapes at the end of a match (in my opinion the better option). Yet if the developers want the easy clear cut win/lose condition of kills vs escapes, the team approach would be the better and smarter move.
To me, that's a player base problem. Or rather, the quality of the player-base. Those who never truly loved or accepted this game for what it is. But yeah, you are right; I don't really look at it from the business perspective. Nor do I care about its player-base. The only thing I care about is being true to its game design - and its win condition has never been changed.
...so no quotes from the developers that would back your opinion that this game's win condition have to do with Survivors being a "team", eh? Bunch of inference and guesses, eh? I see. Like I said, it sounds like this is more about what YOU want, and not the game actually is.
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2789204#Comment_2789204
You mean this win condition as defined by Mathieu in the same article and interview that you quote?
One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition. It's more of a gradient of did I have a good game, do I feel like I’ve accomplished much, was it fun?Your argument is this is not a team game, yet a Survive With Friends was introduced the year after that interview. It is not a team according to you, but the definition of with is together. There is only one game mode and it most definitely has teams on the survivor end. The system doesn't care whether you are a pre-made or not, the introduction of SWF is literally the introduction of the concept of survivors being on a team. They threw away the anti-social approach of survivors when they added the feature.
Like you can literally use the same interview to claim that SWF and MMR have no place in the game and yet they are now integral parts of the game and aren't going to go anywhere. The game evolved and the features and systems that it added are direct products of the changes in what the game is. You can cherry pick, but the game isn't anymore what it was back then. In that interview they stated they were going to re-invent the game and they did... it isn't a hide and seek game anymore either.
*Your argument is this is not a team game, yet a Survive With Friends was introduced the year after that interview.
?
The interview was posted on November of 2018. SWF arrived in Patch 1.0.3 in July of 2016. What in the world are you talking about?
*The system doesn't care whether you are a pre-made or not, the introduction of SWF is literally the introduction of the concept of survivors being on a team. They threw away the anti-social approach of survivors when they added the feature.
As I told the other forum goer, SWF simply allows friends to play together - nowhere does it imply that they have to be a "team." Just like in solo-que, they must form a temporary alliance, but that isn't actually a "team." Of course, players can choose to pretend that they are in a team, and proceed to play the game that way, but that is simply a player problem, not the game's. Sharing of information among SWF does allow for better awareness of when to help each other (so that they themselves can escape), and when to give up on them (so that they themselves can escape) - it's definitely a huge advantage, but that doesn't make them automatically a "team" nor does it change the win condition.
For good measure, let's review what the survivor's win condition is again:
Under the current in-game tutorial: "Survivors: How To Win - The primary objective of a Survivor in a trial is to escape."
On DBD's official webpage (under game objectives - how to win): "As a Survivor, your main objective is to escape the map and live another day."
In either case, nowhere does the game's win condition for survivors indicate that they are a team (e.g. "Survivors win if 2 or more survivor escape the trial in a match.")
*You can cherry pick, but the game isn't anymore what it was back then. In that interview they stated they were going to re-invent the game and they did... it isn't a hide and seek game anymore either.
Sure, they can change the mechanics within the game - sometimes strengthening the chase-aspects of the game, and other times the "hide and seek" aspects. Hell, if they want to, they can add "search for a generator parts" mechanics or "fight the killer" mechanics - but all of those mechanics won't change the overall goal of the game, which for survivors, is simply to escape themselves, and has nothing to do with helping other players survive.
All I've done is give you exactly what DBD's game director has said on the matter - if you have a quote (and not just some inferences) from an equally reliable source that states that the game's win condition for survivors rely on them being a "team", you are more than welcome to do that. Otherwise, it just sounds like you are arguing for what you personally want DBD to be designed as, not how it actually is.
-
@Smuk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2789204#Comment_2789204
the quote of what cote said compared to the state of dbd
? My point is that DBD isn't a team game. Existence of SWF doesn't change that. Players in SWF can choose to play like they are in a team, but that is more of problem with players, not the game.
-
@Smuk said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2789089#Comment_2789089
i love the “anti social” but also let us introduce you a SWF where you can be social and using comms to be more competitive
? What does SWF have to do with the main objective of the game design? Sure, SWF will have more information and therefore would have more awareness of when they should help or cut off other survivors. That doesn't change the win condition.
-
Just a reminder to everyone here that DBD was never intended to be a "team" game.
Mathieu: "It is an asymmetrical multiplayer game where you can live in the world of these 70s and 80s horror movies. It’s anti-social multiplayer where survivors have to collaborate and cooperate up to a certain point. The old saying is that you don’t need to be fast than the killer, you just need to be faster than your friends. Whereas the people playing as the killer, they just need to straight up murder everyone."
https://www.mmorpg.com/mobile/features.cfm?read=13188&game=1501&ismb=1
At best, it's always been about forming a temporary alliance. Part of the "skill" came from figuring out how much to help others to increase your own chance of escaping, and knowing when to cut them off.
After all, the winning condition - the objective - has always been about your own escape, not the overall numbers of escape per match.
-
@El_Gingero said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2785534#Comment_2785534
Whatever you need to tell yourself.
This will be the fourth time. Define "skill" in the context of this game without using examples or circular definitions. We'll start there.
-
@El_Gingero said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2784021#Comment_2784021
I’ve responded to most these points multiple times now and you’re either ignoring it or misunderstanding what I’m saying.
I do appreciate the constructive debate and I think it’s valuable to see both sides, but I honestly see no reason to keep going around in circles; this topic sort of bores me and I had no intention of getting into a big debate in the first place.
In simple terms, achieving the main objective does not accurately measure the necessary sub objectives, therefore it’s a poor measure of player skill and results in a poor matchmaking system which ignores highly important information.
I see this as such a no brainer that I’m surprised there’s such a large discussion about it in the first place.
It is absolutely possible to consistently escape whilst contributing the bare minimum, just as it is possible to contribute significantly more than the rest of your team, whilst failing to actually escape.
This is a big issue because matchmaking is pushing the wrong people in the wrong direction based off some arbitrary rule which ignores the reality of how the actual game functions.
It’s easy to look at everything in a vacuum and to deduce that “the objective is to escape therefore escaping is the only thing that matters when it comes to matchmaking,” but this is faulty, circular logic which - while sounding nice on paper - means very little in actual reality.
We are going to have to agree to disagree because we aren’t going to get anywhere.
*I’ve responded to most these points multiple times now and you’re either ignoring it or misunderstanding what I’m saying.
No, you have not answered my questions - you have repeatedly failed to respond to my request to define exactly what you mean by "skill" in the context of this game without using examples or circular definitions. This is the third time.
*In simple terms, achieving the main objective does not accurately measure the necessary sub objectives, therefore it’s a poor measure of player skill and results in a poor matchmaking system which ignores highly important information.
Like I have already shown, this is simply your assertion, and nothing more. AGAIN, you have failed to answer WHY you believe measuring "sub objectives" are necessary or even important, when the whole purpose of their existence are to simply fulfill the main objective. If their main objective ended in failure, then it means that whatever progress they were making in "sub objectives" simply weren't enough, and therefore absolutely meaningless in the end. Don't agree? Prove it.
*It is absolutely possible to consistently escape whilst contributing the bare minimum, just as it is possible to contribute significantly more than the rest of your team, whilst failing to actually escape.
If certain players are consistently winning the game while doing the bare minimum, why shouldn't they face stronger players? After all, if they are always winning with such little effort, imagine what they can do when they actually try. It's important that they are faced with stronger opponents who will challenge them to do more. On the other hand, if you are consistently losing despite believing that you are doing more than others, perhaps you need weaker opponents to reflect on why you are producing so little results - as I stated before, perhaps you are wasting too much effort in learning to do a 50m butterfly in 25 sec during a chess game. Efforts are meaningless unless they can provide consistent results.
*This is a big issue because matchmaking is pushing the wrong people in the wrong direction based off some arbitrary rule which ignores the reality of how the actual game functions.
There's nothing "arbitrary" about the win conditions - they've always been the same - what's "arbitrary" is what you assert as being "skills" without proving it, and then wanting these random elements of the game to raise or lower the players' MMR when they may not have anything to do with their ability to win the game.
*It’s easy to look at everything in a vacuum and to deduce that “the objective is to escape therefore escaping is the only thing that matters when it comes to matchmaking,” but this is faulty, circular logic which - while sounding nice on paper - means very little in actual reality.
Again, an assertion - nothing more than a baseless claim. No? Then you are more than welcome to prove your case if you want.
*We are going to have to agree to disagree because we aren’t going to get anywhere.
That's probably because you can't seem to answer simple questions.
-
@El_Gingero said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2783863#Comment_2783863
According to you, 1. hiding and achieving the main objective is not skillful, and yet, 2. looping the killer the whole game despite if they fail to achieve the main objective is skillful. Why is that?
Because hiding and doing some skill checks with no care in the world doesn’t take skill. Looping the killer the whole game does, regardless of whether or not you escape.
Also, why did you not escape? Were you left to die on hook?
Leaving a teammate to die doesn’t sound very skilful. Sure you escaped, but you didn’t play well.
Did your team try to save you and fail? That doesn’t sound very skilful either. Again you escaped, but you didn’t play well.
This is the issue. DBD has a matchmaking system. This system is supposed to measure how well you play and pool you accordingly.
If you ignore sub objectives in favour of the main objective on the assumption that it encompasses said sub objectives, you have a very poorly designed matchmaking system.
Will it work? Sure, it can function and self correct over time, but it’s not accurate nor is it efficient.
You could say, well if they escaped, were they truly not playing well? Escaping is the main objective after all.
And I could say, no, they didn’t play well, they simply avoided any skilful play for a free escape, which is the opposite of playing well, regardless of what the end objective is.
There’s a clear disconnect here.
I understand that the objective is to escape. However, I’m talking about skill and how we judge it, which leads us to how survivors are placed in the rankings.
Just escaping is not necessarily indicative of skill. Looping the killer for 5 gens is, every time, regardless of escaping.
We all know that if you put our looper into a higher ranked match, they’ll fare much better than their teammate who hid all game but still escaped. But guess what? Our looper actually de-ranked, and the other survivor ranked up. It’s the wrong way around! That’s the issue I’m getting at.
If the entire point of hiding/looping is to fulfill the main objective (escaping), shouldn't it be considered more "skillful" to consistently take actions that would place the player on the path of victory?
This sounds nice and paper but in reality things are not so black and white. Our looper is the one who put everyone on the path to victory. It’s his victory, gifted to the team at his expense.
Everyone else got to chill and play gen simulator, ranking up while our looper ranks down, and the matchmaking has to self correct this error over time. It’s inaccurate and inefficient.
If you are consistently losing by looping, and consistently winning by hiding, WHY should the game award the players who are consistently losing? After all, if their actions are actually "skillful" in regards to this game, shouldn't they be winning?
It’s circular logic. This is a team game yet survivors have to be ranked individually. If your teammates escape off the back of your hard work, their victory is technically your victory; in this scenario they escaped because of your actions, not because of their own.
The matchmaking will rank you down, and it will rank them up, even though they contributed the bare minimum to the actual victory.
If, as you say, the "easiest activity" is to walk through the exit gate, but you consistently FAILED to even get to that point in the game, why should the game consider you as a "skilled player?"
Addressed this above but quoting you makes my post look longer.
To me, it seems like the only thing you are trying to discuss is how "difficult" an action is, not how "skillful" something is in a game. But if the "difficult" actions you are taking are irrelevant to how likely you are able to win in said game, it seems like they are simply wasted, meaningless effort in regards to that specific game.
That’s not what I’m saying at all. My above points actually address this, but quoting you makes my post look longer :D
*Because hiding and doing some skill checks with no care in the world doesn’t take skill. Looping the killer the whole game does, regardless of whether or not you escape.
See, again, you are not answering the question. You are basically saying, "it is not skillful because it does not take skill" and "it is skillful because it takes skill" without being able to actually define what skill means. As I stated in my first post, I defined skill in a game as having the knowledge/ability to fulfill the win condition of said game. Now, your turn: define the term "skill" in the context of games without giving examples or circular definitions.
*Also, why did you not escape? Were you left to die on hook?
If I did not escape, then it's because my skill wasn't enough to allow me to escape, no matter what the reason.
*Leaving a teammate to die doesn’t sound very skilful. Sure you escaped, but you didn’t play well.
Why would you assume that I didn't play well if I escaped while leaving others to die? If the whole purpose of playing as a survivor is to escape, and I escaped, what exactly makes you think that I didn't play well? You keep making certain assumptions, without explaining why you believe it to be so. Didn't play well? Ok, tell me why.
*If you ignore sub objectives in favour of the main objective on the assumption that it encompasses said sub objectives, you have a very poorly designed matchmaking system.
Again, why do you believe that to be so? The only reason why these "sub objectives" even exist is in order to fulfill the main objective. If it can be ignored or replaced by something else to do the same task of fulfilling the main objective, then why shouldn't it be ignored or replaced? Why does it matter?
*Will it work? Sure, it can function and self correct over time, but it’s not accurate nor is it efficient.
I'd argue the opposite - adding unnecessary sets of measurements in which its significance may change after every update would actually make the matchmaking less and less accurate over time and overall bloated. The win conditions never change, but the importance and value of the games' chase mechanics, generator mechanics, hiding mechanics, altruism mechanics, etc all could change with every update, as well as have different values depending on addition of maps and perks (or add-ons), etc.
*You could say, well if they escaped, were they truly not playing well? Escaping is the main objective after all.
And I could say, no, they didn’t play well, they simply avoided any skilful play for a free escape, which is the opposite of playing well, regardless of what the end objective is.
See, to me, there is no such thing as "free escape." If I was engaged with the killer majority of the time, and they escaped - then they did EXACTLY what they were supposed to do in order to fulfill the main objective - they understood their roles and was able to complete it, utilizing me correctly in the process, and thereby earning their victory, regardless of what happens to me.
*Just escaping is not necessarily indicative of skill. Looping the killer for 5 gens is, every time, regardless of escaping.
I would only consider "looping the killer for 5 gens" a skill if they have constant positive outcomes to show for it - otherwise I wouldn't. Here's the thing - in most circumstances, I actually do think that players who are constantly able to hold chase for 5 generators are skilled - but (and that's a big but) that's because those same players often show results - as in, they're able to escape those same matches. If they didn't, and they were constantly dying at the end, I would think differently. Ultimately, it's about whether they were able to produce the result they needed to win.
*We all know that if you put our looper into a higher ranked match, they’ll fare much better than their teammate who hid all game but still escaped. But guess what? Our looper actually de-ranked, and the other survivor ranked up. It’s the wrong way around! That’s the issue I’m getting at.
Again, if the player who is constantly hiding is also constantly winning, why shouldn't that player have a harder match against players who are able to cope with that type of strategy? If the player who is constantly trying to loop the player is also constantly losing, why shouldn't that player face other players who are also losing?
*This sounds nice and paper but in reality things are not so black and white. Our looper is the one who put everyone on the path to victory. It’s his victory, gifted to the team at his expense.
But the fact of that matter is he didn't earn any victory - and therefore there is no victory for him/her to gift. The player's goal in the game isn't to help other players to achieve their goals - it's to achieve their own. If you end up helping other survivors or the killer win at the expense of your own, well - that's your choice, but the game isn't obligated to give you a "win" for being "nice" or pat you on the head and tell you that you are "skilled." If for some reason, you think you deserve a "win" for sacrificing yourself, then that's a personal problem with the player, not the game. Game's win condition is clear - what you do with that information becomes the players' problem.
*It’s circular logic. This is a team game yet survivors have to be ranked individually. If your teammates escape off the back of your hard work, their victory is technically your victory; in this scenario they escaped because of your actions, not because of their own.
*The matchmaking will rank you down, and it will rank them up, even though they contributed the bare minimum to the actual victory.
But this isn't solely a team game. If it were, the win condition of this game would be indicated as, "Survivors win if 2 (or some other #) or more survivors escape." But it's not. It's been shown to only be about the player's own personal escape. On DBD's official webpage (under game objectives - how to win): "As a Survivor, your main objective is to escape the map and live another day." Pretty much the same thing under their game tutorial. Hell, during an interview, Mathieu Cote is quoted as saying, "It is an asymmetrical multiplayer game where you can live in the world of these 70s and 80s horror movies. It’s anti-social multiplayer where survivors have to collaborate and cooperate up to a certain point. The old saying is that you don’t need to be fast than the killer, you just need to be faster than your friends. Whereas the people playing as the killer, they just need to straight up murder everyone." So, sure, survivors are obligated to cooperate with each other to a certain degree for their own survival, but they are certainly not responsible for each others' victories.
-
@El_Gingero said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2783832#Comment_2783832
I know what they’re saying, but what I’m saying is that they’re incorrect.
Looping (as well as other objectives) should be measured as skill even if it does not net you an escape.
Everyone loves analogies so here’s one to highlight the point:
Mr. Gingeroo loops the killer for 5 gens. Everyone else just does gens. Mr. Gingeroo gets hooked. Everyone leaves.
Should Mr. Gingeroo be penalised because his team did some skill checks and held W through the exit gate, leaving him to die on hook?
Who was the most skilful, and who had the largest contribution towards victory, in your opinion:
Claudette, David and Meg did 5 gens together, unabated.
Mr. Gingeroo outplayed an equally skilled killer at the most skill-intensive activity survivors have access to for 5 free gens, but finally got caught and was unable to complete the last part of his objective (holding W through a loading screen.)
Judging skill based from escapes alone does not roll it all up into one value. That’s the issue I’m getting at.
So my personal experience on the matter: usually I'm not good enough to do a whole 5 gen chase, but there are lot of times when I end up doing 2-3 at the end game - then sometimes I get hooked, camped, and left for dead. We've all been there.
I don't blame the killer for wanting one death - that's their ultimate goal for the game. I don't blame the other survivors for leaving me to dead - that's their ultimate goal for the game.
I do think about how I could have changed the outcome of the match. Was there some other part of the map where it would have raised the probability of me losing the killer? Should I have intentionally let the killer hit me earlier so that someone else would have been in chase during the final generator? Should I have led the killer to a generator that hopefully was being worked on by other survivors so that he would have been distracted, allowing me to possibly lose him? Or perhaps I was placed in that circumstance in the first place because I unknowingly led the killer to other survivors working on a generator, thereby slowing the generator progress. What could I have done differently so that I would have had a different outcome to this particular match?
Ultimately, I lose because I wasn't skilled enough. I win because I was skilled enough. The results of the game - my victory or loss - show everything I did and didn't do. My looping skills may have been superior to those particular killers, but perhaps I needed more skill at analyzing the conditions of the map/generator progress better so that I can do chases at a better time or at a better place - perhaps I needed better perception and memory skill to figure out the likelihood of another survivor coming to rescue me before even starting a chase.
But that's the fun part, right? In ANY game, the fun is figuring out the path to victory.
-
@El_Gingero said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2783780#Comment_2783780
I’m referring to the previous post in which I addressed your arguments before you made them, not my first post. My bad!
You have not refuted anything at all lol. Your arguments are very easily dismantled, and I will again demonstrate:
Yes, escaping is the objective.
To achieve the objective you must do other stuff.
Thus, your objective consists of multiple gameplay loops/activities, aka other objectives. These objectives require varying levels of skill.
Walking through the exit gate is the easiest activity within your main objective.
Looping the killer for a long time is the hardest activity within your main objective.
“But Mr. Gingeroo! Escaping IS the main objective!”
Yes, it is indeed! However, as we have already established, and as you have admitted yourself, in order to achieve said objective, you have to do other stuff. Therefore, your objective actually consists of far more than simply running through an exit gate. There are….several objectives!
Here’s the kicker though: The end result - actually running through that loading screen, is the easiest part of it all. The other stuff you do beforehand takes more skill. Running the killer for a long time takes the most, regardless of whether or not you run through a loading screen afterwards.
“But Mr. Gingeroo! Are you saying that survivor skill is not based solely on escapes, and to judge it that way ignores the full-picture? And…and that some of the activities you must engage with in order to escape in the first place actually take more skill than the actual escaping itself?”
Yes! That’s what I’m saying! I’m glad we are finally getting somewhere :D
(This topic sort of bores me and I’ve got to have some fun with it)
Ok, let's talk about these "other objectives" (aka side objectives that players must do for the sole purpose of achieving the main objective) you keep mentioning.
According to you, 1. hiding and achieving the main objective is not skillful, and yet, 2. looping the killer the whole game despite if they fail to achieve the main objective is skillful. Why is that? If the entire point of hiding/looping is to fulfill the main objective (escaping), shouldn't it be considered more "skillful" to consistently take actions that would place the player on the path of victory? If you are consistently losing by looping, and consistently winning by hiding, WHY should the game award the players who are consistently losing? After all, if their actions are actually "skillful" in regards to this game, shouldn't they be winning?
If, as you say, the "easiest activity" is to walk through the exit gate, but you consistently FAILED to even get to that point in the game, why should the game consider you as a "skilled player?"
To me, it seems like the only thing you are trying to discuss is how "difficult" an action is, not how "skillful" something is in a game. But if the "difficult" actions you are taking are irrelevant to how likely you are able to win in said game, it seems like they are simply wasted, meaningless effort in regards to that specific game.
-
@El_Gingero said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2783728#Comment_2783728
I addressed these points in my initial post.
Of course you have to actually do stuff to consistently run through the exit gate, and some of that stuff takes skill, the most skill intensive of which is looping the killer for a long time. The least skilful part is the actual escaping. You literally just run towards a loading screen.
No, what you have said is that "it's obvious" without further explanation, and gave some examples that you believe is skillful/not skillful in this game - again, without explaining exactly WHY you believe them to be so. I refuted those assumptions. Try again.
-
@El_Gingero said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2783577#Comment_2783577
Well, to me it’s so obvious that I didn’t think it required an explanation.
The argument of “the objective is to escape therefore only escaping is skilful” is frankly ignorant, to put it politely. It’s just nonsensical fantasy that has no bearing on reality.
Running through the exit gate is easy. You simply hold W in the general direction. I could do it with my eyes closed, and it takes no skill whatsoever.
I can sit afk, hiding in a bush or locker, whilst my team deal with the killer and the gens. Then, I can run to the exit gate, close my eyes and walk right through.
Is that skilful?
Looping an equally skilled killer for the entire match is literally the most difficult thing a survivor can do in the entire game. Going down one time right at the very end and being abandoned by the team you carried, or if they fail to rescue you, doesn’t suddenly negate that, just as you aren’t required to hold W towards a loading screen to validate it either.
"Running through the exit gate is easy. You simply hold W in the general direction. I could do it with my eyes closed, and it takes no skill whatsoever.
I can sit afk, hiding in a bush or locker, whilst my team deal with the killer and the gens. Then, I can run to the exit gate, close my eyes and walk right through.
Is that skilful?"
If one can consistently do this in majority of his/her games, then yes, absolutely it should be considered "skillful" in regards to this game. After all, this person understands exactly what needs to be accomplished to fulfill the main objective, and have the ability to pull it off for majority of their matches. That's what having skill means. But for the vast numbers of players, I'm guessing that hiding in a bush all game and doing absolutely nothing else will eventually lead to their own deaths, or if they're lucky - a hatch escape which has no effect on the MMR what-so-ever. Rather, I'd like to understand why you'd even think that being able to pull things like this consistently isn't skillful in regards to DBD.
"Looping an equally skilled killer for the entire match is literally the most difficult thing a survivor can do in the entire game. Going down one time right at the very end and being abandoned by the team you carried, or if they fail to rescue you, doesn’t suddenly negate that, just as you aren’t required to hold W towards a loading screen to validate it either."
Looping a killer for the whole match is difficult? Sure, so is being the best juggler in the world, or being able to swim the 50m butterfly in 25 seconds. But as I stated before, these specific abilities don't make you skillful at basketball or chess. So I ask AGAIN, what makes you think that looping a killer for the whole match makes the player "skillful" specifically in regards to DBD if it doesn't correlate with one's Escape Rate?
-
@El_Gingero said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2781862#Comment_2781862
It’s not so simple though.
It’s quite obvious that, all things equal, looping the killer for 5 gens is highly skilful. Conversely, sitting on gens the entire match, never seeing the killer, and running out the exit at the end is not skilful at all.
So we could say, the goal is to escape, thus whatever you do to successfully escape is skilful, however would just be taking nonsense because in reality escaping doesn’t necessarily take any skill, just as you can fail to escape whilst carrying your team to victory, which can easily require superior skill.
You say that it's obvious, but then won't explain WHY you believe that looping the killer for 5 gens is considered "skillful" to you in this game. If it doesn't correlate highly with one's Escape Rate - the entire goal/point/objective of this game, then why would you say that it is an expression of "skill" in this game? I can be the best juggler in the world, but I wouldn't claim that it makes me skillful at basketball - because it doesn't help me score more points than the other team. I may be able to swim the 50m butterfly within 25 seconds, but that doesn't make me "skillful" at chess - because it doesn't help me checkmate the opponents' King. If looping the killer for 5 gens doesn't help you Escape, then why would you consider it "skillful" in this particular game?
Perhaps you should start by defining what exactly you mean by "skillful" in terms of this game.
-
What is a "skill" in any game, but having the knowledge and the ability to fulfill the win condition of that said game?
In this game, the ultimate goal of the game is to Escape/Kill. Everything you do within the game, should be so that you can achieve said win condition of the game. The purpose of playing any game is to carve out a path to victory - that said, "skill" in this context is defined by whether they have the means to do so.
So if your so-called "skill" is not providing any positive outcome majority of the time, should it actually be considered a skill? If this "skill" doesn't correlate at all with providing victories, should it be considered a skill?
I can claim to have skills because I am in the top 1% of players in the number of tea-bagging I do per match, but unless "tea-bagging" is correlated to the likeliness of winning, should it actually be considered a skill? Similarly, if doing long chases are causing you to lose majority of your matches, is it really a "skill" in this game? If doing 8 hooks per match is causing you to lose majority of your matches, is it really a "skill" in this game?
If I am losing majority of the time in any game, there are 2 things I should be asking myself: 1. Is what I consider "skill" actually a skill in this game? and if it is, then 2. what sort of bad decisions am I constantly making that would completely counteract that skill that I supposedly have?
-
@wxnickxw said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2483211#Comment_2483211
Hahaha I like how he posted just above how he's having problems and your response is well I'm nit having a problem so a problem must nit exist.
Also what does patients have to do with not hiding the skill value they place.? What exactly is the problem with having that number shown? Well except for the fact that bugs could be reported and you seem to be in denial that they exist
Well, obviously you've already made up your mind that BHVR is withholding the skills rating information to "hide bugs" or have some other nefarious reasons. Of course, it could just be that they want players to just focus on their matches and do their best to escape/kill instead of focusing on some numerical value assigned to them by SBMM. Because ultimately, these things shouldn't matter to the players playing the game - it's simply a matchmaking system, and not a win condition. But sure, go ahead and develop some grand conspiracy that BHVR developers all have some sort of scheme to "deceive" their playerbase so that their bugs are less prevalent than they already are.
-
@wxnickxw said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2483166#Comment_2483166
So to summarize your point it's don't point out any problems woth the game just wait for a few months to see if it goes away on its own and of it doesn't then just quit and go elsewhere?
I mean it could be a bug they are unaware of so if we all take your advice it would just never get fixed...seems like a better option would be if you took your own advice and just didn't say anything ever. Why are you on the forums then?
Is it a problem? Doesn't seem like it to me - like I said, the system seems to be doing exactly what the developers are wanting it do, regardless of whether it's what you or I want. And yeah, patience is a virtue. Compiling data takes time. So why should the developers listen to reactive players' handwringing when they're not even giving the new system a chance on it's very first day?
-
@wxnickxw said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2483122#Comment_2483122
The only problem is if your unable to lower your rank.....unless it's bugged of course. That would never happen with these devs right?
Sure, but I don't like throwing out random conspiracy theories on what could happen without substantial proof. And I don't see the point of all the handwringing on the first day of bringing out a new system - personally I'm willing to wait several months at the very least to form an opinion.
And even if you were right and that were the case, at that point, when players realize that they can't seem to get fair matches no matter how many matches they lose horribly, they'll stop playing. And then the developers will wonder why, and reassess their data and most likely fix it.
Either way, it sounds like a developer problem; not mine. I can always go play other games.
-
@MarcoPoloYolo said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2483037#Comment_2483037
Oh, so it functions completely differently from their release statements. "Skill based matchmaking ratings are also separate for each Killer, meaning you’ll have tougher matches with the Killer you’re really good at, but easier matches when you’re trying out a new Killer for the first time."
Unless it means higher than the global average, but lower than your main killer's MMR (indicated to not be the case by experiences), these statements are mutually exclusive. So all they did is move the problem from one side to another. Classic. If you don't have a great build on a new killer, enjoy your loosing streak nerd, because the matchmaking system is actively going to search for tough opponents for you.
They aren't lying. It's still easier than the old system to play a brand new killer if you were in the high red ranks, but probably not as easy as most of us thought it would be - after all, they are aiming for a 2K2E average in the end. Though I do agree that in my personal experience, they had probably overshot the rating boost for unplayed killers, but that could just be because 1. in the old Ranking System, I was getting many win streaks due to the fact that I rarely ever play killer anymore, so that I remained pretty much in the lower ranks (green and below) and 2. when I did play killer-side, I felt more comfortable playing with killers with simpler mechanics and avoided playing the more difficult killers, allowing me even more wins, and therefore boosted my ratings score even more than it should. So yeah, it's probably doing what it's supposed to be doing. Ultimately it was necessary, even though I personally wish that they didn't boost the rating by that much, and instead played it safer to account for console players trying to learn certain killer mechanics.
*shrug* It's only a problem if their new system makes it really difficult to lower your MM rating - although it's also a big problem if it is too easy to do that too - given that "skills" don't normally deteriorate.
-
@wxnickxw said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2483037#Comment_2483037
Great except I said it was my first match so there were no other killers for this to apply to as they all had 0 skill levels. Unless you had some other point you were trying to make. It's hard to tell since you just put an irrelevant quote in without context.
It was your first match since when? Because if this is an extension from the last test, the data is compiled from the last several months. So if you had a run of multiple wins with ANY killer is the last half year or so, it had taken those samples as a consideration to place you, even if your old "ranking" indicates that you haven't played at all (due to the resets).
-
From the "Skill Based Matchmaking Recap" News from June 14th, 2021
"Halfway through our test, we were seeing many reports of high-skill Killers being matched against low-skill Survivors. At around 1PM EST on Thursday (around halfway through the test) we enabled a system that would assign unrated Killers a starting Rating based on their other Killers. To put this another way, if you had a high Rating with The Shape and The Trapper then decided to try out The Oni for the very first time, your Oni rating would start higher than the normal default due to your experience with other Killers. Enabling this appears to have resulted in an improvement of match quality, and we intend to improve this system in our next iteration."
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2415622#Comment_2415622
And our current system doesn't ######### over new players?
Also, BHVR literally said they'd get 60 FPS on Xbox One and PS4 2.5 years ago.
"And our current system doesn't [BAD WORD] over new players?"
Yes, the current Ranking system is awful for new players. That's the entire point I was making.
"Also, BHVR literally said they'd get 60 FPS on Xbox One and PS4 2.5 years ago."
I'm talking about the SMMR system; not their failure in the optimization department. Unless you are implying that one aspect of their failure will indicate that they will always fail in every department. Then why ask for changes at all?
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2415507#Comment_2415507
They don't have to address anything. See optimization.
They could've just updated the pip system, but they chose to make a mystery MMR system.
"They don't have to address anything. See optimization."
True - I guess they don't. But I believe the whole reason why they are taking these steps is to address these issues. Why else would they be doing this?
"They could've just updated the pip system, but they chose to make a mystery MMR system."
Updating the Ranking System we have now won't solve the biggest problems of matchmaking, which is:
1. it only has 20 different ranks, with matchmaking algorithm allowing plus/minus 6 rank limit. In other words, a Rank 10 player can be matched with Rank 4 to Rank 16. This system allows the continuation of pretty much anyone of any skill level to be matched with each other. Furthermore, because of the limitation of number of ranks, within each single rank, there could be someone who are much, much better than the other. One Rank 5 player can be in a totally different ball park than another Rank 5 player. This is especially true in Red Ranks, where the rank is capped at Rank 1. That's why there are players in Red Rank who barely seem to understand the game, and players who can probably escape/kill with their eyes closed - because they are all pushed into the same category.
2. the "Rank Reset" each month allows much better players to curb-stomp newer players until they are back in the red ranks - giving awful impression to the newer players about this game. The reason we have a "Rank Reset" is because, given enough time, too many people of differing skill level will end up in the red ranks (emphasizing the first problem above) but from new players perspective, this is a deal-breaker, which is part of the reasons (albeit a tiny part) why this game can't seem to retain new players.
SSMR should bypass both of these problems.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2415458#Comment_2415458
They will not disclose that information, which makes me (personally) suspicious.
We've got no idea what they are basing it on.
Basically though, if you want good teammates as Survivor, you're going to play against Nurse and Spirit all day.
If you don't want Nurse and Spirit all day, you're gonna get awful teammates.
As Killer, if you want to win, you've gotta play Nurse or Spirit at high-levels and you gotta sweat.
If you try to play someone else at high ranks, good luck.
At casual ranks, it's likely nothing will change. You'll still get ######### teammates and...interesting Killers.
"Basically though, if you want good teammates as Survivor, you're going to play against Nurse and Spirit all day."
If that's the case and what you say is true, SSMR will show the reason why - that certain killers (in your example, all killers not Nurse or Spirit) cannot seem to make progress after certain rating no matter how good these players are. This is because they will always lose to certain groups - and those groups' ratings will continue to rise which will make it more and more difficult to matchmake them - then the developers will have to address the balancing issue whether they like it or not.
"If you don't want Nurse and Spirit all day, you're gonna get awful teammates."
No, ideally, you will get matched with awful teammates if you yourself is a pretty awful player. Which is fine, because you should be matched against awful killer players - so that you have, on average, 50% of escaping. If you are an average player, you will be matched with other average players, including the killer-player. If you are a good player, you will be matched with good teammates, but will also be matched against good killers, so that again, on average, you will have around 50% of escaping. I don't see anything wrong with that.
"As Killer, if you want to win, you've gotta play Nurse or Spirit at high-levels and you gotta sweat."
Again, this is true only at the very highest levels, where balancing issues (probably) are. For most of us, playing any of the killer will only match us with survivors around your own skill level of that particular killer-character. Even at the highest level, if you are playing a killer that cannot compete (ratings-wise) with the best survivor-groups, you will face those groups less and less often because your killers' ratings will be stuck at a certain point in the rating scale, while their rating will have continued to climb.
-
Of course I do. I want to play against players of equal skill level. Not a fan of curb-stomping newbies or being stomped on by players who have thousands of more hours than I do. All game designers should strive to make their game fair for everyone.
-
Balancing at the top is one of the most basic tenets of any 'vs' game design. It doesn't matter how asymmetrical a game is or whether they are played competitively or not. There is no such thing as 'balancing for the average players.' Good game design is ALWAYS balanced at the top.
The reason why a game must always be balanced at the top has nothing to do with the top 1% players - they themselves are not special in any way. It has to do with what those 1% players can provide in assessing the game itself.
The idea is to simply figure out what the 'role' is capable of at its maximum potential - if all players make no mistakes in their provided roles, and make the best possible move they can in each moment, 'is the game fair for all players?' Basically, 'balancing the game' means to determine the skill cap (or ceiling) for the roles provided by the game, and making sure they are equal (or close enough) on average number of matches.
Let's say that the skill cap for a role 'Character A' is 100. This means that no matter how much players may master that specific role, they cannot improve beyond 100 because they are restricted by the game structure and game design itself. So if Character A's skill cap is at 100, you also want Character B, C, and D's skill cap to be 100. This simply means that when A faces B in a match, they both have an equal (50%/50%) chance of winning on average.
But let's say that the role 'Character B' has a maximum skill cap (ceiling) of 200. This means that when 'Character B' is played at its maximum efficiency and potential by a player, it reaches 200. So when a player is even half decent (50% of 200) at playing Character B, he already has the same chance of winning against a player who has fully mastered Character A (100% of 100). And players can further improve upon their skills playing Character B (past 101-200), to have bigger and bigger advantage against anyone who has fully mastered Character A (cannot pass 100). In fact, it's even possible that players who have completely mastered Character B have a 99% of winning on average against players who have completely mastered Character A. ...does that really sound like good game design to any of you?
So 'balancing for average players' is simply nonsense. As in, it doesn't make any sense, and those who are advocating for such nonsense don't seem to understand the actual PURPOSE of balancing games at the top level.
Does balancing at the top affect 'the average players' games in any way? No, of course not. Why would it matter to a player capable of only producing 50/100 skill cap what the maximum skill cap is? It doesn't affect his matches because with a good matchmaking, he'll only be facing other players who are also able to only produce ~50/100 skill cap level. It has nothing to do with whether it would make the games 'more tryhard' as some of you keeps whining about.
However, having an uneven top potential in games will most likely also provide bad matchmaking. For example, let's say there are 5 players of different skill level (evenly spread out) wanting to play Character A (100, 80, 60, 40, 20). Ideally, each of those players would find players that matches around the same skill of 100, 80, 60, 40, and 20. However, if there are roles that have a much higher skill cap level, say 200, even this becomes much more difficult. Let's say there are 5 players of different skill level (evenly spread out) wanting to play Character B (200, 160, 120, 80, 40). In best case scenario, only 2 of these 5 matches (80,40) will have a good fun match - the other 3 matches will be absolutely devastating. Uneven games at the top would ultimately provide uneven matchmaking. Furthermore, notice that in this scenario, even if three of the five players of Character A had mastered the role (100, 100, 100), they would still likely lose against Character B players (200, 160, 120).
Does that sound like good game design to any of you?
Learn WHY games are balanced at the top before you start complaining about it.
-
@vvumper said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2308487#Comment_2308487
I am not for or against any advantage. I am for not being ignorant of the importance of keeping match making times sustainable. It would seem to me that the only way to do that in a game with lopsided teams would be to make the side that needs more players be more appealing. How else you gonna balance it?
?
Is my post not showing up in its entirety? I've already mentioned other ways to keep matchmaking times sustainable without breaking the balance of the game.
-
@vvumper said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2308455#Comment_2308455
Well it doesn't have to be an unfair advantage. Perhaps just an advantage? I have been saying slight advantage and I do mean slight. "Unfair" denotes "more than slight", to me at least.
If you have to find 4 people to play on one side, yet only 1 on the other, how are you going to get enough people to go on the side with 4 if they didn't think that doing so was going to be "the better game experience". I feel like there has to be some sort of tacit psychology going on to coerce people to pick survivor, but perhaps you're right and that's not needed
And I'm using quotes here because I really don't know how to balance this problem. It seems to me like this game would be really impossible to balance.
To me, any advantage that breaks the overall balance of the game would be considered "unfair," regardless of whether some people think it's only 'slight' or not.
Like I said earlier, you can always manipulate the proper 4-1 ratio by rewarding the less played roles with some thing (BP, etc), and increasing the reward depending on how much the role is needed. Or even by giving extra challenges in the less played role. All of this can be done without messing with the overall balance of the game.
-
@vvumper said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2308405#Comment_2308405
Sure, that's a good point. I actually did start of this thread by saying that the combined appeal of playing survivor must be slightly more than killer. This morning I changed it to "combined power", but perhaps appeal is better.
I agree that every game needs to be balanced. I don't see how match making can be healthy though if there isn't a very slight net advantage given to playing survivor on account of match making.
If we are talking about solely in-game balance, then yes, the game is not balanced, and SWF is broken. Perhaps though since the lopsideness isn't going away, and the overall appeal of survivor has to be accounted for, that this game is straight up never going to be fairly balanced
"I don't see how match making can be healthy though if there isn't a very slight net advantage given to playing survivor on account of match making."
To me, that just seems like an assumption on your part. What I'm saying is that the 4-1 ratio for matchmaking can be maintained without needing to give any advantage to one role or the other. Like I said, 1. there are plenty of reasons to pick one role over another besides giving unfair advantages to one side and 2. there are ways to adjust for matchmaking ratio without needing to break the balance by giving a "slight net advantage" to a specific role.
-
This assumes that players only choose the Survivor role based on how powerful they are.
Maybe players choose roles that are more "fun" to them, and not because they are easier to win. Maybe they simply like the characteristic of that role (e.g. - being chased vs chasing, playing alone vs playing with others). Maybe they are tired of playing one role, and want to try another. Maybe they want to challenge themselves. Maybe they want shorter wait times in lobby. There are many reasons why players could choose one role over another - not just because that role has an unfair advantage.
Every good game should be properly balanced. The role of Survivors doesn't need any unfair advantage in fear of lopsided matchmaking. If the matchmaking is lopsided, then simply make the less favored roles more appealing without breaking the balance - e.g. for roles that are more needed at any given time, give them increasingly more BPs (or other rewards) the longer they have to wait during matchmaking, or give extra challenges in the less played roles, etc. All of this can be done while striving to make the game more balanced and fair for everyone.
-
Let's say that in a fighting game, a tournament level player finds that a certain character can pull off an infinite combo that none of the other characters can do, but only the top 0.01% of the player base is skilled enough to actually do it. Should the game designers of said fighting game then just ignore the infinite combo since only such a small number of players are talented enough to time it right?
Of course not, because that would be a terrible game design and overall balancing decision. Same thing here. You balance games by the best players to measure the potential and limits of that role they are playing. The fact that you rarely face those players is a horrible reason to not balance the game correctly - of course the best players are rare, that's basically the definition of being the best. Not understanding this simply shows that many people don't understand the basic concept of game design and balance.
-
@Red_Beard said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2267936#Comment_2267936
I know what an analogy is. Just because you make an analogy doesn't mean it is equivalent to the topic as discussed. People try to use exaggerated analogies all the time to try and prove their point. When it's not, this is called a false equivalence and is a logical fallacy. I am saying your analogy to the subject is a logical fallacy based on false equivalence. And you have admitted you are making a moral judgement and trying to persuade other to as well as you are fighting the good fight against our current societies that prey on the weak. This is called appeal to emotion. But you are doing so based on assumptions about a person and your own biases.
And I've already stated why it's not an exaggeration and why my main point still stands. I've even altered the analogy to make it simpler for you to understand. You wanting my point to be a false equivalence and repeatedly calling it so doesn't make it one. And ultimately, even if it was one, it doesn't make one tiny bit of difference about my impression of those who are continually whining about the MMR system, and the reasons I've given about it.
The fact that you are now simply lashing out about the analogy, when the analogy itself is the least important part of my posts, seems to indicate that you have nothing more to add about the main overall topic and the subject itself. Then it looks like my point has been made.
-
@Red_Beard said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2267719#Comment_2267719
I highly doubt the average demographic of Dead by Daylight is 6 years old, kindergarten age. Also, this is a video game, not a physical sport, like basketball is. A group of adults playing basketball for the first time is going to beat a group of kindergartners playing for the first time because of the physical differences, not because of experience level difference. So to use a basketball analogy where a group of adults that have played basketball before stomp a group of kindergartners is an exaggerated example of an experienced Dead by Daylight player playing against and beating a new player that is most likely close to their own age demographic.
And most people would agree that a group of adults playing a basketball game against a group of kindergartners would be extremely unfair. And most people would agree you should use kid gloves with young children more than you should with a group of people in your same age demographic. So when you say someone thinking a skill based match making system will lessen their enjoyment of the game is the same as them saying they want to curb stomp kindergartners in a basketball game, you are attempting to make a moral judgement on people based on an example not equivalent to the issue being discussed. You can keep telling me why you think they are equal, but I am going to continue to disagree.
Yes, I want to play the game casually and not try hard most of the time. Yes, I also enjoy that my experience gained playing the game gives me a higher win average than the average player. But that does not mean I feel I am entitled to win. So when I say I think a skill based match making system is going to lessen my enjoyment of the game, it is not because I want to control and dominate other players will be less able to do so, it is because I will not be able to equate me experience and skill earned as meaning anything.
Hopefully you will take me for my word. I have no reason to lie. I have not been discrediting anyone that has made a post about imbalanced match making. I have not been making posts saying MMR is going to kill the game. I have giving the latest tests specific, constructive feedback and not biased opinions. If you look back at some of my posts when they first tried to role it out, you'll see I was one of the people telling other to not be so hasty on their opinions and give it time. So the only reason you wouldn't believe me is because of incorrect assumptions and biases you have.
Like I said, my analogy is nowhere near an exaggeration when you are simply comparing the massive differences in players' experience level in a given match, and the obvious outcomes that often follow it. You poking holes in situational differences seem to indicate you don't understand what analogy is. Kindergartners can't beat adults due to physical differences? Fine, let's just change the analogy to players just learning to dribble matching up against professional basketball players who've played for many years. It doesn't matter what the details are. Ultimately, my point is that if possible, less skilled players (in ANY type of game, whether sports or videogames) should not be forced into a match with players who have vastly more experience just to be served as their prop to maintain their egos. And yes, you are absolutely right that I am making a moral judgment on the type of people that enjoy prioritizing their own win-count at the expense of less experienced players. "Oh no, my win count and win ratio won't reflect my awesome skill and vast amount of experience anymore because I have to now face players that are equally skilled as me - woe is me!" To me, that type of personality is pretty disgusting, especially when I think about what the opponents may have had to deal with, and how they felt about it - but that's just me. And I'd go on and add that willingly beating up on weaker players, no matter how many times you do it, doesn't say anything about your skill or your experience - it just mean that you are more than willing to beat up on weaker opponents just for a "win", nothing more and nothing less.
I don't think you are lying. I just find that type of attitude and outlook in life despicable. Nothing against you, personally. More disgusted with many of our current societies that always seem to justify giving more power to the powerful instead of striving to make them fair for everyone, including the weak and the disadvantaged.
-
@Red_Beard said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2267495#Comment_2267495
Yes, you literally said kindergarteners. Which is an exaggeration of who new players to Dead by Daylight are. Which is why I bring up a new player can be a 30 year old woman and not young kids that have no clue they might be bad at something they first try that experienced players that say anything against MMR are licking their lips to face off against to stomp on for a euphoria affect from being in control. But again, you are using this exaggerated example to be able to hold a moral high ground over someone that disagrees with you and as a way to discredit them.
You also keep saying the current match making system is always matching inexperienced players with very experienced players that can curb stomp them. And I have said that is not my experience. Can it happen? Yes. But as a consistent rank 1 killer with the current system, I am barely ever matched against a player that just started. And again, that is less about the matching system and more about the lack of players on one side or the other that forces the match making range to widen the criteria in an effort to reduce wait times.
And you asked why someone would stick around to play the game if they might face an experienced opponent that they can't beat, on an infrequent basis? Skill based match making wasn't around when you started. Why did you stay? It wasn't there when I started either. But most people know when they start doing something for the first time, they aren't going to be great at it right away. But if the game is something they enjoy, they will keep playing knowing they will get better.
"It's disgusting." Again you assume peoples motives and attempt to hold a moral high ground.
I'll just ignore the run-on sentence since I still have no clue what you are referring to about the 30 year old woman.
In many of my matches, the skill level difference between players are unbelievably vast to the point where I think it's more than fair to compare these matches to a basketball match between toddlers and fully grown adults - in that they never had a chance in the first place. I'm exaggerating? From my perspective, you are the one understating the situation to fit your narrative, minimizing the effect of the current matchmaking is having on the outcome of matches, as well as its effect on the players. But perhaps you are just special - living in the right region, playing around the right time, in the right killer/survivor role. We can continue to point fingers at each other, discrediting each others' experiences, but how often have we read complaints on the forum about players feeling like they were totally outclassed or feeling helpless or unfair? How often have we seen streamers just dominate one match after another, and on and on for countless matches?
You ask me why I've continued to invest in this game. Because I enjoy the game mechanics and the theme, and on some occasions, I feel like I do experience a 'fair' match against a opponent of my skill level (though I don't know whether those opponents felt about the same about me). But those types of matches need to happen more often, especially for beginners. Because, yes I'm here, but how many have just gave up in comparison? This game has so many licensed characters from different movies and other games, all of them attached to massive fandom and population of possible players. How many have 'noped' out of the game after being continually being destroyed by more experienced players due to the current matchmaking system? What percentage of them was actually able to endure the pain? If we already had a skill-based matchmaking and the matches felt more fair, I'm sure much, much more would have stayed.
Sure, I've assumed people's motives. I haven't yet heard a better explanation on why they want to continue to be paired with people much less skilled than they are, despite having the opportunity to choose someone of equal skill level. You don't want to "try-hard" on this upcoming MMR system? Nobody is forcing you to. Oh, but you also want to win, and the only way you can win AND screw around is if the opponent is much worse than you. So you feel entitled to be in matches where you can do that, even if it is unfair for the opponents who are trying their best. If that's not the case, then go ahead and explain it to me in a very clear manner.
-
@Weederick said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2267517#Comment_2267517
Problem is, they wont act on it. They're not interested in balancing everything equally. Some killers are meant to be weak but easy, while others are meant to compete at highranks. That was their balancing philosophy. And if there are balance issues they will redirect you to play nurse, billy and huntress (or nurse, spirit and blight nowadays).
I think mmr makes the game better for the majority of players, which is lower skilled survivors. And highranked killers have to suck it up, switch to survivor or play another game. Once you "got gud" at killer, your fun at dbd will end. Because you cant further improve and you'll be stuck at unbalanced matches. Do that for a month, fine. Maybe you can take it as a masochist for even longer. But this is not a state any seasoned player wants to be in. Once you reached that point you will understand too
Then that's a problem with their balancing philosophy, if what you say is true, and not the problem with MMR. Regardless of the difficulty level of attaining the skill ceiling for specific characters, they should all be viable at the very top. It shouldn't matter how easy or hard the characters are to learn, they should all have an equal chance to win/lose, whether you are playing Nurse, Trapper, SWF, or Solo. When they are balanced at the top, then MMR should match the rest of players who haven't reached the skill ceiling to the appropriate groups and matches so that similar skilled players are matched with each other.
You're right that it's difficult to have faith in the developers due to their past history, but ultimately, I can only hope that they do the right things for the game.
-
@Weederick said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2267023#Comment_2267023
They wont be buffing weaker killers though. They wont care about highranked killers, they never did. Thats why killers are concerned, they are just confronted more with unbalance.
If this game was balanced, sure, give me balanced matches. But there will be a cutoff point for killer mmr and tons of survivors above it. Who will these survivors face? Killers with lower mmr. These killers aint be getting buffs, oh no. They're just throwing deathsquads at unlucky guys. There is no equivalent to swf sweatsquads, so how to matchmake them
They'll be forced to balance killers when (or if) they see that top survivors' MMR scores are much higher than the top killer-types. The reason why it appears that they currently don't care is because of how they are interpreting the data they are getting from the Ranking system. Did you know that the "Red Ranks" Kill/Escape Rate data they shared with the community some time ago only meant that the Killers were in red ranks? The Survivors could have been a rainbow group and they still attached the data to the "Red Ranks" Kill/Escape Statistic. Of course it inflates the Kill rate, making killers look much stronger than they actually were. And that's partially the reason why this game's balance seems so off - because that's the type of data they go by. MMR, in theory, should be able to fix such issues. But yes, it will probably be painful for many killer players until they fix them in the meantime. I personally think it is worth it to make the game better.
-
@Red_Beard said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2267003#Comment_2267003
You overly exaggerate your analogy so that so that you can claim moral high ground on anyone that disagrees with you. I say "I think my enjoyment of the game will go down with the MMR system" and you equate it to "you just like to curb stomp babies". I also doubt that the 30 year old woman who just bought the game and started playing likes to be referred to as a kidergartner and baby.
I didn't say every game I play I am trying to self improve. I said over the time I have played the game, I have improved and that those that are less experienced can learn when they play against me and can eventually get to the same level. I said I don't want to play an overly competitive, try hard game.
I don't have the same experience with you in matchmaking.Yes, I get the occasional team that is just better than me. And I don't care that I lose. If I were such the control freak you think because I say I don't want every match I play to be a sweat fest, then I would be fuming over losing and probably ranting in the forums about how unbalanced the game is, which I don't. I also, rarely get new players. While the current match making isn't perfect, which is mostly because of the imbalanced ratio of survivor to killer players trying to queue, I hardly every see a brown rank in my lobby.
It's fine that you have a different experience than me. It's fine that you have a different opinion about MMR than me and express why you feel it will be a better system. It is unnecessary and incorrect to infer that anyone who doesn't think they will like the new MMR system is an entitled, control freak, person that likes to curb stomp people weaker than them.
You're right; I do equate it as the same. That's because I think your (not just you personally, but those who have continually spoke against the MMR system) "enjoyment of the game will go down with the MMR system" BECAUSE you won't be able "to curb stomp babies." Or at least, you won't be in much control of whether to or not. You can choose to play at your maximum and win by completely destroying your opponent and making them regret ever touching a basketball, or you can choose to relax and still win by slapping your less skilled opponent around a bit while having "fun." It's this euphoria of being in control that I think are driving many anti-MMR players to be scared of the upcoming system. You fear a fair fight where you won't have an advantage and won't be in control of the outcome.
I don't know why you are suddenly talking about 30 year old women playing basketball, but in my analogy, I am literally talking about players beating kindergartners to make the point about this massive difference in experience levels that I have seen in this game. But if you think every 30 year old woman is inexperienced at basketball, then that's another problematic topic that we should probably discuss.
Sure, those who are less experienced may one day be able to reach the level where players with hundreds or thousands of hours are at, but in the current system in which they are constantly stomped by said types of players, constantly feeling like they never had a chance in the first place, why would they want to? Why can't they just play people of equal skill level, winning some and losing some, and learning about the game without feeling overwhelmed and helpless against better players with hundreds of hours ahead of them?
And of course you don't care as much about losing. I'm guessing almost everyone on this forum are above-average players who have already invested time and money into this game, which means that in our current ranking system, mostly everyone here are much more likely to win than to lose their matches since they are more likely to face less skilled opponents. Perhaps not "brown rank" type of opponents, but less skilled overall. Given how the current system allows such gap and discrepancy between player skill levels, and the more experienced players only care that they get a "win" regardless of how unfair the match was, why would they complain about a loss here and there?
If you want to have "fun", nobody is stopping you. But do it against a worthy opponent who are equally as skilled instead of at the expense of newer players. It's disgusting.
-
@woundcowboy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2266375#Comment_2266375
No it won’t…. the game is broken. M1 killers like pig and Michael will lose 9/10 matches against good survivors. If the game was balanced, mmr would be fine.
If the top SWF gen-rushing teams on comms continue to dominate against the top Pig or Shape killers, then MMR will show that. SWF's score will keep rising while these killers score will bounce back and forth, maintaining the same level overall. That in itself will show that balance changes will need to be made for those killers, and be buffed accordingly.
Both the game balance and matchmaking need to function accordingly, because they affect each other. Main reason why the game is so badly balanced is because the current matchmaking is so awful. How would they gather good data if the matchmaking is allowing pretty much anyone of any skill level to be matched with each other?
-
@Red_Beard said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2266375#Comment_2266375
That is a false equivalence. Let me try to make it a little more accurate.
Myself and four of my friends decide we want to join a basketball league for fun. The league we choose isn't a super try-hard competitive league because we aren't super try hard, competitive people. The league has been going for a couple years and we don't know any of the other teams or what their skill levels. That's not really important to us though, just that we think the game looks fun and just want to experience it.
When we first start playing matches, we lose almost every game because we aren't as good as the other teams and we just don't have any basketball skills. But we keep playing because we find it fun and we know we are new and can still improve. Little by little, we start to get the basics and learn how to play and we can sneak in a win here and there. Sometimes new teams join and we beat them, but we tell them, hang in there, we were in the same spot as you not long ago and if you keep at it you will get better too.
After 3 and a half years, we have really improved from where we were at the beginning. We are better than average and win more of our games than lose. That doesn't mean we don't lose. There are still teams that have been doing it longer that we go against every once in a while and they give as a good romping. But we know it is because of them having more experience than us and after all, it's just a game, nothing to be upset about. And we learn some things we can try for next time.
Sometimes we get one of those newer teams that hasn't been playing as long and we know we have more skills than. But this isn't a super competitive league. We chose not to be in a super competitive league on purpose. So we always play chill. They score some points, we score some points. We have fun, they have fun and hopefully learn some things from us that helps them get better.
Maybe they aren't exactly a new team, but their skills are just a little below ours and they are an average team. We still play pretty chill, but man we are making a lot of mistakes and they are on point. Maybe they beat us. Usually they don't because our skills are just a little better than theirs so most of the time we edge it out. But hey, we are all here to have fun and learn and get better.
Sometimes we go against teams that are about par with us. It's always a battle, every time we face them. Half the time they come out on top and half the time we come out on top. We are glad we don't face them all the time though, because we didn't really join to be in a super competitive league, we just wanted to play a game that looked fun.
So here we are, with a better than 50% win rate. We don't take the losses personal, it's just a game. But we do like that we can win the majority of our games without getting super sweaty because we have put in the time and honed our skills.
Today we got the news that the league has decided they are going to start matching people differently. They have decided no team should ever have to play against someone they don't have a 50/50 shot at beating. If you start beating the teams they are matching us with more than half the time, we are going to match you against different teams that you can only beat half the time. No more can you say you win more than 50% of your games.
So now to answer the question, if I am better than average and get more than a 50% win rate and the match making is changed so I can only get a 50% win rate, will the game feel less satisfying to me? Yes it will. Because part of the enjoyment for us was being able to see the progression from new to 3.5 years later and being able to say I've improved enough that I can win more of my games than I lose.
Does that make me a scum of the earth person because I might find it less enjoyable to have to play more competitively to win? Is that what you are trying to infer the people against MMR are?
We'll continue with this basketball analogy.
How does beating up on a bunch of kindergartners in basketball make you feel like you are making any self-improvement? As more and more baby players join, you have more and more opportunities to be matched against those who have less experience than you - players you are able to curb stomp if you are actually trying. At this point with the current unreliable matchmaking, you can't really say that you are winning games because you yourself are improving - in fact, it's more likely that you are winning because you are facing a larger pool of players who have much less experience than you. And while these kindergartners are trying their best, putting 100% of their effort into the match with you, you toy around with them, always in control and confident that if they annoy your team in the slightest, you will always have the power to put them in their place. And that's apparently the kind of games that give many people who are against MMR system satisfaction. Sure, you will on rare occasion be matched up with professional teams that will treat you the same way you have treated the kindergartners, but on average, just because you have more experience than the vast majority of players in this league that matches you up with anyone, you will be the one in control of the game. And you think you DESERVE these "wins" because you have, as you say, "put in the time" unlike these kindergartners who have just started.
Let's be honest, people who are against MMR aren't looking for self-improvement. If they are, then they wouldn't be wanting to be matched with less skilled opponents, or opponents who are so much better than them that they won't even have any opportunity to improve. Those who want to self-improve would be wanting to be matched with people of equal skill level, so that each match will be able to mean something.
No, people who are against MMR systems are simply players who want to face less skilled players so that they can screw around with their opponent who are playing their hardest, and still be able to win regardless. They want the control. They want domination. But self-improvement? No need because they've already "put in the time" unlike majority of the players.
-
@Red_Beard said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2265959#Comment_2265959
I don't disagree with anything you said. My question though, if you are already a better than average killer, getting on average more than 2k, then MMR hits and it works as intended, dropping you down to a 2k average, are you going to be more or less satisfied with the game?
How about you? If you are playing a game of basketball, would you be more or less satisfied winning against a bunch of kindergartners 20 out of 20 times, or being able to win 10 games out of 20 against people of equal caliber?
Ultimately, whether you are for or against this MMR system will tell you what kind of a person you are.
-
@Predated said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2085070#Comment_2085070
"There is nothing arbitrary about the win condition of DBD. "As a Killer, your goal is to sacrifice as many Survivors as possible. As a Survivor, your goal is to escape and avoid being caught and killed." Those are the only game objectives. From that official wording, it's straight forward for survivors, but for killers, it may seem a bit questionable to determine how many sacrificed survivors constitutes a "win." But given how the developers have already determined game balance by establishing "2 Kill/2 Escape average" as the overall target, it's easy to conclude that killing more than 2 survivors would be a win for killers."
And aaaaaaalll this text is useless, because you could get a 4k within 1 minute and derank. Therefor, the goal to sacrifice as many survivors as possible simply cannot be the win condition. Winning doesnt make you lose progress. So there are other things you need to balance it out with.
Let alone that dying as a survivor early on DOES make you lose progress, but dying later on in the match you gain progress. This has been true since release, regardless of the wording. Progress has never agreed with the wording. Even the victory cube had you "win" as a killer by sacrificing all survivors and still count as a loss.
They are objectives, but finishing your objectives does not guarantee an increase in progress. THAT is what makes any competitive view on this game worthless.
"*blinks* Ok..."
I can compete in dying as quickly as possible with a tumor, does that make having a tumor a competition just because I say so? No, it does not. Therefor, YOU wanting to compete doesnt make something competitive. Me and another person having a tumor could both make a competition out of it, but that's 2 parties agreeing to participate in said competition. In DBD, you do not agree prior to the match. This is why the "killer rulebook" and "survivor rulebook" are considered memes, even though both "rulebooks" do make the game more fun to play for either side and anyone breaking those "rules" is considered a sweaty #########. People dont need to adhere to those "rules", but there is plenty of room in a match to respect those.
Essentially, its a soft agreement between respectful players that you do not work on 3 generators at the same time as a survivor, just as you dont rush out a survivor when there is no obsession in the game. Both those actions adhere to the "rules" of either side, but they are not enforced. Yet survivors splitting 3 gens early(4 initially, untill you find one of them) instantly are considered ######### just as much as killers that rush kills are. In both cases, we have people being competitive towards their opponent without their opponent having agreed to participate in there.
"have her play the tutorial and read through Spirit's power, she would then be able to beat you and three of your friends playing SWF?"
No, but she'd only need 50 hours playing Spirit alone to be able to get a 3k if RNG is a tiny bit in her favor. Just because you cant instantly win due to RNG doesnt mean it's not a party game. Among Us is a party game too. Yet if you're new in a group that has 50% of the players being 1000 hours in, you simply wont win as an impostor. Yet, 50 hours in, you know enough about the game to win. You need minimal skill to realize how you can gain an advantage. Same applies to DBD. You can be a rank 1 killer within 100 hours of having bought the game, even though you're facing players who have played this game for 2000 hours. Does that make that killer super skillful within 100 hours(50 hours if you only play Spirit), or is the skill requirement to take advantage of RNG low? How is this not a party game? In what other game can you see players with only 100 hours consistently defeat players with 10x the amount of hours they made? A chess player with 100 hours will not get lucky and defeat a chess player with 1000 hours. Yet in DBD, 100 hours is enough to hold your own against people with 2000 hours. So how is it different from a party game? Your definition of party games essentially only limits it to games of chance.
"it has nothing to do with the fact that it's an unbalanced, competitive game in which the player using the Spirit is "competing" against the other players to win."
A huntress with 100 hours is capable of defeating survivors with 1000 hours, a doctor with 100 hours is capable of defeating survivors with 1000 hours, a nurse with 100 hours is capable of defeating survivors with 1000 hours, a deathslinger with 100 hours is capable of defeating survivors with 1000 hours, do I need to go on? All these are cases where one player has 10x less experience than their opponent, and still is capable of defeating them. Does that not fit your definition of party games, or are you going to stick with games of chance that have near true randomness as party games?
"Generally party games don't require much skill at all because of how easy they are to pick up and learn."
100 hours vs 1000 hours. That's easy to pick up and learn. The skill floors in DBD are not as high as you think they are.
"That's why they can be played, here it comes... at a party. DBD don't fall into that category."
Oh, so that's why DBD players tend to fill up a custom game if they have 5 players, you know, as if they were at a party? Just because you're all playing over a program like Discord doesnt make it less of a party game, in fact, people play it at LAN parties. You know, being a party game.
"Then your definition of whether a game is competitive is determined by your personal feelings on how "luck-based" the game is. I see."
No, the definition goes by how much RNG tends to make the difference between a win or not. In Poker, only the final hands are dictated by luck, but your way up to the final hands are mainly dictated by skill. In DBD, your game can be won or lost without you even realizing due to RNG being so heavy in your favor, this is exactly why RNG altering offerings and perks are considered the strongest ones(map offerings, hook offerings, old undying, Trapper's traps RNG even being changed to be less RNG because it was too RNG, infinite T3 myers, because encountering survivors is RNG aswell, even if you have an educated guess). THAT is what makes it a party game. But if we go by the definition of games played at parties, then DBD also falls into that catagory. Or do we go by the definition where someone with significantly less experience can defeat someone with significantly more experience? Because, again, 100 hours, 1000 hours. If you play 1 hour a day, that's 3 months vs 3 years of experience. Do you really think someone with 3 months experience in a game is capable of defeating someone with 3 years of experience consistently if it were not a partygame?
Or do you now suddenly want to change your definition of a party game? Because DBD fits all your definitions too.
"And aaaaaaalll this text is useless, because you could get a 4k within 1 minute and derank. Therefor, the goal to sacrifice as many survivors as possible simply cannot be the win condition. Winning doesnt make you lose progress. So there are other things you need to balance it out with."
I've already stated that ranking has nothing to do with the wincon of this game - it's simply used as a way to matchmake people in its current form. Do you not read? Why should you make any progress to face more difficult opponents when your previous opponents didn't do anything to challenge or prove your skill? A high school soccer team champions obliterating a peewee soccer team doesn't mean that they should then next be matched with a professional soccer team, despite having a "win."
"I can compete in dying as quickly as possible with a tumor, does that make having a tumor a competition just because I say so? No, it does not. Therefor, YOU wanting to compete doesnt make something competitive. Me and another person having a tumor could both make a competition out of it, but that's 2 parties agreeing to participate in said competition. In DBD, you do not agree prior to the match."
In your tumor example, it is in fact a competition if both sides agree to all the rules to that 'game' since you guys are the ones making it up. But a game that is already made by someone else has its own rules - you and your friends are simply participants who have agreed to play by those rules. And if the creator of that said game states, "As a Killer, your goal is to sacrifice as many Survivors as possible. As a Survivor, your goal is to escape and avoid being caught and killed," then that is obviously the objective of the game. It's not difficult to understand.
"No, but she'd only need 50 hours playing Spirit alone to be able to get a 3k if RNG is a tiny bit in her favor. Just because you cant instantly win due to RNG doesnt mean it's not a party game. Among Us is a party game too. Yet if you're new in a group that has 50% of the players being 1000 hours in, you simply wont win as an impostor. Yet, 50 hours in, you know enough about the game to win."
I don't know what kind of parties you are used to, but needing 50 hours to have a chance at winning, or even learning the basics, isn't a party game. In any type of hidden role games (like Among Us, or even Werewolf/Mafia/The Resistance), where you are divided into teams, you really don't need any experience at all to win. I've seen plenty of games in which completely new players just happen to win because they were in a right place at the right time, or picking a random person to kill off, and just happens to be the right person, or if they are on the other side, made themselves as obscure as possible. And even when you don't win, you never feel like you didn't have any chance at winning, unlike DBD.
"A huntress with 100 hours is capable of defeating survivors with 1000 hours, a doctor with 100 hours is capable of defeating survivors with 1000 hours, a nurse with 100 hours is capable of defeating survivors with 1000 hours, a deathslinger with 100 hours is capable of defeating survivors with 1000 hours, do I need to go on?"
First 50 hours, and now 100 hours? Definitely not a party game. Personally, if I can't get a handle on a game within the hour, I don't think I would qualify it as a party game. People don't have that much patience to learn games while they socialize and drink.
"Oh, so that's why DBD players tend to fill up a custom game if they have 5 players, you know, as if they were at a party?"
Are you seriously now saying that if you have a player-count of 5, it's immediately a party game?
"Because DBD fits all your definitions too."
It really doesn't.
-
@Predated said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2082047#Comment_2082047
"Any and all games in which one player is "competing" against another player, by definition, are "competitive" games."
Let me quote something really quick: "Competitive games are those in which players play against one another and where one player winning means another player loses."
You play against each other, but one player winning DOES NOT mean the other player lost. Hence, the game not being competitive. I agree that the setting FEELS competitive, but its not. Who loses if everyone won? Again, the only winconditions that COULD make the game competitive, are all arbitrary. This is why even though you THINK it is simple because "PVP=competition", but that isnt the case. In a competition, you either have 1 winning side and 1 losing side OR a tie. DBD doesnt fit in there. Your 4k means nothing if you lose ranks. Your 4 escape means jack-######### if you lose ranks. Therefor, Dead By Daylight is simply NOT competitive. Regardless of how much you like to dance around it. "The community generally agrees a 4k is a killer win" so what? The community generally also thinks Legion is the weakest killer even though his winrate is quite high and he is one of the least addon reliant killers here. The community could create a third-party site where a 4k IS a killer win, but according to the game, it is not. Even though YOU compete doesnt mean the game is competitive.
"The fact that a completely new player would not be able to win, no matter how much the element of luck sides with him/her with its map or totem/pallet placement against you or I, should be an indication that it isn't on the level of a "party" game."
Spirit proves you wrong. You need a minimal amount of knowledge in Spirit to topple players that are much more skilled than you are. Let alone that there are plenty of games where people with "only" 100 hours being capable of destroying people with 1000 hours purely because RNG is in their favor. Yes, it's not as RNG heavy as something like Mario Party, but it would be more comparable to games like Worms, Bomberman, Rayman M, Super Monkey Ball, Town of Salem or Among Us("Because those are actual party games." FYI). ALL of them being party games with RNG being large enough to dictate a win if all skill is equal. A new player in any of those games would not be able to win against someone who spent hundreds of hours in the game, but with relatively minimal experience, they could. THAT is what makes DBD a party game. Minimal experience can easily push you up to red ranks.
"Would you categorize Poker as competitive or not competitive? How about Magic the Gathering?"
Luck isnt as much what makes people win or not unless everyone goes all in. Luck can be a factor, but by no means does luck dictate who wins and who does not. In Poker, bluffing is the main skill, pretending you have something better than you actually have. In Magic the Gathering, you keep cards in your hand that might be worth something later, essentially making no difference if you drew it the first round, or the round before you actually play it. You know what is in your deck, you know what strategies work with your deck, it's only RNG to some extent.
In DBD, you have NO CLUE which structures will generate where other than the shack and main structure(s), the rest is essentially RNG. Will you have access to 8 pallets, or to 18? Will you get The Game, or will you get Lery's? Will Balanced Landing be a useful perk to run this match or will you get Sheltered Woods and essentially 0 value? All this added, and you have much more RNG than a Poker game. Let alone that for a full poker game, you face the same opponents for an average of 2 hours with an average of 60 hands. In DBD, you only face your opponent for 1 game and 1 game only. All this context matters.
"I've had fun in DBD games as a survivor in which the killer had tunneled or camped."
I wasnt talking about fun, I was talking about ENSURED fun. There are enough games where you face a deathslinger who just camps and tunnels you the first moment in the game, and those games arent fun. So the only way to ENSURE fun is to prevent such a situation from ever happening in the first place.
"You play against each other, but one player winning DOES NOT mean the other player lost. Hence, the game not being competitive. I agree that the setting FEELS competitive, but its not. Who loses if everyone won? Again, the only winconditions that COULD make the game competitive, are all arbitrary."
There is nothing arbitrary about the win condition of DBD. "As a Killer, your goal is to sacrifice as many Survivors as possible. As a Survivor, your goal is to escape and avoid being caught and killed." Those are the only game objectives. From that official wording, it's straight forward for survivors, but for killers, it may seem a bit questionable to determine how many sacrificed survivors constitutes a "win." But given how the developers have already determined game balance by establishing "2 Kill/2 Escape average" as the overall target, it's easy to conclude that killing more than 2 survivors would be a win for killers. If the players meet their objectives, they win; if they don't, they lose. Sure, there are some atypical game results where one survivor may win (escape) with the killer (3 deaths) and vice versa, but that is simply the result of the unusual decision by the developers to make this asymmetrical game with a player-elimination format. All of this has nothing to do with the fact that this game (and all pvp) is still a competitive game, given that players must compete against someone else. And "Rank" has nothing to do with the wincon of this game - it's simply used as a way to matchmake people (albeit in the most inefficient manner) in its current form.
"Even though YOU compete doesnt mean the game is competitive."
*blinks* Ok...
"Spirit proves you wrong. You need a minimal amount of knowledge in Spirit to topple players that are much more skilled than you are. Let alone that there are plenty of games where people with "only" 100 hours being capable of destroying people with 1000 hours purely because RNG is in their favor. "
So if I bring a random friend who has never played DBD before, have her play the tutorial and read through Spirit's power, she would then be able to beat you and three of your friends playing SWF? Perhaps that speaks more about you and your friends than about how strong the Spirit is. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that Spirit is overpowered. Then that is a problem with the game balance that needs be fixed - it has nothing to do with the fact that it's an unbalanced, competitive game in which the player using the Spirit is "competing" against the other players to win.
"ALL of them being party games with RNG being large enough to dictate a win if all skill is equal."
'If all skill is equal?' See, this is the part of where you are misunderstanding. Generally party games don't require much skill at all because of how easy they are to pick up and learn. Everyone pretty much has an equal chance of winning despite the difference in skills or experience at the game because RNG can often dictate the win regardless. That's why they can be played, here it comes... at a party. DBD don't fall into that category.
"All this added, and you have much more RNG than a Poker game."
Then your definition of whether a game is competitive is determined by your personal feelings on how "luck-based" the game is. I see. So in your world, all games that you feel goes above a certain threshold of RNG is a "party game," and all games you feel that goes under that threshold is a "competitive game." Ok then. And by your definition, a game of Poker does not have much RNG, so it's a "competitive game," but DBD have too much RNG for your tastes so it is a "party game."
...alrighty then. I think I got everything I needed to know about your understanding of 'games' from here.
"I wasnt talking about fun, I was talking about ENSURED fun. There are enough games where you face a deathslinger who just camps and tunnels you the first moment in the game, and those games arent fun. So the only way to ENSURE fun is to prevent such a situation from ever happening in the first place."
No one can be ensured fun. Fun is very subjective. Even the best games will have critics with differing opinions on what they find fun. But all good games are balanced, and balanced games often raise the probability for fun for everyone, and not just for the chosen few.
Look, this is ultimately a discussion about whether DBD is tournament-ready, or even tournament-suited. If that is the discussion you want to follow, then in my opinion, DBD is certainly not tournament-ready, and it's very questionable about how it can even be tournament-suited. But right now you are deterring everyone, yourself included, from having that discussion because you want to interchange "tournament-ready" or "tournament-suited" for the word "competitive" when that word already has a specific meaning in the gaming setting - "competitive vs cooperative." And "party games" are just a subgenre of game, just as "shooting games", "fighting games", "abstract games", "resource management games", "card-drafting games", "hidden movement games", etc. are.
-
@Predated said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2081895#Comment_2081895
Oppositionary games arent always competitive. Party games arent always cooperative.
"Most games have an element of luck to them."
I clearly stated that RNG was dictating the endresult of the game more than skill would. There are many games you can play utterly perfect, making 0 mistakes and still lose. There are no competitive games where luck truly made the difference, it's always the player/team making the most mistakes that loses the game. That is not the case with DBD.
" the skill ceiling is so low that newcomers can pick up the rules and mechanics so quickly that they are able to compete relatively well against players with much more experience."
You mean like Spirit players with 50 hours being able to compete against survivors with 1000 hours and still winning? Or Freddy players with 100 hours being able to compete with survivors that have 1000 hours and still winning? Yes, this game fits that definition very well. Heck, it goes the other way also. Survivors with 100 hours each can hold their own against killers with 1000+ hours in the game.
"The fact that the luck factor usually can't make up for the difference in skill level should easily give you an answer."
Except that in a lot of cases, this is exactly the case. There are games where the skill difference is TOO large, but there are quite a lot of times where there is a lack of pallets in an area that normally has plenty, there are quite a lot of times that an area know to have few pallets suddenly has plenty. You dont recognise this easily due to not having a bird's eye view of the map. But I bet that at least a quarter of the "wins" you gained is due to RNG being significantly in your favor. Not realizing this is simply ignorance of luck.
"But it should continue to strive to be more balanced."
A game being more balanced doesnt make it competitive tho. Yes, the game should be more balanced, regardless of what type of game it is.
"so that it is fun for all players involved."
For DBD to ensure fun for all players, it would need to block killers from hooking survivors more than twice untill all survivors are hooked twice or untill more than 2 generators are finished. Yet that would not be fun for a lot of killers who sometimes need to get rid of a player quickly due to the amount of problems they cause. This alone proves that dead by daylight can never truly be balanced to be fun for all players. UNLESS it's a party game that adds a seperate section for people who DO want to play super sweaty.
Oppositionary games arent always competitive. Party games arent always cooperative.
I think you just don't understand the definition of competitive games, despite most people here trying to explain it to you in the simplest way possible. Perhaps you just don't want to understand. Any and all games in which one player is "competing" against another player, by definition, are "competitive" games. If they are not "competing," but instead playing "with" another player, it's cooperative. Party games can be both competitive and/or cooperative.
I clearly stated that RNG was dictating the endresult of the game more than skill would.
The fact that a completely new player would not be able to win, no matter how much the element of luck sides with him/her with its map or totem/pallet placement against you or I, should be an indication that it isn't on the level of a "party" game. You wouldn't just invite 4 random friends to a "party" who have had no experience with this game, and expect them to win, would you? No, of course not. That wouldn't be fun for anybody at this "party". Except, if it was, say, "Apples to Apples" or "Dixit" they would definitely have a chance to win. Because those are actual party games. That's the difference.
There are no competitive games where luck truly made the difference.
Would you categorize Poker as competitive or not competitive? How about Magic the Gathering?
For DBD to ensure fun for all players, it would need to block killers from hooking survivors more than twice untill all survivors are hooked twice or untill more than 2 generators are finished. Yet that would not be fun for a lot of killers who sometimes need to get rid of a player quickly due to the amount of problems they cause.
I don't know what you are talking about here. I've had fun in DBD games as a survivor in which the killer had tunneled or camped. I've had fun as a killer in which survivors were done with 2 generators right after my first hook. That sounds more like your personal preference than anything.
-
First and foremost, the opposite of competitive games isn't "party" or "casual" games - it's cooperative games. You are either playing against other players, or playing with other players against the game itself.
Most games have an element of luck to them. Abstract games tend to have the least amount of luck, and party games usually have the most element of luck. And because of that, in most party games, the skill ceiling is so low that newcomers can pick up the rules and mechanics so quickly that they are able to compete relatively well against players with much more experience.
So is DBD a "party" game? The fact that the luck factor usually can't make up for the difference in skill level should easily give you an answer.
So is DBD balanced for a tournament-type of play? Not by a long shot. But it should continue to strive to be more balanced. Because in the end, any and all competitive games should be well-balanced, regardless of their learning curve and ease of play, luck or no luck, so that it is fun for all players involved.
-
They didn't skip it. 27:35.
-
Balance in any game: When playing X at its maximum potential, you have an equal chance of winning/losing when playing against Y at its maximum potential. For example, if the best Ryu players are always being defeated against the best Ken players on average, that means that Ken is overpowered. This leads to outcomes where even average Ken players could potentially beat the best Ryu players fairly frequently, but not the other way around. This creates imbalance in the game and becomes problematic during matchmaking.
Which is why people who understand general game design will tell you to balance games at the highest skill level - the closest way of measuring out what the skill ceilings are for X, Y, etc.
In the case of DBD, given that it only has one play-mode, that means the best killer players (per individual killer characters) should be measured up against the best SWF players. BHVR has already made clear that they would like '2-Kill/2-Escape' to be the basic average to determine balance. Given that this is the case, if the most optimal, efficient killer players, doing their best to gain the most amount of kills, are getting more than 2 kills on average against the most optimal, efficient SWF players with voice communication doing their absolute best to escape, then that means the killer character is overpowered. On the other hand, if these same killers are getting less than 2 kills on average against these best SWF players, then that means the killer character is underpowered.
There are two arguments that seem to pop up often in this forum that have no bearing on the basic idea of game balance.
A. "It doesn't matter that X is overpowered because you rarely run into X."
B. "X should be overpowered because they have a high-learning curve."
In the case of A, you often see it in regards to 4-SWF, but also in regards to Nurse (especially pre-nerf). The fact that you rarely match against the "best 4-SWF" or "god-Nurse" doesn't mean anything in regards to the overall balance of the game. Let's say that players who mastered the 'Ken' character is 0.000000001% of the overall player population, and most people will never be matched with those players. Does that mean that those best 'Ken' players should always have 100% win rate against players who have completely mastered other characters (Ryu, Akuma, Sakura, etc.)? No, that would be idiotic. When faced with other players who have also completely mastered other characters, the win rate should be the same as those other characters, no matter how few of them there actually are.
In the case of B, you often hear about how Nurse "deserve" to win more because it takes "skill". Or you'd hear how Trapper or Wraith don't "deserve" to win against 4-SWF because they are "easy to learn." How much time that are required to master specific characters has absolutely nothing to do with the overall balance of the game. In other words, players who mastered Trapper or Wraith should be able to 2 kill/2 escape average against 4-SWF as much as the Nurse. For example, let's say the 'Ken' character takes 30 days to completely master on average, whilst the 'Ryu', 'Akuma', and 'Sakura' characters each take 10 days to hit the skill ceiling. Does that mean players who mastered Ken should be able to beat Ryu, Akuma, and Sakura every single time? Of course not. Otherwise, why would anyone spend mastering 3 different characters in those 30 days if they can simply chose to master Ken and assure themselves a win every time?
I suggest studying basic game theories if people want to learn about balance, not just in regards to DBD.
-
I haven't watched your game, and I don't know how great you are at this game.
I'll just say this:
If you are actually one of the best players of that particular killer (as in, you've reached the maximum potential of that character) and if all of your opponents are the best players of survivors doing SWF (as in, they've reached the maximum potential of playing survivors as well as maximizing communication), and you all play together over hundreds of times at your absolute best, and you average less than 2 kills per match, then yes, it means that 4-SWF is not balanced and they need to be nerfed. However, if they average less than 2 Escapes per match (again, over many, many games), then that means the killer type is too strong and needs to be nerfed.
This goes for any killer character. In order to get any balanced game, you balance at the height of its potentials, and then adjust from there.
But in your case, it's difficult to draw any conclusion from just one game.
-
Just a timeline of the official words given about the optimization pass from the developer team:
On September of 2018 (almost 2 years ago):
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/20213/please-optimize-consoles
not_Queen:
Hello!
We are actively working on this problem!
We are aiming for an optimization pass in December. Until then, we will integrate small changes in every major update (Mid-Chapter / Chapter patches) to prepare the optimization pass.
Also on Sept 20, 2018 on Livestream #109 at the 10:20 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpMYrXVZrMg&list=PLbtaJn_FnoogKKoftSoLxwTh2J5KD2T0p&index=70&t=0s
"What we are aiming for is an optimization pass for about December of this year. Before that optimization patch, we're going to introduce little changes, small changes in every single patch until then to prepare for the optimization pass... pass, right? We're not promising any number of fps, that's not what we're doing, we're trying to improve what we have right now, and our target is December. That means we might, if something happens it might be a little later, so we are going to keep you informed. But we are actually actively working on this, and now we have a timeline."
On March of 2019 - Status Update Optimization:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/49456/status-update-optimization#latest
"When we first released Dead by Daylight back in 2016, we targeted 30 FPS on our minimum spec. Up until recently, we optimized the game in bursts; for the console launch and before releasing a new Killer. We are now ready to set a new performance target: Dead by daylight will run at 60 FPS on PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and minimum spec PCs.
Reaching 60 FPS on Dead by Daylight is not an easy task. It is a multifaceted iterative process that started six months ago and will be ongoing for months."
On May of 2019 - Developer Update
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/63559/developer-update-may-2019#latest
"Last time we communicated about optimization was in March and we thought it was time to give you an update on our progress. We currently have a team of five people dedicated to optimizing the game and we are still on track with our original plan. For the last update (2.7.0) we introduced some changes that optimized the CPU and GPU usage and brought small visible improvements to the live game, but we are not hitting 60 FPS on every platform yet. Our internal tests are really promising; they are getting us closer to the 60 FPS goal. These changes will be introduced with the next chapter update. After the release of chapter 12, we will attack map specific optimization, perks and powers that cause spikes in FPS and edge cases."
...Couldn't find any other official word on this since May of 2019. If someone can find them, I'll update my post.