BusterHighmyn
BusterHighmyn
About
- Username
- BusterHighmyn
- Joined
- Visits
- 38
- Last Active
Comments
-
@knell said:
Part of the problem is that most people here aren't able to define "skill" in regard to pvp games - they can give examples on what they *think* are skills, but can't give a specific definition nor can they explain why they should be considered as being "skillful".
It doesn't matter if a chess player can juggle all 16 chess pieces in the air - it doesn't make them a skilled "chess" player. Would it take a lot of effort and time to learn how to juggle 16 chess pieces at the same time? Sure. Would only a very small fraction of chess players be able to even do that? Sure. But unless that particular ability correlates with actually winning at chess over multitudes of matches, juggling during chess matches don't make them "skilled" at chess. The definition of "skill" in pvp has nothing to do with effort put in by the players or its difficulty. It may make them a skilled juggler, but certainly not a skilled chess player. Because the ultimate objective of chess is to checkmate the opponent's King, just as it is to escape as a Survivor, or kill as many as possible as the Killer in DBD. That's the whole point. And if they can do so consistently over many matches, it shows that they know the intricacy of how to win in that particular game - that's what it means to have "skill" in a game. Each move within the game should be made in consideration of whether it raises their probability to win against that particular opponent. Well, how about if a player is able to always have more captured pieces than their opponent at any given time? Same thing - does it give them a higher win rate against their opponents over many matches? If yes, then sure, it can be considered a skill. If not, then no, it's not a skill. (And even if it can be considered a skill in their current pool of opponents, if the quality of their opponents rises to the point where that same ability/strategy/tactic no longer works, then it's not a good skill to have anymore.) Ultimately, the only thing that matters in determining whether something is a "skill" in a specific game is their ability to win over course of time. Only the *results* over multitudes of games can accurately measure whether the actions that players took was skilled or not.
Same thing with any other pvp game. Any game. I don't know much about hockey, but let's take basketball as an example. Say this one particular player is usually able to score more points than the other nine players on the court. Is that player skilled at "shooting"? Sure. But the point of playing the game "basketball" is to score more points *than your opponents* by the endgame. If that player is always only concerned about scoring points and therefore standing by the opponents' goal like an idiot waiting for teammates' passes, and neglecting the fact that in their current environment, it may be more beneficial to help out with defending and getting the rebounds, then no, that player shouldn't be considered "skilled" at the game of basketball, but only with the "shooting" aspect. If that player is only tunnel-visioning one small aspect of the game to excel, and not understanding what the game needs or require as a whole, then why should they be considered "skillful" at basketball? If that player's only forte is shooting baskets, but continually makes bad judgments on other aspects of playing the game of basketball (passing when it was better to dribble past the opponent, or dribbling when it was better to have passed) why would anyone consider him "skilled" at basketball as a whole? If that player continually fails to learn from losing multiple matches due to those mistakes and keeps losing because of their failure to learn, why should they face more skillful opponents?
Many on this forum mistakingly believe that basing matchmaking simply on the win condition of a game only reveal a part of what players do. It's the opposite. Matchmaking through using only the win condition actually considers every aspect of every player, every interaction, and every moment and every environmental circumstances of each game, and judges whether the players made the right calls regarding the match. If the players made enough right calls (at least, moreso than their opponents), then they would have won. If they made less, then they would have lost. That's why the biggest matchmaking systems like ELO, Glicko, and TrueSkill work so well - it sums up everything that happened within the match, and grade them by win/loss.
Let's take "saving someone from the hook" as an example. What do you have to consider in regards to deciding whether it raises your probability to win in the end? How far away is the hook? How much time will you lose by heading over to the hook? What if Hex Ruins in effect? Is there anyone closer? Is the killer camping or proxy camping? Would it be better to continue to work on a generator until they're closer to the next hook stage, or unhook them immediately so that you have more people working on generators earlier? Do I have "We'll Make It?" Do I have "Borrowed Time?" Or is it better to bet on someone else who may have those perks in saving them? Does my opponent have "Pop Goes the Weasel?" and/or "Call of Brine?" and therefore better to finish off this generator I'm working on? Is someone else already going for the save, or have they've been found and are already in chase? Am I already injured and on second stage, making extremely risky for me to go for the save and better have someone else do it? All these questions regarding "who" "what" "when" "where" and "why" are only tiny fragments of consideration that one should be making while playing the game. And the only way you know you've made the right decisions at each moment is to look at the final outcome of the game. The outcome of the game (who won, who lost) is the ultimate presentation of the accumulation of everything that has happened in the game for all players and decisions they've made, every interaction and synergies between different elements like killer powers and perks, all environmental factors like size of map and its randomization - and condenses them to the outcome.
But why not "weigh" these different elements that you personally believe is important in winning? Because the numbering of these "weights" constantly changes, depending on all those circumstances that I've just mentioned above. It's subjective, and creates inaccuracy. And that's just if there are no changes being made to the game. When there are constant updates like in DBD, there's no way to weigh certain actions with a specific number when things always get shifted around. Some things/actions that are "powerful/important" now may not be so powerful/important later, and therefore have less relevance in one's ability to win. Sure, they can assign a specific number to "length of chase" but then what happens if they make changes that makes the "hiding" aspect more important to escape on certain new maps? What if they add new mechanics like "fighting" that are alternatives to "chasing" or "hiding" and thereby making them both less important? Nevermind how synergies between these gameplay mechanics, hundreds of perks, maps, killer powers, add-on, all can change and shift around after an update - who would keep making sure all of these are constantly assigned a correct number and weight so that vast majority of the players have a fair chance of winning after each match? Not BHVR, and certainly not its players. But sure, go ahead and try to assign them all of those variables some numbers - I'll wait.
Idk how but I just went through a long ass comment, edited a typo and ended up deleting it, explaining what I will here tldr
where I see your point... two things i wanna point out are 1) using any team game as an analogy is disingenuous bc the argument relies on putting all the responsibility of a team's overall goal (outscoring the opposing team) on one's shoulders.
an easier analogy, imo, would be an MMA fight.
what the other side of the argument is saying is this...
if a fighter, based on an average of 10 5 round fights, is up 4 rounds to 0 going into the 5th (which he also dominates on the scorecard) is knocked out with 10 seconds left, does that really mean he's the unskilled fighter of the two?
where your point holds water in that every decision up until the point a win or loss is determined matters and essentially is voided out bc, despite performing better for longer, the fighter still technically lost, I just want to address the second point I mentioned earlier and why it causes this dilemma.
rng.
when a survivor loops the killer without being downed, does gens and unhooks other survivors the whole match just to get caught by the killer at the precise time the last Gen finished and noed procs, camped and left to rot by all the other survivors....where I do see and Agree with both point of views, neither can be implemented due to the rng factor essentially flipping the outcome of a match on its head at the drop of a dime.
where one side is right in they did show "skill" all match in everything they did, truth is they died.
and where the other side says, you lost and well, the goal is essentially to win (escape) the fact that they were killed isn't necessarily a representation of a lack of skill, just the outcome of a random, inconvenient circumstance.
-
@knell said:
Part of the problem is that most people here aren't able to define "skill" in regard to pvp games - they can give examples on what they *think* are skills, but can't give a specific definition nor can they explain why they should be considered as being "skillful".
It doesn't matter if a chess player can juggle all 16 chess pieces in the air - it doesn't make them a skilled "chess" player. Would it take a lot of effort and time to learn how to juggle 16 chess pieces at the same time? Sure. Would only a very small fraction of chess players be able to even do that? Sure. But unless that particular ability correlates with actually winning at chess over multitudes of matches, juggling during chess matches don't make them "skilled" at chess. The definition of "skill" in pvp has nothing to do with effort put in by the players or its difficulty. It may make them a skilled juggler, but certainly not a skilled chess player. Because the ultimate objective of chess is to checkmate the opponent's King, just as it is to escape as a Survivor, or kill as many as possible as the Killer in DBD. That's the whole point. And if they can do so consistently over many matches, it shows that they know the intricacy of how to win in that particular game - that's what it means to have "skill" in a game. Each move within the game should be made in consideration of whether it raises their probability to win against that particular opponent. Well, how about if a player is able to always have more captured pieces than their opponent at any given time? Same thing - does it give them a higher win rate against their opponents over many matches? If yes, then sure, it can be considered a skill. If not, then no, it's not a skill. (And even if it can be considered a skill in their current pool of opponents, if the quality of their opponents rises to the point where that same ability/strategy/tactic no longer works, then it's not a good skill to have anymore.) Ultimately, the only thing that matters in determining whether something is a "skill" in a specific game is their ability to win over course of time. Only the *results* over multitudes of games can accurately measure whether the actions that players took was skilled or not.
Same thing with any other pvp game. Any game. I don't know much about hockey, but let's take basketball as an example. Say this one particular player is usually able to score more points than the other nine players on the court. Is that player skilled at "shooting"? Sure. But the point of playing the game "basketball" is to score more points *than your opponents* by the endgame. If that player is always only concerned about scoring points and therefore standing by the opponents' goal like an idiot waiting for teammates' passes, and neglecting the fact that in their current environment, it may be more beneficial to help out with defending and getting the rebounds, then no, that player shouldn't be considered "skilled" at the game of basketball, but only with the "shooting" aspect. If that player is only tunnel-visioning one small aspect of the game to excel, and not understanding what the game needs or require as a whole, then why should they be considered "skillful" at basketball? If that player's only forte is shooting baskets, but continually makes bad judgments on other aspects of playing the game of basketball (passing when it was better to dribble past the opponent, or dribbling when it was better to have passed) why would anyone consider him "skilled" at basketball as a whole? If that player continually fails to learn from losing multiple matches due to those mistakes and keeps losing because of their failure to learn, why should they face more skillful opponents?
Many on this forum mistakingly believe that basing matchmaking simply on the win condition of a game only reveal a part of what players do. It's the opposite. Matchmaking through using only the win condition actually considers every aspect of every player, every interaction, and every moment and every environmental circumstances of each game, and judges whether the players made the right calls regarding the match. If the players made enough right calls (at least, moreso than their opponents), then they would have won. If they made less, then they would have lost. That's why the biggest matchmaking systems like ELO, Glicko, and TrueSkill work so well - it sums up everything that happened within the match, and grade them by win/loss.
Let's take "saving someone from the hook" as an example. What do you have to consider in regards to deciding whether it raises your probability to win in the end? How far away is the hook? How much time will you lose by heading over to the hook? What if Hex Ruins in effect? Is there anyone closer? Is the killer camping or proxy camping? Would it be better to continue to work on a generator until they're closer to the next hook stage, or unhook them immediately so that you have more people working on generators earlier? Do I have "We'll Make It?" Do I have "Borrowed Time?" Or is it better to bet on someone else who may have those perks in saving them? Does my opponent have "Pop Goes the Weasel?" and/or "Call of Brine?" and therefore better to finish off this generator I'm working on? Is someone else already going for the save, or have they've been found and are already in chase? Am I already injured and on second stage, making extremely risky for me to go for the save and better have someone else do it? All these questions regarding "who" "what" "when" "where" and "why" are only tiny fragments of consideration that one should be making while playing the game. And the only way you know you've made the right decisions at each moment is to look at the final outcome of the game. The outcome of the game (who won, who lost) is the ultimate presentation of the accumulation of everything that has happened in the game for all players and decisions they've made, every interaction and synergies between different elements like killer powers and perks, all environmental factors like size of map and its randomization - and condenses them to the outcome.
But why not "weigh" these different elements that you personally believe is important in winning? Because the numbering of these "weights" constantly changes, depending on all those circumstances that I've just mentioned above. It's subjective, and creates inaccuracy. And that's just if there are no changes being made to the game. When there are constant updates like in DBD, there's no way to weigh certain actions with a specific number when things always get shifted around. Some things/actions that are "powerful/important" now may not be so powerful/important later, and therefore have less relevance in one's ability to win. Sure, they can assign a specific number to "length of chase" but then what happens if they make changes that makes the "hiding" aspect more important to escape on certain new maps? What if they add new mechanics like "fighting" that are alternatives to "chasing" or "hiding" and thereby making them both less important? Nevermind how synergies between these gameplay mechanics, hundreds of perks, maps, killer powers, add-on, all can change and shift around after an update - who would keep making sure all of these are constantly assigned a correct number and weight so that vast majority of the players have a fair chance of winning after each match? Not BHVR, and certainly not its players. But sure, go ahead and try to assign them all of those variables some numbers - I'll wait.
I get where you're coming from but just want to point out two things. first being the rng aspects of this game and why they, imo, are what differs from any other pvp game with MMR.
the second regarding your basketball analogy.. or any sport for that matter involving teams.. where the goal of the game IS ultimately to win the game by outscoring the opposing TEAM claiming the contribution of, let's say, the [current season scoring title holder averaging 60 points a game] best player on the floor is "not skilled" is assuming that this one player is solely responsible for the team and very unfair. So instead of using hockey, or basketball... any team game.. an analogy I can get behind despite agreeing with both sides would be an MMA fight.
the arguing side is saying this essentially...if a fighter, on average after 10 5 round fights, was going into the last round up 4 rounds to none and proceeds to dominate the final round but at the 10 second mark they were knocked out/caught in a triangle choke and tapped out, are they "not skilled."
argument here goes both ways bc one could say yes, they arent "skilled" bc they leaned into the wrong counter, got knocked ou and lost, up in the score card or not. winner=skilled. where as the other side of the argument can say they are technically the more skilled fighter winning every round but end up in an unlucky/######### situation where, had they continued a bit longer, would have won. or in dbd speak.. the problem is when a survivor is looping a killer without getting downed, doing gens and making hook saves all game just to (and this is where the rng factor I mentioned earlier comes into play) for example, get found by the killer at the precise time the last Gen is finished and noed procs, downed, hooked and left to hang by the other survivors.
that, as one example of rng affecting the outcome, is why neither side of the argument (everything done leading up to and including escaping vs escape rate alone) can fairly be assessed in MMR.
if that makes sense. js.