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?
This. If anything this MMR system will show how blatantly imbalanced the base design of the game is. Yes, Nurse and to a lesser degree Spirit counteract this, but only because they completely override the mechanics every other killer must respect.
When you give pro survivor players the exact same amount of tools you give beginners, and those players are experienced enough to exploit those resources to the maximum, this game falls apart and 95% of the killer roster becomes completely unusuable, regardless of the skill of the actual killer player.
To answer OPs question I think MMR is a trainwreck. Don't get me wrong I like a good tough match every so often to really test my skills and get the adrenaline pumping, but if it were every game I'd probably stop playing killer period.
I've said in other threads in the past that I wanted this, I thought I did. I'll admit that I was wrong. I still prefer a tough match over an easy one but almost tournament level 4 mans on comms every game against me, a players who find lower tier killers more fun, is not enjoyable in the slightest.
I don't need to win to have fun but a completely hopeless match where every survivor knows your every move with a crappy map offering every other game is not enjoyable at all.
I kinda like the amount of variety in skill the game normally applies, whether that's on purpose or not.
I don't mind if i get squashed every now and then by superior Survivors, just as long as i also sometimes squash the Survivors, and everything inbetween.
Guess you could say i'm a fan of the chaos.
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.
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 basically buffed weaker killers for the last year. Maybe some of the buffs weren't far enough (Clown, Trickster) and it took them much time to finally do those, but balancing is very hard with all the variables and RNG in this game.
My opinion on the topic: My games were all super sweaty and not that enjoyable because i clearly only had a chance with best addons, best perks and a good map. Most of my games were 0-1 kills, some 2, rarely i had a 4k. After they turned it off, i again had some stomping matches where the survivors basically gave up (also not fun for me). I don't really know how to approach this. This game is full of RNG and so many variables, which leads to many "stomp or get stomped" matches - you rarely have 2ks, most of the matches you either win (3-4k) or lose (0-1k), this is how the average of 2k comes about. On the other side, this casual party game style makes this game exciting and funny as you don't know what you have to expect before the match starts. But i sometimes wish the games were more close.
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.
Kills is not a good metric to go by and is misleading. Hooks are much better metric.
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.
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
It all depends if bhvr actually do the right thing and don't prioritize time over fair matches. The second test worked perfectly for me and looked like it was programmed for fairness over time as seen by Dowseys 2 hour wait for a twins game. The most recent test looks like they are going to put more weight on time over fairness and make the entire thing pointless.
There needs to be pain and anger from the survivor side (who is way to strong) for the devs to get real un muddied stats to balance off and fix the core problems in the game.
A perfectly played survivor team will always trump a perfectly played killer (Mostly) because most killers have a hard skill wall that no amount of player skill can surpass.
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.
That would be ideal for a balanced game. Sadly the devs really dont care about the top end of players. No doubts it will be a netgain for most players. But at some point, those players will get good and then they have the same complaints aswell. Until now, there are enough potatoes due to bad matchmaking that games are still decent. But once the potatoes are gone and you only face good survivors, highranked killer morale will reach absolute zero. And then we're back to queue time issues.
I agree that hooks are also a metric to be looked at besides just kills in determining the skill gap between a killer and their opposing survivor team. But my question wasn't about the skill difference between the two but the perceived level of fun of the match from the killer. I don't think I've ever thought, "gg survivors, you really made me work for those 8 hooks", when all of them escape. So when FrenziedRoach said he was happy with a game he could say "gg, you really made me work for that" I was curious what type of outcome would happen for him to say that. I assume saying "you really made me work for that" meant he won the match, but it didn't come easy because the survivors were good. So would he, in a perfect MMR system, have a different perception of how well the match was when the system is matching him against teams that when he really tries, will only average a 2k from.
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.
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.
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.
I haven't just started telling you your analogy is wrong, I've been saying it from the beginning. The very first sentence of my very first reply was literally, false equivalence. You stated you didn't understand what I was saying, which I also restructured my point, twice, to be able to make it more clear. I also said it didn't matter how many times you told me it was equal, that I would disagree. But YOU, keep insisting it is the same even though I have clearly said I disagree.
And like you said, even if I did convince you it wouldn't matter because you have already made your mind up about what you feel are the type of people that express concerns about the MMR system. Which is that you believe they have a disgusting attitude about gaming because you think they want easy games to be able to stomp on inexperienced people. I hear what you said. I disagree.
At this point the conversation only seems to be who can get the last word and not having a logical debate about how a killer player feels about a perfect MMR system. This will be my last reply to you. Feel free to get in that last word.
I feel like it helps with fairness in terms of making rank meaningful kinda. Also, friendlier to new players.
It might make the game a bit tedious though.