Exactly, if I win with 3 hooks (rancor, baby!) I am literally so much better than that dog trash Nurse who only got eight hooks and was twerked on at the rave near the exit gate. We both get called bad after the game, only my survivors were delusional and dead. The ones telling the Nurse gg ez earned their w because they weren't afraid to win the game like that timid widdle Nurse role-player was.
One question for you, @gendoss ...
At some point you have to decide a hard win condition.
What's the benefit of a 'hard win condition'?
Problem is the other way round: people who play well, but don't get the specific limited win condition being checked for drop down in MMR.
Which means new players get stomped by people who aren't just relying on a specific tactic that can be worked around (like spamming a move in a fighting game that has a tricky but consistent counter), but people who vastly outclass them in all regards, they just weren't playing for the "right" goal in higher brackets.
The question is: Do you want a system where that Bubba faces less skilled survivors?
The strange thing about MMR and it being based on kills and escapes is that it punishes certain playstyles. Camping Bubbas will go up the ladder especially if they use NoeD until they face more competent survivors who laugh at them and tbag at the exit gate because Bubby never got his down to camp somebody.
The Nurse who hinders herself by going for hooks will only get such opponents when she can archive the same results even with her limitations. Should this Nurse go against the mythical SWF bully squad or should she get more chilled opponents?
Same for survivors. Do you really want that urban evading, locker hiding weak-link of your team to go against even easier Killers who can not punish this? Or do you want that person to face the Bubba?
For me MMR works out because of those scenarios pretty well. Sweaty players get more sweaty opponents, chill player and people who do not use meta perks go against more chilled or less skilled opponents.
The fallacy is that they call it "skill based". It is not skill based at all. But it does not need to be to archive this result.
Honestly I do not see how they get "stomped". If 4k lobby after lobby your points will go up again and you will be stomping less and less. You will need to goof around a lot to drop your MMR to get to stomping grounds again...
Now where is the problem?
If I play, say, Ghostface without perks and derank until I hit the potato bottom of the survivor base who just started the game. Do I really stomp them when they escape as 3 people on 9 hooks? Or did they have a close match and escape while having fun facing a Killer with no regression and finally getting something done...
That's basically what happens. Someone's going to drop until they have an easy time of it, then bob back up to the limits of the sweatfest, then get knocked back down.
Good players that aren't using meta (and aren't absurdly good) are going to drop down until they're playing people they outmatch in every interaction, but could lose a game just because perks are that strong. It's still a case of one side being in a game they're actually losing the whole time.
While i do agree that it is a flaw in the system that someone can go for 9 hooks completly outclassing the survivors but just letting 3 go goes down in mmr and starts facing even weaker survivors, it is not that big of a problem.
In the case of the camper who gets 2k-3k with single hooks if they drop in mmr you have a bracket in mmr where people's game is over when they lose a single chase.
In the case of the 9 hooks but 1 kill player they might face survivors that they outclass but in order to keep that they need to play in the most fair way possible and give survivors every chance they can get.
I think it's pretty clear which one is the lesser of the two evils
I think it signals that your MMR needs to consider more than one factor when making adjustments.
And probably work on a team basis for Survivors (rather than encouraging selfishness/punishing altruism).
Why do you think they are losing the whole time?
If I can only archive a "high MMR" with a Killers by using NoeD, Ruin and other fun stuff. Maybe I am just not that good at playing Killer and those perks are what kept me in the "high MMR". Now without that stuff I go down and face survivors who are at my level without my training wheels.
Sounds fair to me.
If survivors use strong perks to go up the MMR-ladder then...where is the problem? They escape more often if they use the meta and face Killers who can deal with that. Would be pretty unfair to let the Dead Hard-gamer face off against a baby Hillbilly all the time just because he only gets away with Dead Hard...
I mean it does concider more then one factor.
People like to throw the phrase "mmr only looks at kills and escapes" but that's not what they said. That's just what people chose to remember.
They also mentioned that how long a match was and how many survivors have been killed before plays a role.
For example a killer who camps and gets genrushed in 4 minutes getting 1 kill is going to lose a hell of a lot more mmr then a killer who got 9 hooks with 1 kill in a 15 minute game
But why use game time as a bizarre proxy? You could just... use hooks directly. Everyone got out but it was an 8-hook game? Well, make small adjustments, if any. 2k 2 hooks? Well, neither team should probably budge a ton from their current MMR. And "who died first" is just a symptom of inexplicably making it a series of 1v1's rather than just treating Survivors as a team for the purposes of MMR adjustment.
If everyone dies, someone has to die first, and it doesn't necessarily mean that that person did worst and the last person to die did best. And if three people get out but the one person didn't, it doesn't mean that the one person did anything wrong except be randomly targeted--and overall, they still won.
I actually agree that kills is better than hooks.
I think the problem with the hook argument is that a good killer would identify that someone is on death hook and should be removed from the game as soon as possible. Yes getting everyone 2 hooked is skillful but if that killer didn't identify someone to kill earlier in the game, then they made a mistake.
I also think people are forgetting the killers who can get kills without getting any hooks. Pig, Myers, PH etc. Is a Pig not skillful by knowing exactly how to pressure boxes enough so a survivor cannot remove a box?
I understand the Bubba argument but if the best strategy to get kills is camp then he's smart camping. Some killers require more effort than others to get kills. This doesn't mean a Legion who has a high MMR is a more skilled killer than a Blight at high MMR. A high MMR PH uses to cages to tunnel survivors easily, doesn't mean he isn't a good killer.
I think getting multiple hooks shows your a really good player, but if you can't close out kills then your not the smartest killer.
Because aside from a very, very small pool, everyone at the highest overall MMR bracket is going to be using meta stuff. That's why it's meta.
Then you get a bracket of not-so-good players using meta stuff, and the good players using whatever. Until they decide they want to do meta for a while or something and whoops turns out they definitely shouldn't have been down here.
Then bad players using meta and people who can't/aren't using it but are just plain average.
And then everyone left.
Hooks should not be counted in mmr. The killer makes kills through hooks. That is, the goal is to kill the survivors. And if the killer made 8 hooks but not a single kill, then he is clearly not so strong.
About hooks. 12 hooks is something mythical))
A monkey can get a 2k while facecamping. Zero skill required, especially with a Bubba. That is why kills alone are a bad way to measure skill.
yes thats why i said a MMR system should encourage players to want to be in high levels, which our current one entirely fails to do (not just that, it actively encourages people to want to do the opposite, because high MMR games just arent fun and you dont get anything for your troubles).
also, we're kinda drifting off into a different discussion here - OP is about determining a players skill, not the accuracy of a matchmaking system. if we were to discuss the matchmaking system in itself, i'd bring up the argument that a game like DbD doesnt need an MMR system in the first place and instead should work with a much more vague system that is mainly focussed on seperating new players from experienced ones.
we simply do not need a very accurate matchmaking system that puts players of equal skill against each other - that may sound neat in theory, but would actually be harmful to a game like DbD, at least in its current state where skill is outshined rather significantly by RNG.
besides, its pretty pointless to try and discuss how accurate MMR is or how we could improve the system, given that the Devs literally just admitted in yesterdays stream that it doesnt matter, due to the system not being taken into account a whole lot when determining your opponents - due to a rather significant gap in their playerbase, meaning one side would literally have to wait hours before they'd be able to get into a match (that therefore would be balanced).
so they prioritize queue times over accuracy - which is definitely the smart thing to do in a scenario like this. its the lesser of two evils.
and in return that means that they'd need to fix the issues that cause one side to not want to play anymore before they would even be able to think about making an accurate matchmaking system.
and honestly, i highly doubt that is ever going to happen in this games lifetime. the issue that causes the issue that makes people quit is imbedded so deeply into this game that i dont ever see it being fixed without them releasing a Dead by Daylight 2 where they fundamentally rework some key aspects of the current game and improve them significantly. (in case you're curious: they'd have to fundamentally rework the Survivors primary objective (so essentially delete gens and add something completely new) and then completely rebalance everything around that (perks, abilities, maps, ...), which is, simply put, not going to happen)
When you use "one game" as an argument, you have already lost.
Kills doesn't mean skills. Smart devs, smart.
Considering the skill gate for the average Nurse? Yes.
That being said, I have an even more unpopular opinion: SBMM literally doesn't matter.
The face-camping bubba won't get all that high in matchmaking, because he'll end up facing better players who know how to counter him and how he plays. Players who hide all match will eventually find themselves against killers who can and do find them. In both cases, their SBMM reading will balance out eventually.
And on top of that, who the [BAD WORD] wants to be at high MMR anyway? It's literally pointless. I don't feel the need to sweat in this game, and neither should you. To be honest, it's kind of like buying an NFT: you're working hard, being miserable, all in order to get an artificial rating that you can't even see. Pointless.
Can we also consider that killers 2 hooking everyone yet getting no kills is the ideal scenario for farming? Should a killer trying to derank be able to do that? They obviously have skill to me, but chose not to hook anyone on death hook. I don't think they should derank and go against easier opponents for that.
(Also if this comment is posted multiple times, blame my internet).