Return the ability to give up on hook

Except I never said that the new struggling is worse than the old struggling. In fact, quoting myself verbatim:

"Better than button mashing I suppose, but the inability to just end the game and move onto the next one directly harms play."

The core issue I'm addressing is that you have one less option to make. The same people claiming that hook suicide isn't a tactic are the exact same people arguing that hook camping and sitting around in front of the hook is a perfectly fun and valid strategy. Which, I want to be clear, it can be. However, the ability to decide to "take the L" early and allow your teammate a chance to get the hatch is just as valid a tactic as you deciding to sit and stare at the survivor on the hook instead of immediately leaving to search for the hatch.

As for you telling people to take the L, you're missing the point. That's literally what I'm asking to be able to do: take the L. As it stands right now, you're literally having your time wasted in many circumstances and you've literally removed the one form of control that a survivor had while still on the hook. The way you struggled, button mashing, was definitely an issue; nobody is arguing that there aren't upsides to the current struggle. The real issue is that the game keeps stripping agency from players.

As an aside, you can call it "trolling your team" all you want, but simply put there are times where killing yourself is literally the better choice strategically. If you're going to argue that killers should be allowed to just closely patrol hooks, then killers taking the L and moving on should be equally acceptable.

If you want them to fix the hatch, tell them to fix the hatch. Don't just make it so players now have even less to do when on the hook. Or at least remove the skill checks and let people alt-tab, as it is right now there are some who literally don't even do the skill checks and just pull out a phone to play around or tab out to do something more fun, leading them to die faster. If you're going to remove the blood points and remove the strategy, at least have the courtesy to drop the pretenses and just let us stop paying attention so that we don't have to sit here babysitting a gameplay-less game.

Except this isn't just about rage quitting, though even with that point it is an issue on its own that needs to be addressed.

Firstly, just because it's slower doesn't mean they won't not do it. If anything, it's worse now because you're now getting actively punished while your teammate tries to kill themselves. If the issue is players committing suicide on hook out of rage, perhaps there's a deeper issue that needs to be looked at beyond the way they're doing it.

Secondly, it's literally a strategic action you can take on the hook. In fact, it's about the only strategic action you can take while on the hook. By removing the mechanic you've done nothing but remove gameplay. In the grand scheme it doesn't actually help anybody at all, and while you can try be mopey and spiteful and celebrate that it's slower, it only hurts you to have teammates choosing to just tab out and ignore the game if they get angry or upset. As an actual mechanic it helped players, even in the solo experience, and as an anti-ragequit mechanic it helped to get them to the next game faster. Literally nobody benefits from the removal of this mechanic.

Incidentally, if you can't accept that a match may end with an opponent sacrificing themselves for their teammates & want to punish them for doing so, maybe asymmetrical PvP games are not for you.

If you die on the hook, that's not walking off the green without finishing the game. That's just losing.

You're the one selfishly complaining that people may choose to accept defeat early for reasons that you and only you are unhappy with. If they want to quit because they're unhappy with a particular thing, then you've still played and you've still won. You still got the stack from the first hook. You still got the points for the chase, the hook, and the kill. If your complaint is that you should have gotten more for what you've done, then make that argument instead. If you think the issue is that too many people are killing themselves to rage quit, then perhaps there's a deeper issue at play than a lack of sportsmanship.

It's also clear that Saitamafed is being quite charitable and reasonable with your argument, but you're refusing to even acknowledge it. Again, I'll boulster what he says once more: If there is an issue leading to a disproportionate number of players to ragequit, then perhaps the problem itself needs to be addressed. People don't ragequit when they're having fun, and people don't suicide on hook if they think that staying alive is the better choice (at least now that the struggle mechanic is gone, far fewer accidental suicides now). If a mechanic consistently leads to survivors trying to kill themselves, then perhaps there's a deeper issue that needs addressing. Or, if I'm feeling less charitable, if a lot of the people you play against are constantly killing themselves and ragequitting, maybe the problem is you.

| If you force yourself to die on the hook; you're walking off the field while your team is losing. It's still poor sportsmanship.

The goal of the killer is to kill the survivor. By letting the killer kill them, the survivor isn't walking away from the game. You're thinking of ALT+F4, that would be more comparable to walking off the field. The goal is literally for the killer to kill the survivors. You may be unhappy with how much of a fight they put up, but they still played as much as they need to in order to respect the rules of the game. Your example is bad because you're comparing losing the game to refusing to play it.

| And are you REALLY going to claim I'm at fault for someone ELSE rage-quitting?

If people constantly quit games when playing with you, the constant factor seems to be you. All sarcasm aside, I started by blaming the bad mechanics of the game. However, with you lauding them and aggressively complaining to anybody who doesn't agree, it sounds like there may very well be an issue with your playstyle that leads to people not wanting to play with you specifically.

By the way, a fun little story about sports since you seem to enjoy them. There used to be a basketball player named George Mikan. Guy was 6 foot 10 and quite famous in the league during his days. Back then, there were no rules about how long somebody could hold onto the ball before getting punished. Famously, he'd hold the ball above his head to keep it out of reach from other players, or he'd just sit by the net and literally hit the ball out of the net any time it was able to go in. Back then, few players were as tall as him so there was no way to actually punish it. It wasn't against the rules at all, mind you, but people thought it was cheap and unfun. People stopped attending the games and there were athletes who quit completely, not because the game as a whole was bad but because this one move was not being punished and killed the fun for everyone else. All the same, he'd keep doing it. After all, it's not his fault that the game allowed it, and a win was a win. So, he just kept doing it without a second thought. In response, players would rush to get a single point and then they'd literally just sit on the ball for the rest of the game, knowing that the only way to get to it would give the opponent a fowl. After all, he couldn't do it to them if they did it first. Again, this was completely within the rules of basketball at the time, but it was boring as could be and literally nobody liked playing or watching these matches. It was all within the rules of the game, and nobody was being "unsporting" because they were integral rules to the game. Yet they were awful matches that nobody enjoyed all the same. You can pretend it's impossible for it to be your fault all you want, but if you're playing in a way that is literally no fun, then why would you be surprised when people decide to not play with you? After all, the solution for basketball wasn't to be all spiteful to those who would sit on the ball in turn, pretending that they were somehow morally superior to one another. The real solution? Fix the awful to make it fun again.

Again, the original point was that there were reasons outside of you as an individual to keep these mechanics, but if you're going to pretend it's outlandish that a killer can be so boring and unfun as to actively make people not want to play with them then I'm afraid that you can very well be the reason that nobody wants to play with you. Just like everywhere else in life, if you're no fun or awful to be around then nobody will want to play with you. No amount of stomping and yelling will make people like you. Perhaps, however, fixing the game may help the situation for both sides. Maybe we can start with this new and negative change, don't you think?

| Sure; it's my fault someone quit

I'm glad you understand :^)

The only bit I took out of context was at the very end to openly laugh at you, the rest still stands. Or what, no retort?

Taking a look at your post history, it looks like both of us are equally the types to whinge, so I'm afraid if you're going to hop into a thread to cry about how you want the killers to just be handed a free win you won't find much sympathy from me at least.

It's almost like both sides have cheap and boring things they can do to one another. It's almost like the solution, therefore, is to raise one's concerns and then hope that these devs fix them. Really makes you think.

90% of your post history seems to be you complaining about survivors without considering the mechanics themselves. For that reason, I'll just let you make my argument for me:

"they figure, since I played 'toxic' by their made up baby rules, they get to be toxic back."

"It's in no way you demanding Survivors be given an easily abuseable crutch instead. 🙄"

"But don't come in here and say I'm not winning 'correctly' because I don't play by your made up trash rules. That's something a child does."

"And the bottom line of my posts. The underlying message? Player agency."

"It's not up to you to tell others how they're allowed to play."

"Because you disagree with me, I must be a troll? Must be nice, just finding reasons to ignore opposing viewpoints."

I'm doubling down now: you're clearly the type of player who was mocked once in chat and decided to play as toxically as you could ever since. Killers like you are literally killing the game, grats there.

Perhaps I'm taking you out of context again by pointing out the fact that you're making similar arguments whenever it's convenient for the killer side of things.

"I'm sorry a survivor got to hatch before you. Eyeroll."

It really is that simple.

The thing you seem to be misunderstanding is that this doesn't stop somebody from rendering themselves useless to the team. As others have pointed out, if you want to be dead then you can be dead. The difference is that in this way it's just slowing things down for literally everybody involved. If you're down a team member, at least you know it. As it is now, people are just taking up space and are an active detriment to their team.

You've not stopped the fourth from ruining it for the rest. If anything, you've empowered them to do so.

Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.

The statement is true in the same sense that "The time you spent patrolling the hook could have been spent patrolling the gens to find survivors" is true. If you know there's somebody crouched behind a rock literally beside the hook then you'd be a fool to leave and pretend you didn't see them. So too would you be a fool to consciously struggle when there's only one person left in the hopes of buying them time to do gens; that's almost certainly not going to be how they escape if they do, so rather than that the logical action would be to concede, take the L, and hope that your early acceptance of defeat grants a little levity towards the remaining survivor.

Instead of being able to make interesting decisions like this and gambling your early death for somebody else's survival, your only option now is to tab out and play a different game while you wait to be allowed to play the game you've booted up.

Incidentally, the problem wouldn't be half as bad if a completely missed skillcheck actually killed you, or if an attempted yet failed skillcheck (so you could mash the skillcheck to fail faster) would lead you to a faster death, but as it is now you'll basically be waiting up on that hook for so long that there's really no difference between "conceding" and just tabbing out to play a cookie clicker for a couple minutes.

As far as I'm concerned, if it's impossible for me to tell the difference between somebody playing the game and somebody whose mother called them out of the room there's a serious issue with the amount of gameplay present. The difference between somebody trying to strategically concede and somebody who literally tabbed out to avoid boredom while playing this videogame is that the person who is strategically trying to concede will be swearing angrily in chat afterwards while the guy who's just bored will have just forgotten that he's playing this "high octane" game of sitting and waiting. That's it.

Killers are too often punished and receive too few points for what they do all around. I agree that they deserve the rank up in many cases, and if I had my way they'd get considerably more points than they do now to encourage them to engage in fun play instead of having to get sweaty solely to not get punished for no reason.

Again, though, this is a different matter completely. The solution is to better balance points, not to remove gameplay. I want killers to get more points, and people shouldn't be practically guaranteed a depip with certain killers for half or more of their games. This is an issue that absolutely needs fixing, but that doesn't detract from the nature of this negative change.

* The killers, I might add, are no more rewarded by this and are in the end being placated with frankly condescending compromises and the loss of this mechanic serves as nothing more than a bandaid to deeper fundamental issues with the game anyways. Again, literally nobody has benefitted.

To clarify, when I play as killer I want chases. I want mind games. I want to feel like I've actually succeeded. As it is now, the game rewards bad play so heavily that the majority of matches are snuffed of any fun. This is just another bit that frankly rewards bad play. After all, now that there's sufficient time, you can just camp a hook until survivors give up on the save and then leave with ample time to find the hatch. I don't want to be babied and I don't want to have gameplay thrown out just because a couple people out there lost one survivor to a hatch and decided that this sudden useless change will somehow solve all their problems. After all, why on earth would you want a cheap victory that reflects more on the brokenness of the game instead of your own skill?

Though I guess this love of placation and compromise is why so many killers love NOED. All the same, we should at the very least not sit back and defend with all our might these changes that do nothing but detract gameplay from this game. Had strategic sacrificed remained a thing, this change would have been amazing. It still is in some respects, the old struggle wasn't particularly fun necessarily. But the small good that comes with this change most certainly isn't worth the lobotomy that the game's strategy has taken in an attempt to implement this new mechanic. It's half-baked, it's poorly thought out, and like most recent changes it's nothing but an unnecessary and polarizing mess.