Please do somehting about people giving up on the hook for no reason

I’m afraid here you simply quibbling over poorly thought semantics to avoid making any valid point.

If presenting a list of reasons to quit on the predisposition that the game has been butchered then you must dislike the state of things. Otherwise you wouldn’t consider them butchered or reasons to quit.

Making a coherent point is very easy if you try. Why not give it a try.

Well that clears that up then.
Have fun quitting I guess.

It's got nothing to do with being superior, you stated a point and then went completely around on it.

You've experienced this game for a long time but never experienced what I've personally seen? Okay then that's fine, we all have different experiences with the game.

And do remember that once again you did say this "But your original list makes little sense at many points..."

Thus, my above comment is a fact.

I have responded to every single one of your comments where applicable.

I've written a list of ways survivors have been butchered (or for simplicity nerfed); causing players to quit in past games prior to today, which you clearly disagree with and you still have a problem, so tell me, what is it?

Something must have changed? My first point was gen times being increased (something that has been changed), I couldn't be anymore direct with my answer, especially having it written before you've even commented it.

"No one really demanded anything of you they just said with a laundry list like that you probably shouldn’t play and they have a point." - This sounds very personal and objective tbh.

"The thread is about quitting, the point is to keep it on topic. You have advocated for quitting by providing reasons to quit." - I have provided my witnessed reasons for players quitting midgame in the past, not reasons players should quit in the future, there is a clear difference, you also want to influence my opinion and try to sway it, which will never happen.

I would also like to highlight the following, in almost each and every single one of your comments on this thread you have attacked someone personally, directly or indirectly, So I ask you, why don't you keep it on topic?

Your comment to @Rudjohns you commented the following: "Tunneling is not the problem, players like you are." - stating he was the problem.

Your very first comment to me you reiterated that I should quit indirectly: "So if you don't really enjoy a large number of aspects of the game then it's not wholly unreasonable for someone to ask, hey why do you play?" - Knowing full well that I just clarified that what he wanted was a demand not an ask prior, which I have to repeat once again. On top of that, that interaction had nothing to do with you.

Then you brought up some points about an agreement, when none were mentioned above your comment in this thread, thus, no correlation at all to my original post or any other.

I find this part particularly intriguing tbh. You specifically mention what your goal in this post is. - "Nothing wrong with giving feedback and saying there are changes you don't like", I take it my original comment was what you don't like.

Again, directly attacking @Rudjohns this time: "You haven't really exposed anything other than your inability to deal with tunneling and a quitter mentality."

Again to me: "If your goal was to clarify “why people quit” then you framed it very poorly and have made even weaker attempts to clarify. I understand why you struggle though because you don’t even understand your own point so how could you possibly understand someone else’s?"

Another directed towards me with your first sentence: "I’m afraid here you simply quibbling over poorly thought semantics to avoid making any valid point."

Here's the cherry on the cake, you even went as far as trying to mock and belittle me: "That is kinda funny. But such is the value of online interactions."

All of your insults are under the guise of "feedback". This will be the last post I reply to you.

Re-read your laundry list of why players quit and how you framed it. If you didn’t believe survivors have been butchered you wouldn’t have worded it the way you did. If you don’t believe that then you worded it poorly. That’s a critique of your argument not you. Stop taking it personally. It’s not that I didn’t like your original comment it’s that it was severely flawed.

When pointed out that a laundry list like that brings into question why someone would play at all your response was “Don’t tell me what to do”. Which was either facetiousness, which is fine, or some form of narcissistic inability to take critique without responding to it in a defensively personal manner. Given how this exchange unfolded I’m thinking it’s the latter.

Yes the topic is tunnelling and quitting… the players who just quit because they get tunnelled are the problem. If players are going to quit in the face of specific gameplay they don’t like then they shouldn’t play. At least not until till able to do so without rage quitting when they don’t get what they want from the game.

Dead hard did get butchered, I was also the one to recommend that particular change, there was no way to physically nerf it in a healthy way either. It's in one of my old threads somewhere.

Would you say post nerf, players were still actively trying to use it? test out the changes etc, I know I was.

I think that no matter what changes happen to this perk players will still use it because there's no other perk like it in the game, and the mind games are just too fun when using it. I do also think that using this perk brought out the sweatyness of killers, which was fun to see because when you got out played it was usually in a serious way, which made you better overall.

I do agree that it doesn't seem as spoiled currently but from what it originally once was, it was indeed butchered due to having 3 nerfs to one perk (the reason I personally use that term), it took multiple attempts to nerf this perk too, so it was only natural some issues were going to arise with it.

It was very relevant actually, it proved my point that perks have indeed been butchered in the past, you stating that my question was relevant proved that my statement was also true, indirectly.

And yes, they are depending on how severe the nerf has been.