The state of solo survivor is reaching a breaking point

See I have issues with several things. Being hunted down after a minute or two in the match, teammates leave you hanging for a sacrifice even tho they still die. Or they don’t heal you up when you’re nearby. I mean like seriously it’d help us to last a little bit longer in the match. Plus then there’s the lagging. You vault over the window just to have the rubber effect throw you back to the side you vaulted from. Not to mention the ones that didn’t win the whole team or down one then down you and hangs you instead of the first one they downed. What’s the purpose of the flashlight when it don’t work on all the killers? A few of them but dang what about the others we really don’t have the extra help.

How in the hell can the Shape (Micheal Myers) kill you straight out the door. No hooking anyone twice. Just up and kill somebody without being hooked twice or the last survivor alive. Game started about 5 minutes later The Shape stabbing me to death. None of it makes sense. The other 3 players were still alive. And no mori was equipped either. But even so there are stipulations to them. And I know they weren’t meet.

We could argue all day about what skill is, but what do tunneling and camping actually do? Because they certainly don't win games on their own, meaning that they can't be that problematic. The killer hooking, even hitting somebody, as an M1 killer is the hardest thing in the game. Tunneling and camping just makes those things a little more worth it, because there are so few things that killers sink their match time into that are worth it. So they're not easy ways out, and any survivor with game sense will tell you that, because while it may get a little risky for that 1 survivor being camped or tunneled, the rest of the team is chilling while the killer's sweating their butt off, probably for 1 kill. I insist that the skill of the average solo player is the issue, not the killer being too strong. I don't know if you've seen it, but with some of these lobbies it's like 1 person gets hooked, gen efficiency goes down to 0, and suddenly everyone forgets how to play. There should never be a time where there's 2 survivors on the ground or on hook at the same time, and yet every other match during this event it happens, because there's no MMR. So I wouldn't balance for those people, ever, because that's what you're suggesting.

The killer DCing is a 4 out, and like I said, being such a bad teammate that you disconnect or suicide on hook is part of the problem of SoloQ: Survivors themselves.

Again, this doesn't invalidate any of the points I made.

I don't know what you understand by "try to play as a team", but if you quit at first chance, then obviously you weren't trying to play as a team. In fact, you weren't trying to play at all. So, I don't know how that contradicts anything of what I said, even less when you seem to agree with this being on the survivor.

But I can rephrase what I said to be more specific: "Who would have thought that if you are good at the game, have good game sense, and try to play as a team without quitting the moment things don't go how you want, would make you and your team mates win more games even in SoloQ?"

Not sure if I worded my original comment so badly but obviously I'm not encouraging ragequits.

My point is, I can play like a team player but if my teammates aren't willing to be teamplayers and ragequit there is nothing I can do.

So while saying "It's the survivor fault" is not necessarily wrong (though I do think that more information like seeing other players perks or the facecamp progress would be a good addition) it does not help those survivors who are already teamplayers.

The killer DCing could be anything

No, the killer DCing is a 4 escape and it counts as such. Whether BHVR counts those matches or not for their stats has nothing to do with the in game rewards and winning conditions.

Is there really a difference between suiciding on hook within 1 minute of a trial and being tunneled out of the trial within 1 minute?

Yes, the person who does the action. One is the survivor's fault, the other isn't. One means that the survivor at least tried, and the other means that the survivor didn't even try at all. One makes you a bad teammate, the other doesn't.

And most of the times, survivors go next because of objective reasons you personally might not have noticed, like seeing auras of half of their team hiding in bushes.

Sorry to break it to you, but, um… that is still survivors not being good teammates, mate.

You used an "experiment" of a guy who blatantly manipulated the counted escape rate as an argument

No, I used that "experiment" as proof that if you play well, make the right decisions at the right time, bring perks that help the team instead of the "5 gen looper" build, and of course, you at least try to play and not quit the moment something doesn't go your way, your and your team's escape rate will be higher. The fact that counting all those things while not counting DCs gives a 64.8% escape rate is only further proof that the main problem with SoloQ is survivor's doing and not even trying in the first place.

You are not proving me wrong, you are confirming my points.

Do you realize that those survivors who "aren't willing to be teamplayers and ragequit" are also survivors? I think the problem here is that you are taking this like I'm literally saying "it is your fault" to you when I'm talking about the player base in general. There is no reason to take it personally.

And yeah, like I said, there are a couple of QoL things they should add to help those "teamplayers" be able to coordinate better, starting with a Quickchat function. But that's a different topic all together.

Once again: counting favorable outcomes even if you have to apply mental gymnastics to justify it, while not counting unfavorable ones even if you have to come up with excuses why not. Clear data manipulation.

What I'm saying is if by not counting DCs and give ups (because you keep saying "early kills", but that is not mentioned anywhere in the video) you can have a 64.8% escape rate, and when you count them you have a 39%, then obviously, survivors DCing and giving up is one of the problems of the SoloQ experience and one of the reasons for the low escape rate. Ergo, it is another proof that the main problem with SoloQ are survivors themselves.

The only mental gymnastics here is you evading the point being made and justifying it with "Data manipulation, so not valid" when nobody is trying to prove that by counting DCs, that 64.8% won't be lower.

If a survivor sees 2 of their teammates hiding in bushes and decides to go next, it's not the one going next who is a bad teammate.

Alright then, the other two survivors are also bad teammates. It's still the survivor's fault for not having enough game sense to make the right decisions at the right time and making the one giving up have a bad experience. Again, you are not proving me wrong with anything you are saying, on the contrary.

But yes, if your goal is to "prove" that ridiculous number of 65% by any means […]

Nobody is trying to prove that "ridiculous number" to be the truth of anything more than what that number means: If you don't count those players that don't even try and play well, the escape rate gets higher.

You are the one trying to "disprove" it because you based all your narrative on it not being "real", so it is not survivors playing bad what makes SoloQ unbearable. Can't explain what kind of logic led you to reach that conclusion, but it is what you are doing.

I can prove it being 100% […]

If you do, then you will prove that if you discard every game that didn't end in 4 out, count every 1k as a 0k, and count every survivor DC as an escape, you get a 100% escape rate. Just as the video proves that if you don't count games where someone DCs or gives up, you get a 64.8% escape rate instead of 39%. That's it.

You are not making the great counter-"argument" you think you are making here (or anywhere else in your post).

Yup, if you discard every point where I prove you wrong, then indeed, my agreement rate for your takes is 64.8%.

If you cherry pick one thing from my post (the video), center your argument on a made up reason of why that part is wrong (the 64.8% doesn't count give ups, so data not valid because it doesn't prove what I say it's trying to prove), and completely ignore that your "argument" has nothing to do with the main point I made (survivors are the reason that survivors have bad experiences in SoloQ) then yes, you proved me totally wrong.

But if you don't do that and take into account that every single example you gave for "it's not survivors fault" is in fact survivors being bad teammates, there you have your 100% agreement rate with my points.

To me your original quote sounded like you are saying that a singular survivor has more options to fix their experience than I think they do (based on Hens' video, where he specifically excluded the matches completly outside of his control) because you are dependant on your teammates, so there is only so much a single survivor can do.

Maybe you meant your comment more in a "If all survivors would play in this way than the situation would be bettter" and I missunderstood. That statement is true but it is really utopian, I don't think ragequiting will get better without intervention from the Devs.

Sorry, I missunderstood you then. Generally I agree with you points.

Even that is more skillful than what the average survivor displays. Pre-drop pallets? Hold W? I'd kill for teammates who could at least do that. No, what the devs intend to balance around is survivors who have no game awareness, they think gens will magically get done if they ALL go for hook and heal every single time someone gets hooked or injured, and they do the worst plays they can possibly do throughout the whole match. That escape rate is a total joke because of how many survivors just kill themselves for no reason, either at the start of the match or at the end being greedy.

Solo doesn't need anymore buffs. They have enough free information, which doesn't do much for them but it does a lot for SWF in that they don't have to waste callouts for things such as Remember Me. You're avoiding the main issue, which is matchmaking. 2 good survivors are put with 2 terrible ones, and a decent killer. The killer can just tunnel out the weak ones, easy pickings, and then the good survivors die as well for no reason. You're never gonna be able to buff solo survivor enough to where day 1 noobs, or wannabe day 1 noobs, can beat killers who are playing to win. These survivors don't want the win unless it's handed to them; they never improve because everything that's posed a threat to them has been nerfed. And it's still not enough!

You have to put survivor who give a flip with killers who give a flip, and the kiddies outside of that can just run around and do whatever because they're not playing their roles anywhere near their full potential. Once you have the group who knows what they're doing, you balance off them, not off the majority. Balancing for the majority makes beating SWF impossible, while not doing anything for struggling solos.

You only balance for the majority if you want the game to live.

Except every instance that I know where a game with a high skill ceilling / time investment requirement has been balanced "for the majority", which usually means making the gameplay easier, removing any challenge and rewarding minimum effort in the process, has lost players. Perfect study case: World of Warcraft, to the point of having to bring back the old version of the game after telling their users "No, we are not going to bring back the vanilla game, and you don't want us to do it, really".

So, tell me what multiplayer / live service game do you know that was balanced to appeal to the "unskilled masses" and maintained their playerbase to affirm that it is the way to go if you want "the game to live".

The perk he is using are nearly exact perks that I use in soloq. we'll make it, Deja vu, Exhaustion, Aura reading(I prefer bond over kindred). Seems like my build is super effective. I don't really feel pressure of soloq but I dislike how aura reading is kinda needed to play correctly in soloq.

there is like so little to no coercion without those aura perks. dbd needs less perk taxes, both for survivor and killer.

I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment that the only reason solo queue is in such a hellish state is because of the Survivors themselves.  You can give them all the tips, buffs, and info in the world, but it won't necessarily stop them from being stupid.  Like, what are you supposed to do about this kind of behavior here?  I honestly don't know what this Renato did to deserve this kind of treatment, if anything.

Solo queue teammates being solo queue teammates

And Exhibit B, where we have two P100 Davids playing like pros. 😋

That's the one but not all, those who stalking the killer to do "save" which doesn't happen 99% of time, those who randomly booning around, opening chests, getting all the invitations, doing weird combo, using invocation, mindlessly selfcaring 24/7, all that people

There is far too much things people can do and some decide to go for it rather than play for win

Sometime killers do those kind of play too, but at least they don't have any teams

CoD, Battlefield, Halo, etc etc

Are you real? Did you just mention 3 of the most competitive games out there, including the one game that started all the "strict MMR sucks the fun out of a game" debate, as examples of "balancing for the majority"?

Pretty much every casual-oriented game doesn't balance for the 1%.

"[…] where a game with a high skill ceilling / time investment requirement". Casual games don't require high skill or time investment because they are designed to be easy to learn and play. But even in those games, there is a certain level of skill requirement and challenge, because if everybody were granted a Crown in every match of Fall Guys, then what is the reason to play?

Now look, if you want to balance for say, idk, 200 players over the other 59,999,800 players, be my guest. It just shows why some of us aren't devs lmao

No, I don't want to balance for "200 players" and never said that, on the contrary, I already said to you that a game should not be balanced around the top (pro players) or the bottom (the ones that, after hundreds of hours, still don't do well) of the player base, no matter how many players are on either side.

But a competitive game should not be balanced "for the majority" either. It should be balanced around those that invest the necessary time to learn and get good at the game, and doing so should feel rewarding. Because the moment it doesn't and any challenge is removed for the sake of "making the game so everybody can do good", people lose interest pretty quickly as there is no reason to invest a large amount of time in it.

Oh yeah, everybody hated so much those CoD changes that it stopped being one of the most played PvP competitive shooters in the market right now…

If that's your response to everything I said, I think we are done here.