Ok, some people just go to too much effort for the 4k

Let them get the 4k so they complained about losing to stronger survivors.

I dont encourage giving up on hook?

I think everyone should try to keep Killrates more accurate, even if I know that it would be impossible to do so, Ill still do my best to encourage it from both sides.

This is true.

It doesn't matter if it's actually an win, the meaning of "win most" here is that, people will and absolutely try to do the things that feels "most victorious" in every scenarios

Bleedout is 100% lose, but people feel little more "victorious" when they managed to hide from killers all the time, thus they try to do that, same for hatches, same for 4k, it's all same

While that's technically true, the killer is trying to win as much as possible and get as much BP as possible and by all accounts they should be getting a 4K but hatch can rob away a kill. It's similar survivors going back to save someone at endgame even though they have 3 out guaranteed or the last survivor hiding even though they already lost.

The majority of killers would much rather hook someone, then find the last. But since hatch is an unnecessary risk to lose a kill you otherwise would get, they don't. Instead they spend 4 minuets slugging to give themselves as much time possible to find the last survivor. Why would you not? Objectively speaking, there's no reason not to. If you find the survivor great, if you don't well you just end up in the same position as if you hooked the 3rd survivor anyway. It only beneficial to slug in this scenario. You'd be stupid not to if you want to win as much as possible or get as much BP as possible. Which are both things players should be expected to be doing.

For survivor you have to wait 4 minuets on the floor and wait 4 minuets as the one hiding for hatch. They would much rather not do that. But objectively the best situation is to hide and try hatch for similar reasons.

Both sides are in a situation where objectively the best thing to do is waste 4 extra minuets waiting around for an RNG mechanic to either rob a kill or gift an undeserved escape. The survivor on the floor is even worse in this position as they just have to wait 4 minuets just to die anyway. That sucks for both sides as clearly the survivors aren't happy and killers aren't happy with the situation either.

Both sides could just say "whatever" and give up the last kill/escape and move on but they (generally) don't nor should they be expected to. The killer slugs and the survivor hides. So we just end up with mutually ensured boredom.

All this happens why? Because of the hatch. If you personally think that's fine then that's your opinion, but the situation occurs because of the hatch.

As @Neaxolotl said, its a "win most" and "most victorious" situation.

You are actually wrong here on bp gain you probably lose lot of potential bp from prolonging the match that long always. The shorter the match the more efficient you are on bp gain. Let's just say match last 10 minutes when you don't slug you earn 200 000 bp now when you slug you earn 210 000 bp but match last 15 minutes which earns you more bp in long run?

Actually 3-4 minute match is best I had that kind of match where I had earned 100 000K+ but I decided give survivors second chance so purely from bp gain shortest match is the best and the match took then to end 10 minutes and I only got another 100 000K+. I would been smarter to end it there but im not fan of that short matches.

So that makes slugging in 2vs1 not smart especially when most of the time you get the 4K anyway. But when it comes to adepts, challenges and pips on higher grades then it's smart play because you need it and longer match is not problem. 15 minutes +2 pip is better than 2 × 10 minutes match for +1 pip. But otherwise you just waste your own and everyones time.

Hatch is survivor only comeback mechanic and it's fine if we remove hatch we need to rebalance the entire game. Killers already have many ways to make comeback survivors get only weaker longer the match last and less survivors there are left.

Killers in this game are the most tryhard people I have ever come across in online gaming easily. There's no ranked or even a comp scene that's worth a damn Why waste so much time just to say yourself you got a 4k in DBD.

You're not wrong but I was talking about maximizing BP for that match in particular which is how most people see it afaik. If you're just trying to get BP in general yes it's better to move on to the next match asap, but if you want to get most out of that single match a 4k is more than a 3k.

As for rebalancing the game that might be necessary and I'd be all for it if that means removing hatch. We have EGC already, we could use that instead of hatch to make sure the games end without undermining the match and killers could just get the 3rd kill and the EGC would start. No more slugging necessary.

Survivors don't need a comeback mechanic as far as I'm concerned. They start out strong and if they waste it that's on them. They already start ahead, they don't need something to make sure they are always ahead in some way. Survivors strong early and killers strong late is fine, as opposed to survivor stronger early and survivors getting boosted later to still be strong. Leaving no space for the killer to be strong.

It doesn't happen because of the hatch, it happens because of the unhealthy relationship with the game. The killer is trying to get the 4K, not because it makes any distinction in whether they win or lose (Nor that it matters much for BP at that stage, unless the killer camped/tunnelled/slugged, but if they did that, they clearly don't care about BP), but because they've either set themselves an unreasonable standard, or they really want the last survivor to lose.

Objectively speaking, there's no reason not to.

Except the frustrations you lay out here are plenty reason not to do this. I don't do these hatch stand-offs, I don't slug for the 4K, and none of this is a problem for me. I just hook the third survivor and go looking for the hatch. If I find it first, I close it and go into EGC. If the survivor finds it first, they escape and I win anyway.

The problem with the hatch here is an entirely self-inflicted one. Nothing but you is making it a problem.

It's not just about the killer, the survivors also hide indefinitely once they're down to 2 because of what? The hatch. You're going to say the killer going for a 4K is responsible for that too?

Well, yeah. Survivors don't really have a choice. The only way they can close the game out faster is by just surrendering. Except this does make a difference for survivor, which it doesn't for killer. Killer will still get good BP and a win, whether they get that 4th kill or not, but survivor won't.

Again it's a "win most/most victorious" in most of these cases. You supposed to try and win as much as you can. That is the point of the game, it's not "unhealthy".

If you're ruining the game for yourself because you're chasing a 'win a little more' scenario, I am going to call that unhealthy, yes.

 This is further evident by the MMR system. You don't get a 3K and that's it you can't get anymore MMR points. You get more for a 4K because it's a stronger win.

Except the MMR ladder isn't even shown, the 4th kill rewards considerably less MMR, and climbing in MMR is only going to give you more difficult matches.

Again, this is a personal obsession getting in the way of your own enjoyment of the game. If killers would truly, as you said, 'much rather hook someone', then do so, rather than obsessing over an invisible value going up.

then the gameplay components that's responsible is the hatch

Also not true, considering there's also bleedout sluggers that don't care about the hatch. At its core, this problem is caused by the killer player's mentality, not by the hatch. But once again, killers ruin the game, and survivors are being told to foot the bill.

Also, consider the scenario if the hatch was not there. If there's no proper, gameplay way to turn a loss into a victory at that point, the only thing survivors are left with is trying to bore the killer into abandoning the match. Is that better?

Idk about you but I'd rather have the killer just hook the 3rd survivor then get their 4K than have to wait 4 minuets staring at the floor just to die anyway because hatch exist.

Or: We can have killers play the game the intended way. I know that's always been an issue, but we should really stop nerfing survivors because killers break the game.

On the flip I'd rather just get my 4K that I earned

That fourth kill isn't always earned. If you don't have it yet, you haven't earned it yet. If some survivor loops you for half an hour but the rest of their team isn't doing gens, you don't get to say you bested that survivor until you actually manage to kill them.

It's not the hatch that's the problem here. It's what you feel you are entitled to.

You let go of that, and the problem is gone.

There you go: Unhealthy.

What kind of cherry picking comparison is this?

The survivor isn't dead, and not only sees, but is actively taking the only steps they have available to them to survive in this scenario.

Also, in your scenario, the killer has killed 3 of the 4 survivors, and your reaction is 'the 4th kill should be automatic', and the killer shouldn't have to do anything else to pursue it.

You're expecting the 4th kill to be handed to you because 'you've already put in 75% of the effort, just give me what's mine' or some crap.

Honey, if you see a guy write 'a 3K always feels like a loss (for the killer)', you should realise that that is unhealthy. This person is clearly not going to enjoy the game, but still pushes themselves to play it. That's just a bad habit.

Maybe

if a 3k is a win then it's dishonest to say that someone who is complaining about slugging for the 4k is "complaining that the killer is trying to win." you Must maintain that only a 4k is a win, and a 3k is not, if you want to stand by that point, otherwise you are openly using dishonest framing in order to portray [people who don't want to spend an extra couple minutes on the ground] as bad guys.

Neither side is "the bad guy", or if anything both sides are. It's not always a us vs them tribalistic problem. It's understandable that survivors don't want to stay on the floor for 4 minuets (I even stated I dislike that myself) and its understandable that the killer is allowed to and expected to go for a 4K. If they want to be "nice" and go for a 3K instead that's also fine. If they are ok risking it for hatch that's also fine.

If they want to settle for the lesser win and are ok with it then cool. But that doesn't make those who don't the scum of the earth. They are just striving for the higher form of a win, which is to be expected. For players to try to get the best result they can.

A 3K is a lesser win and a 4K is a higher win. Most players are going to aim for the higher win and that's fine. That's expected in the game design. That's the expected ultimate goal of every match for killer, to kill as many survivors as possible and ideally all of them. Survivors it's to escape with as many as possible.

Then there's also players who believe that a 4K is the only time the killer won because that's what the game asks the killer to do. Whether from personal belief or because the game does not ever say that a 3K is a win, so they default to 4K. That happens on both sides btw, there are survivors that believe as long as at least 1 gets out the killer lost and the survivors won.

The main issue here imo is the game is designed in such a way, due to hatch, where once it gets to 2 survivors left the match dissolves into a waiting, slugging, and hiding fest for both sides. It's obnoxiously boring, but it's also optimal for both sides to do so it's not like I can fault either side over the other. It's just bad design pushing players into a situation where neither is happy and they are pushed to play in exceptionally uninteractive ways for an RNG chance.

If they want to play for the best result possible at least. Which is not a crime, it's to be expected.

I hope that summarizes things from my perspective well enough.