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

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.

You're ignoring the survivors role in it again

What role?

If a 3K always feels like a loss then that's irrespective of survivors. They literally have no power or influence here.

At this point the pattern is clear enough and I'm just talking to a survivor wall.

Considering what you've been arguing, I think you need a bit of survivor talking-to.

But, if a player feels that only a "4K" is a win for them, then that's legitimate.

They can have all the feelings they want, but they can't expect the game to bend over backwards to accommodate them. And they certainly shouldn't blame survivors for their disappointment in the game when they come into it with unreasonable expectations.

In the term of game system, going for 4k instead of 3k and getting it is reasonable expectation, literally slug and you can even get survivors up, so you can almost guarantee it, what truly is "unreasonable expectation" here is getting a hatch escape simply because it solely depends on killer

And look at what survivors saying everywhere, they are the one ABSOLUTELY expecting to get the game bend over backwards, so many survivors are asking for "guaranteed hatch" only to make them feel better, asking to change the game fundamental, even though it's an unreasonable expectation to get a hatch, some of them believe it MUST be guaranteed to happen and yelling it everywhere, to change the game system

Yeah, good point. When there's only 2 survivors left, the survivors should just give up and let the killer kill them. Also, since winning with a survivor down early is basically impossible, when there's 3 survivors left the survivors should just give up and let the killer kill them. Also, since it's trivially easy to tunnel someone out of the game early most of the time, getting to 3 survivors left is basically guaranteed so when there's 4 survivors left the survivors should just give up and let the killer kill them. Anything else is just survivor entitlement asking for free wins, really

…I trust you recognize this is a joke, and understand what the joke is.

Question, if I don't play stealth when there are only 2 survivors left - Just play the game normally, work on a gen, and if the killer finds me so be it - am I allowed to call killers who slug for the 4k when they don't know where the last survivor is "thirsty as heck", or am I still a toxic survivor main asking for free escapes?

But that's not "complaining about killers trying to win" that's "complaining about killers Not Being Satisfied With Anything But A 4k," which you have to acknowledge as being a fundamentally different complaint unless you believe a 4k is the only win condition.

I know other people don't have the same experiences, but I truly believe that I am in the majority here, and short of some evidence from BHVR showing that a majority of killers will slug for the 4k I don't think there's anything you can do to convince me that people who think that way are the overwhelming minority.

WRT the hiding thing, I also think that people who hide and play for hatch are pathetic, with the one exception of people hiding from the specific situation of a killer with 2 dead and 1 slugged trying to find survivor 4 with no cues to where they might be. Not that it matters - we're talking about killer behaviors here, doing a whataboutism on survivor behavior only serves to distract from actually talking about that killer behavior.

However, I find it very interesting that you accuse people of "complaining about killers trying to win" (despite the fact your reasoning doesn't back that up), yet you yourself do something that could far more reasonably be called "complaining about survivors trying to win." With 2 dead and multiple gens left, there's no chance of an actual escape happening. the best chance of getting out is through hoping you lose the coin-flip of getting found first, and then finding hatch, so reasonably speaking that is what someone who is trying to win will do.

I've played enough where I don't really care about getting sacrificed, so as I said in another comment I'll just play normal and if I get found first it's whatever (and as I said in this comment, I think it is pretty thirsty and pathetic to play stealth like that) but I find it very interesting that you're essaying to defend killer players who slug for the 4k for trying to upgrade their Win to a Win Deluxe, while also condemning survivor players who are trying to turn their Loss into a Maybe A Draw. You use your words to say you are sympathetic to both sides, your actions disagree.

how is one different from the other when the only action we can do is "words"?

What you choose to write about and the amount of effort you can choose to spend writing about it is an action that is distinguishable from the meaning of your individual words. To use an example relevant to the pinned post on these forums, there are people who will say "I'm fine with LGBTQ [people], but…" and then launch into a multiple-paragraph long diatribe saying all sorts of horrific stereotypes about them, which they say only applies to "some" LGBTQ people. They say they are fine with them, but then spend large amounts of time complaining about them and spreading negative stereotypes. Their actions (spreading stereotypes) do not match up with the short, halfhearted CYOA disclaimer that they "totally are fine with them, swearsies." Obviously your posts here aren't spreading bigotry, that's just an illustrative example of what I mean.

I never condemned the survivor players either as far as I recall

at this point you've said so many things that I believe to be not only fundamentally incorrect, but also that I have reason to believe you know they are fundamentally incorrect, that I feel I would be doing myself a disservice to engage with you seriously. i'm sure you have some reason as to why calling those survivor players "thirsty" and "pathetic" isn't condemning them, but understand if you provide it it will be ignored because i feel like there's nothing you could say that would change my mind on the validity of your points.

It's down to the individual ultimately. I'll go for 4k after downing the third if I know they are nearby and where they are roughly. I know thay's not the type of 4k you're talking about and I do think it's a waste of time hunting for a fourth when there's no sight of them.

As an example, I took on a Dredge recently. Nothing really wrong with them. Of anything the other Kate was the problem as she tried to make noises tp give away my position. When Dredge arrived, she tried to point me out but Dredge was having none of it. I fled to the otherside of the map and Kate went down. I expected Dredge to pick her up but it never happened, and after what she had tried to do there was no way I was getting her back up, even when she crawled towards me. Anyway, she bled out and I found the hatch. That was a lot of time wasted when - if Dredge had just hooked her - it wasn't too far from the Hatch spawn!

Basically, the main problem with hunting for that 4K is a great deal of time is wasted when we could all be in other games. In the end, Dredge didn't get that 4k, but could have had it any other game. I don't blame killers for doing it, nor should we be doing that. However, it doesn't make sense to me to spend way too much time doing pretty much bugger-all, playing hide-n-seek. I just hook and see what happens. I get 4Ks happily enough that I know one trial seeking for the missing fourth doesn't matter.

You may be different, doesn't matter when majority is not

Please try to actually read the post, your reply doesn't make any sense, at all

Imo, some killer just like playing hide'n'seek with no time pressure, that's the thing

I'm talking about the interpretation of the entire exchange, that is to say:

They say: "some survivors engage in this toxic behavior, therefore any survivor criticism of killer behavior is invalid"

I say: "I don't engage in the toxic survivor behavior you mentioned, am I allowed to offer criticism of toxic killer behavior"

They say: "well some (i recon most) survivors still engage in the toxic survivor gameplay so no"

I was hoping my drippingly scathing phrasing would cue you in to the fact that I was criticizing the shockingly narcissistic attitude that I percieved as the only possible way of interpreting the sentiment behind what they said: that they think, so long as killer players have complaints about a certain element of gameplay, that survivor complaints about that aspect of gameplay are invalid.

It's frustrating, because your "alternative" explanation for what they could have meant is solely a nitpick on what specific survivor behavior they think disqualifies all survivors from being allowed to have an opinion, not that the quintessential interpretation of what I think they said is wrong. Your reply kind of reinforces my point; if the only alternative explanation is that they think survivors aren't allowed an opinion because of a slightly different gameplay style than the one I assumed, I'm forced to the conclusion I really wanted to avoid: that some people on this forum simply are so biased that they think that they're allowed to invalidate one entire side's (representing 80% of the players in any one game) opinions because an entirely unrelated survivor player did something they didn't like. I'd hate to believe such a person existed as anything other than a strawman. Please help me figure out where my logic has gone wrong

Please reread all, and let me emphasize ALL of the words in all of the posts and try to figure out if there are any parts of the exchange you are missing (a paragraph beginning with the phrase "Question, if I don't..." is incredibly key to understanding this whole exchange, and nothing you have said thus far has suggested you have read that part of my post, which was actually the core point I was getting at)

I mean, I guess that's technically another interpretation? However, I do have some objections to some things you've said.

First, to clarify, when Neaxolotl said "survivors… camp in the hatch for 10 minutes" I thought they meant "survivors will camp/hide to get hatch for 10 minutes." I can see where that would actually be a pretty niche interpretation of what they said, but honestly that isn't really pertinent to anything else we're discussing.

Now, on to my objections to your post.

it doesn't seem like they directly answered that question

So I guess it's possible that you could see their post and think they were not addressing that part of my post, but the first sentence of their reply is:

• phrased as if it were the reply to a question
• directly references verbiage in the part of my post that I was talking about

See below:

I find it extraordinarily hard to imagine a scenario in which someone sees those two posts next to each other, and does not draw a connection between the sentence in which I use myself as a hypothetical example, and the sentence in which Neaxolotl discusses my hypothetical behavior.

You asked how else those two sentences could be interpreted. I responded. You've added new stipulations.

I'm sorry, but I feel I was fairly clear I was asking about from the start. Here's a map of the first four posts in this interaction, up to and including the first time I ask for an alternative to my interpretation of what Neaxolotl was saying. You'll notice that I stated my initial problem (that I can't find an alternative interpretation), I listed the entirety of what I felt was relevant within the interaction to that point, and then I further explained why I found it frustrating that I couldn't come up with an alternative way of looking at what they'd said.

I thought that when I described in full the scenario I was asking for clarification about, that people would read all the words I said and assume that they were all relevant to the question I was asking.

For those particular reasons, it's really hard for me to find your interpretation compelling. It's kind of demotivating when the alternative interpretation of what was said is premised on missing what I felt were fairly basic and obvious choices of sentence construction, which I would have expected someone acting in good faith with nearly 7,000 posts on this forum would have been able to pick up on.

I would very much appreciate if you didn't act like I'm not Literally Right Here. This whole "I had an interaction with This User (who, by the way, happens to be the last person to have replied to this thread) " thing is devolving into catty middle school gossip tier drama