Something needs to be done about the "Go next" epidemic

I disagree that survivors have zero comeback factors(though it is much harder for survivors to comeback than killers, by design,) nor are they as necessary as in mobas. Survivors start at a position of advantage vs the killer, which gets equalized and then reversed as resources and hook states get used up. That said, the progress of generators is not always visible, and while there might be 4 gens left, they can also have multiple ranges of progress. Its very easy to misjudge progress, which leads to either side thinking things are weighted in either direction when not having that information.

That said, survivors can come back from bad matches, all it takes is an efficiency redistribution. One bad chase can do a lot of damage depending on how many resources remain, and can lead to 4 gens remaining to drop to 1-2 gens remaining in a short period of time due to a single good play. The situation then resets to macro play comparison, with the killer needing to reassess switching targets and restoring their pressure or doubling down on a sunk cost scenario. Either way, stopping snowball pressure is very possible in the game, regardless of how probable it is in any given game where the survivors are currently losing. In games like LoL you have a lot more access to a lot more information on these things, while in DBD you need to both deduce and memorize all of it based on HUD status bars and knowing which gens they apply to.

I argue that the majority of survivors who claim their matches are lost do not put in nearly that amount of deduction or effort and instead just preemptively make that decision for the rest of their team out of whatever frustration they are feeling at the time. And in a game where you're not even required to have as much patience as most other online games, its often both extremely premature, and one persons resignation dooms their entire team. If the game had pop in/out it would be a different story, but this one is not designed for it.

All reasonable points. The only thing I'd add is that unfortunately its not so much about whether the quitter would have carried the game, but more that they are basically making that decision for their 3 other teammates. That weight is why its so important, since one person thinking the game is lost removes what chance is left for the others. And since hatch still exists the way it does, this then leads to both sides playing around it: slugging for the 4k, survivors trying to out hide each other (and even delaying to server shutdown) and other related issues. The faster survivors lose a chance at realistically powering the exit gates, the sooner the game devolves to that state. Thats why I put so much emphasis on the match lengths, because the consequences of quitting are so far reaching compared to how little time investment is actually expected of a given match. With changes like the kick limit and everything else done to address 3 gen scenarios with certain killers, stall tactics are considerably less effective than they used to be on the killer side, so even slow losses aren't much compared to a lot of other online games. Even many times in DBD's own past.

I meant the quitter being uncarriable. I'm not getting into these issues. I've done enough of that recently. Also those are not on any quitter. Game should become free to leave instead of replacing with bots in my opinion.

So the second one person leaves, everyone else should be able to jump ship? What does that do concerning consumables that were spent on the match by either side? How would you address things like that without still punishing those players while also not making it something where people could quit matches early to prevent others from having theirs spent, like a quarter on a string for offerings or addons? Killers especially would be able to tunnel one person out asap to try to force a DC, then get unlimited addons for doing so, or survivors would be able to burn through killer addons every time someone gives up on games where they wouldn't even be able to recoup the bloodweb cost of the addon, let alone the nodes to reach it. Either way you've already created another problem by taking the easy way out instead of actually addressing the underlying problem. Changes like that are why so many issues have cascaded into new issues over the years.

That's weird because in my case every other time my raging solo Q mates got rescued they play normally after.

You are delusional about survivors that rage quit even when the game is winnable, a lot of cases it's for selfish reasons.

Plus they make DBD a more killer sided game in solo Q by doing so.

Solo Q would be a better place without selfish toxic griefing survivor players.

I think we shouldn't look at single matches in isolation, but at the accumulated bad experiences throughout multiple matches. A person who gives up when they're the first to go down probably has to do with them having had several bad matches before this one. They were probably hard-tunneled. Yes, that person should have closed the game and taken a break. But many people sadly don't do that. They want to end on a good match.

With the accumulated stress (throughout mulitple matches) in mind, we could look at the problems. Why is it still so easy for a killer to tunnel someone out of the game before anyone else is hooked a single time? There should be a system that doesn't let that happen (specifically: tunneling someone out before a single hook on any of the 3 other survivors).

Then, the chain leads to the next issue: many killers hardcore tunnel because they've had matches where 2 or 3 gens got done before they managed to find anyone, down them and hook them. This is where something like basekit Corrupt Intervention would do wonders.

The game becomes better when certain things become basekit. Basekit corrupt intervention would minimize awful scenarios where gens just fly at the start of the game. Basekit hardcore tunnel prevention would do wonders for survivors. And again, it's enough to only protect a survivor before any of the other 3 are hooked once. Then the system could get disabled for the rest of the match.

I assure you that consumables are not negligible for casual players, not by a long shot. If you play constantly and/or focus your spending into specific killers or survivors, sure. But if you don't play much and want to get all level 3 unlockables, keep up with them, and try to have a decent amount of whatever consumables you need for certain playstyles or builds, you will not be keeping up with them even with the changes over the past few years. Its not as much of an issue with survivor since once you get your unlockables you can go back to sticking with one survivor for piling them up, but when trying to keep the only 2-4 addons that actually support your builds in stock, in this randomized system, which scaled rarity based on prestige level… Its an absolute slog and requires a lot more commitment to even keep up with content as its released. And I'm not even talking specifically about Iris, if you like something like dead rabbit on Myers you can't just buy them and stock up, you have to continuously get lucky and have them show up in your web. Something that also changes as your prestige level does.

The issue with your lack of concern for BP is that, again, choices like leaving early make that decision for other players. You don't care about BP, but others might have spent more on their consumables than they even earned depending on the outcome. Or if a net gain, it might be considerably less than if the match was played out fairly. This actually feels like it hurts the most directly on survivor, since though there is less reliance on consumables, the average BP gain in thrown games tends to be considerably low. They literally can't grind it out if they can't get games that are actually reasonable instead of constant 1v3s.

Remember, you're coming from the perspective of players who play a lot, ones who only use a handful of characters on either side, or a combination of the two. Casual players make up the bulk of the community and many survivor players use that as an argument for various things in the game, but BP and shard accumulation are extremely important toward their retention rates on both sides.

In regards to sidestepping the issue, thats how we keep getting new issues introduced when fixing other ones. The kick limit was said to never affect normal play, but it absolutely does depending on killer/map/loadout. Its considerably less likely to affect normal play than not, but it happens plenty when killers aren't even trying to 3 gen, just involving one gen getting contested frequently or on kick/auto kick perks chewing through kicks. The solution was a sidestep to the issue that created another problem even though they tried to keep the prevalence of said problem to a minimum. This is why fixing an issue overall is more important than spot treating symptoms. If you want more examples than look at things like perk changes ( unintended effects from buffs meant to address issues with said perks, like the Boil Over fiasco or the entirety of the Overbrine meta) killer reworks (Twins were improved for sure, but they became stupid overpowered and had to have almost everything reverted. Things like Deathslinger's ADS delay as well, since it made him much more clunky to aim with as a concession to fix survivors having very little ability to react or counter zoning) and even changes to things like map sizes affecting resource generation algorythms in ways the community mostly agrees are bad (for survivors especially.) Fixing one problem without considering its repercussions creates new problems constantly.

Comparing BP gain to actual games is dishonest. People want both, and they shouldn't be mutually exclusive. In fact good games tend to have higher BP gain overall. The thing is you can't get actual games if 1/5 or more of the players flat out refuse to play them past the first few minutes. its an elimination game, and losing literally gets you out faster, which is exactly why going next is such an issue. If you're guaranteed to lose, then play in a high risk/reward way and lose while trying to win. The worst you'll get is a 4 minute bleedout, the best you'll get is a win, and most scenarios in between you will at least get more BP and shards for actually fulfiling the social contract you agreed to by queueing up for an online multiplayer game.

you're coming from the perspective of players who play a lot

Let that be a lesson on what DBD is: Pretty f'ing hostile to newbies.

Sure, a newbie doesn't have infinite items and not enough giga-toolboxes to genrush 25 games in a row if you die half the time, but you always have at least one medkit. That's good enough. I remember actually running Ace In The Hole to preserve mostly yellow toolbox charges and using up every last item before prestiging while spending BPs on new characters when I used to play four weeks at a time before not touching the game again for half a year. It wasn't that bad then and now is even less so, BP-wise anyway.

Comparing BP gain to actual games is dishonest. People want both, and they shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

They should not. I merely asked what should be prioritized. I know my answer. I don't want to be stuck in decided games because even if we won I have to assume either it wasn't matchmaking's finest work or killer didn't take the game seriously. So that win would mean nothing to me. I find staying in the game just for the BP weird.