Is it toxic to slug someone out because they gave up at the start of the match?

It's just kind of a waste of your time and anyone who wasn't throwing, but I don't think its toxic.

There's nothing inherently wrong with slugging. If you slug all remaining survivors then just afk to force them to waste time, I'd argue that's toxic. In your case, you are merely playing the match, and if someone is refusing to participate in the match, they are entirely a non-threat and your time is better spent on people actually playing thr match.

That being said, if this happens to me, I personally tunnel the afk out of the game then allow the remaining survivors to get a free win, as it would be an unfair advantage to play against them at that point. That's not to say I believe that's the correct way to play out the scenario... that's just merely my personality which I entirely accept is not the norm. I'm not out to make for a miserable experience for other players, but it's not toxic to continue to play out the match as normal.

Well like I said, if someone isn't remotely a threat, it's not wrong for the killer to prioritize players who are a threat. Thats entirely allowed for the killer.

That being said, I personally just tunnel out AFKs then let the remaining survivors get a free win. That's just my personality, however.

I do it. If someone queues, matchmake, readies, and loads into a match as survivor then decides they want to go next, then they can eat the dc penalty and replace themself with a bot for the team. Otherwise, they get to stick it out, playing or not.

No, it's not toxic in that case. At least no more so than trying to bail on your team is.

When I am the killer and a surv comes to me wanting out, I will put them on the ground once and then leave them. If their team wants to pick them up, fine. If they still refuse to play and/or come to me again, I will kill them last, or if all four remain alive until the gens are complete, I will attempt to kill the go next wannabe and let the rest go.

I want them to spend as much time in the match as possible without escaping. It feels like the morally upright thing to do, lol

I don't derive any real enjoyment from this, but I do it to do at least a little bit to discourage the behavior. Mostly because I play as much (or more) survivor and I loathe it when teammates quit early. It is my #1 peeve in DBD.

Games are meant to be fun.

I can understand if people get mad at leavers, I do too, but to be fair if they are addicted to the game and not having fun at all due to any number of reasons (some absurd, others quite valid) instead of quitting they'll just keep going next hoping to find a worthwhile trial.

You can’t force people to play if they are not having fun, for me personally as a soloQ player I refuse to play against Bligjt/Nurse, once these killers reach a certain skill level they cannot lose against an unorganised soloQ team, I don’t even try anymore.

Throwing to get out of a match early to avoid the DC penalty and ruin the match for everyone else is far more toxic than keeping them in the match in a way that they get multiple chances to change their mind and play it out. This isn't a 4 man bleed out W/S scenario. Zero sympathy, except for toward the quitter's teammates.

They don't want to play with you. This is all I see and where I stop thinking about it in so far as considering the morality of action. I mean, if you force it after that point its bad, if you escort them out, that's good.

But its a game. Who cares?

The OP asked if it was toxic, I looked up the niche use of toxic as applied to the community and matched that to my experiences with the term in game. I feel the situation reaches the definition(as poorly defined as it is).

Also no one asked about the spectrum of toxic. And I don't think I can take such a endeavor seriously, but maybe someone else will take up the task of ranking "Toxic" as related to DBD.

Then no, I don't consider it toxic, if thats what you specifically wanted to hear. I was using a comparative assessment to try to give a different perspective on what toxic actually is in this case, but I guess that was not understood. You know who cares? the other 4 people who want to actually play out the match like it is intended, and don't want a pointlessly lopsided 1v3 game. You're trapping them in an even worse game than the one you refuse to play out and wasting their time even more.

Also "not wanting to play with someone" is not a valid reason to abandon a pvp game. Most games are far more harsh about it than this one is, which is why that sentiment always eludes me. There is no ragequitter hell in this game, the DC penalty is far more forgiving than most, and many games can leave you trapped in matches for longer than the server shutdown time limit in this game. If thats your mindset, you should stick to other pvp games that support drop in/out play so as to at least minimise how disruptive you are when you take your ball and go home.

Edit: also, why wouldn't they want to play with me specifically? I'm a survivor main who hates ragequitters because they make my games unplayable, not some killer who wants to keep them around as a plaything. I've seen plenty of players realize they won't get a quick out and change their mind and play out matches instead, which is vastly preferable.

As one of "the other three," I entirely disagree with your sentiment. Some games support drop in/out so that you can leave and someone else can take your place. This one does not. When you queue up, you are committing to a single match with 4 other people, and not even for a long duration. The game has a disconnect penalty for a reason, abusing the elimination aspect of its gameplay loop is purposely sabotaging the integrity of the match for the other 4 players. As survivor, I can't force the killer to play chill/farm/goof around when one person goes next, so I am in an objectively worse game due to their abandonment.

You're right. But you can prevent them from leaving the game early to abuse the loophole in the elimination aspect of the game. You literally have control over that, which is what this topic is about. They always have the option to DC and take their deserved penalty, but their ability to actively go next without the killer's cooperation is limited to stuff like plot twist bleeding out, which requires premeditation and takes a while anyway.

I absolutely took it that you used "you" because you were implying that I was the killer in the scenario. It was a reasonable assumption. I clarified because it is a common misconception: Many go nexters assume that people who don't want them to leave must be some kind of sadistic killer main who wants to hold them hostage. I clarified that I am the spurned teammate who just wanted a chance at a fair game, and often gets left holding the bag. People who want to go next generally have zero reason to blame "me" for that, as they generally blame their teammates when they play (or at least the go nexter's perception of them plays) poorly. I'm not a comp pro or anything, but I don't give teammates reasons to ragequit. In fact the majority of people left behind don't, despite common arguments.

The fact you specified "reasonable" ragequitting via things you deem unfair means that you are sympathizing with being unwilling to play the hand you're dealt if its unfavorable, a sentiment shared by killer mains who wish to opt out of SWF matches. That is (understandably) denied for the sake of the game's health. The game isn't fair by design, it is balanced by chaotic averages. Either side will always have an advantage based on who/what they bring into a match, that is part of what you agree to when you queue up.

Because the actions won't accomplish anything but a spread of anger and frustration, directly, acting as condoned will not decrease the occurrences of people giving up.

But they do. Every time a ragequitter is prevented from ragequitting without penalty, it is effectively imposing the minimum tier of penalty. Bleedouts take 4 minutes, while the DC penalty starts at 5. If every killer slugs and bleeds out every ragequitter, the minimum DC penalty is nearly always being enforced even with the loophole. As a bonus, every time they get picked up by a teammate, it is another chance to instead play out the match. The only thing that is missing is the escalating matchmaking ban, but it makes the workaround both less desirable and less efficient. They are stuck in games longer, so they are unable to ruin as many games due to being delayed in jumping into another game to ruin.

Nothing about this situation disables the disconnect button, it is there for a reason. Disconnecting is to be done sparingly (IRL issues and emergencies, occasional internet or power outage, important phone call, etc) not as a means of shopping for matches until you find yourself in a favorable position. This game is not structured for that like, say, Team Fortress 2. It is also not a large time commitment like a MOBA, nor is it a game where quitters get paired with each other like many fighting games. You are committing to an average of 5-15 minutes, barring lobby and load times.

If you use the DC option for important reasons, said reason will generally take longer than the low end matchmaking ban in the first place. If the ban escalates to a long period of time, that is a sign you need to give yourself ample time and ability to finish your matches. Going next is throwing all that methodology and all those systems out the window in an extremely selfish fashion.

All of this would be fine if the DC button, and its associated penalty, didn't exist. Going next is literally evading said system by abusing a core gameplay aspect which is hard to adjust, despite BHVR finally starting to address it. A common go next argument is that you can't force people to stay in the game, which is true. But you can penalize them for disrupting the matches of the other players, which it does.

I can absolutely sympathize with being frustrated with individual matches, but that is part and parcel of the PVP experience. It has been since that one guy was a crack shot with the sniper in Halo and ruined everyone's day, it has been since that one guy knew the redeemer and other major item spawn locations and timers and ran them like a perfect circuit in UT, it has been since Romero used to aggressively clown other ID developers in Doom deathmatches. Tilt is an important concept for PVP gamers to understand, as its basically the point where you get frustrated with the game more than you enjoy it, and its time to take a break. For some people they might only need a few minutes to recenter themselves, some might take days/weeks/months. When people ignore that and keep forcing matches they are unwilling to play, they just further the tilt and get more frustrated more easily.

Its up to the players to identify that about themselves, how long they need to calm down, and what they can do to prevent said tilt. Honestly I'd consider sore winners more of a tilt issue than anything in the game balance wise, cheats/major bugs/exploits notwithstanding.

It makes no difference. The match is already lost, so I don't see why it necessary to drag out that game for everyone. If a teammate gives up, I also just want to end this trial because a 3v1 simply isn't playable.

It applies to any multiplayer game with any form of code of conduct, really. MMOs like Final Fantasy 14 have rules against quitting content and stranding your teammates, even with drop in/out functionality. They also go further and mildly enforce community behavior when people are being toxic toward other players. Games like League of Legends have both chat bans for people who spew toxic speech either at teammates or opponents, as well as a quite strict DC penalty system (though it does support rejoining, in the event of accidental DCs as long as the match has not yet finished.) King of Fighters 15 shows you the percentage of matches your opponent has disconnected from, which of course goes down the better their match completion ratio gets.

This game is extremely lax with how it handles the social contract regarding player commitment, both from player interaction and match completion perspectives. Honestly a lot of it comes from the role that has both more players and shared agency also being elimination based, which are core foundations to the game's design. There are plenty of games that are even more lax, but it is hardly the authoritarian "forcing people to play" degree that a lot of quitters use to justify their behavior. In the end each player can only be responsible for their own engagement, which is why I always take the side of responsibility over abandonment. We can't control other players, but we can control ourselves.

Not toxic at all. I play both sides and these people are like a plague to their teammates experience. They don't get off scot-free on my watch. I actually had someone begin to play eventually and nearly regretted doing it once though.