Letting Survivors Leave, Forcing Killers to Stay: What a Perfectly Fair System
When the exit gates are powered, the match is essentially over. At that point, the killer has virtually no realistic way to turn things around—yet they’re forced to stay in a match that’s already been decided, for up to two minutes.
Whether survivors are toxic or not is completely beside the point. Whether they’re T-bagging or clicking flashlights doesn’t matter. The core issue is this: why should the killer, as the loser, be trapped in a post-game escort ritual for the winners?
Survivors have the right to “Abandon” the match when they’re all downed. They’re free to leave once their game is effectively over. Killers don’t get that same option. If the killer wins, survivors can leave early and “go next” without delay. But if the killer loses, they’re stuck—until the survivors feel satisfied enough to leave. This is, quite literally, a textbook example of a double standard.
In fact, ever since this abandon feature was introduced, even winning as killer can feel hollow and unsatisfying. There’s no sense of closure—just an abrupt, disconnected ending. What’s left at the end of the match feels like cleaning up after a sandbox where the kids made a mess and left.
Some suggest that killers use this time to walk around, practice, or farm Bloodpoints. But no one queues up as killer just to pace around an empty map while waiting for survivors to meander out. If the best defense of this system is, “Well, you could kill time—it’s just two minutes,” then that’s not a justification. That is the problem.
Others argue that killers should bring endgame builds. But that misses the point entirely. This isn’t about perks—it’s about design. No build can change the fact that the killer is locked into a match they’ve already lost.
The devs have said killers can “force survivors out.” But anyone who actually plays killer knows how frustrating—and utterly pointless—that endgame really is. Honestly, comments like that make you wonder: are the people making these decisions actually playing killer on a regular basis?
If a killer wants to stay, let them. But if they don’t, they should be allowed to leave—just like survivors can.
To be perfectly honest, this imbalance goes beyond any past gameplay tweak or balance patch. Without exaggeration, it’s one of the most severe experiential gaps this game has ever introduced between survivors and killers.
Comments
-
Part of the reason we got the Abandon feature is because too many killers were forcing survivors to stay in the dying state and bleed out for even longer than the endgame countdown. And if all survivors Abandon, you're actually able to Abandon the game too.
19 -
B/c you signed up to a match to see it through, you're able to actively move around and still use your power, you can still catch survivors not near gates, etc. Just b/c your ego gets hurt is not a valid reason to end/exit a match (goes both ways).
-5 -
Before the abandon feature I would normally disagree and say who cares, but you actually do bring up some valid points regarding that topic. There is almost a double standard there regarding that didn't exist prior to the abandon change. I say almost because I think being slugged & humped for 4 minutes straight with no way to avoid it was worse than having the agency push survivors out the gates.
I don't know what they could even do about that though. I think it would hit better psychologically if survivors simply died on the ground when abandoning in an abandon situation, instead of basically all but forcing the killer to also abandon when everyone turns into a bot. I don't think giving the killer the ability to abandon during the EGC would be a good idea, and I think they're very opposed to making the endgame deadlier for survivors given what they've tested internally in the past.
7 -
There's absolutely no way to do an EGC 'abandon' feature when there's so many variables. It'd be abused and taken advantage of, quickly. The people mainly proposing it are ALL ego driven, disingenous and don't want to deal with the outcome of a match.
Somehow they equate having to face survivors at the EGC to survivors being bled out/humped with nothing to do. I'd be all for killers getting tools. If it makes sense. This makes 0 sense, lol.
-7 -
I'm kinda over assuming the worst in people these days (usually) so I won't comment on that first bit. But on killers getting tools, I would love to see how forcing survivors to spend a few seconds doing an animation to leave the match (and perhaps adding resources within exit gates to account for ranged killers and such), ARC Raiders style, would change things up. You'd see a lot less BM at the gates if everyone had the Wesker/Deathslinger/Houndmaster ability to interrupt escapes.
9 -
The other post died off and now we have a new one…
2 -
100% agree w that. Thats something that COULD work if done the right way. It would definitely curb a lot of survivors just waiting at gates. Giving killers a tool like an 'EGC power' would be really welcoming, as long as it didn't hinder survivor's experience.
I think a EGC power for killers would be great, but then again, should every killer have that tool? (for ex, if you're running a purely end-game build- your power comes online essentially at the end game). And how do you go about balancing who and what build should have that power?
Would also be more work for BHVR as they'd have to create an animation for every killer to have this 'EGC power'.
IDK man, there's so many factors.
-3 -
There’s often criticism that “when the killer disconnects, the match ends too suddenly.” But if the gates are open, and all that’s left is for survivors to walk out, how much is actually being lost?
If we’re talking about “experience value,” then let’s talk about the killer’s. After a hard-fought match and downing all four survivors, the killer often watches them all Abandon instantly—ending the game with zero payoff.
What remains? Cleaning up after bots, or pressing the Abandon button themselves—despite a clear win. A truly fitting reward for perfect play.
If the final act of a flawless game is mopping the stage alone, the Entity must be absolutely satisfied with the performance.
Some argue Abandon was introduced to prevent bleed-out abuse. Fair enough. But now, it’s a permanent privilege granted only to survivors, while killers are given no similar option—even when the outcome is already decided. That’s a double standard, plain and simple.
“You should finish what you started.” But once the gates are powered, haven’t both sides already done that? What’s left is emotional closure—and at the moment, only one side gets to enjoy it.
In the end, the current system prioritizes survivor comfort while demanding patience from killers.
This isn’t about balance—it’s about a fundamental asymmetry in the player experience. And frankly, it may be one of the worst design failures in Dead by Daylight’s history.
0 -
As others have mentioned, we just had a massive thread on this. Gates being powered is not nearly as close to the game being decided as all survivors being downed. We can talk about more abandon conditions, but these situations are not that comparable.
-2 -
And many survivors hides in a corner while extending EGC to 4 minutes with plot twist and only leave when there is like 30 seconds left, forcing killers to stay
What's the difference between leaving survivors on ground and prolonging EGC to absolute maximum while removing agency from killers? literally nothing
5 -
That's the difference: you -can't- remove agency from killers in such a situation.
I agree killers should be able to surrender, but this is the key difference. The killer can always play, while the survivors are effectively forced to AFK.
3 -
“The gates being open isn’t the same as all survivors being downed.” Therefore, even if the exit has opened, the killer must keep performing their role — as if the show hasn’t already ended.
This is the logic some continue to insist on.
When all survivors are downed, they can immediately abandon the match — because “there’s nothing left to do.” When the gates are powered, the killer must keep playing — because “there might still be something they can do.”
This is the philosophy behind the current system.
One side is told: “Never give up as long as there’s a chance.” The other side is told: “If hope feels gone, feel free to leave.”
Why is the right to freely abandon a match reserved for only one role?
I believe most players who primarily play killer feel this imbalance — whether they fully realize it or not. Those who mainly play survivor, and perhaps even the developers themselves, may genuinely not understand what the problem is. Because when you’re never the one stuck in a match that’s already over, watching others leave while you’re forced to stay —it’s easy to believe the system is fair.
5 -
Just stop with the "asymmetry" argument.
Here, let's fix it this way:
A slugged survivor can now injure and down the killer, which also now gives them an opportunity to escape and turn the game around in their favor. Doing this also shortens the bleed out timer to make it faster, even if they aren't able to turn the game around. This ability is base kit, and requires no items, add-ons, or perks.
There. Now they're identical situations.
1 -
Why is the right to freely abandon a match reserved for only one role?Well, you explain it pretty well:
When all survivors are downed, they can immediately abandon the match — because “there’s nothing left to do.” When the gates are powered, the killer must keep playing — because “there might still be something they can do.”There's a big difference between 'nothing' and 'something'. Both sides have plenty of examples where the chance of improving their position is slim, but there is still something they can do, and neither side has an abandon option in that scenario. Now you can argue that the abandon system should be expanded, but its a different topic.
4 -
The argument always goes the same way:
“Survivors can abandon the game because they’re helpless. Killers can’t — because they still have some control.”
This is the reasoning often used by those who oppose allowing killers to abandon a match once the gates are open. But it completely overlooks the killer’s experience—either because it never crosses their mind, or because they simply choose to ignore it.
The point isn’t about how much agency remains. It’s about why only one side is allowed to walk away from a game that’s already functionally over.
Survivors get a mercy exit. Killers get a mandatory performance.
That’s not gameplay asymmetry. That’s experiential inequality.
5 -
This happens because the problem was poorly focused from the beginning. It should have been taken as a system that automatically ends the match, in the same way the rejected auto-Mori worked. They have even called it an “abandon system”, which already shows that they were more concerned about the needs of those giving up than the problem itself.
The game shouldn't incentive to give up in any way. Likewise, the gate problem should be solved by expelling the survivors automatically in some way and not letting the killer just "abandon".
0 -
I will say the same thing I did in the last thread.
Either we allow everyone to do it or nobody should do it, and it should 100% be a loss for the side that does it. Not a draw.
This feature should only exist if there is parity. The BM situation is bad enough. Survivors got their concerns about Killer BM addressed, why don't Killers ever get theirs addressed? And why is it a loss if the Killer forfeits but a draw if the Survivors forfeit when a forfeit is a loss you choose to take for the sake of sportsmanship?
EDIT: They are making Go Next and abandons done to Go Next a Loss for Survivors in the next patch. You can stop downvoting me for this suggestion now.Post edited by LockerLurk on4 -
I agree.
Personally, more than the unequal response to BM, I’ve felt a growing disparity in the overall match experience since the abandon system was introduced.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, there’s now a common pattern where survivors instantly disconnect the moment the killer downs the last one. It’s become so fast and routine, it’s practically a “technique” — almost like a reflex test. As a killer, you’re denied that final moment of satisfaction, and the match — a match with real players — just ends abruptly. What follows is a hollow post-game cleanup phase that feels more like a chore than a conclusion.
On the other hand, when the killer loses, we’re not even given the option to surrender. Instead, we’re dragged into a miserable send-off sequence. And more often than not, under the banner of “killer agency,” as the devs call it, we’re expected to chase out survivors who choose to aimlessly wander around rather than leave.
In the end, no matter how a match ends, killers are consistently left with a bad aftertaste. This is the outcome the current system guarantees.
And yet, the simplest and most logical way to fix this imbalance — removing the survivor abandon feature — will almost certainly never happen.
Why? Because once a “convenience” is handed to one side, taking it back — even in the name of fairness — is almost always seen as a nerf, not a fix. The backlash would be inevitable. Even small, reasonable compromises — like allowing survivors to abandon only after being downed for 60 seconds, to balance anti-slugging concerns with the killer’s sense of victory — are dismissed outright, as if this mechanic were sacred and untouchable.
That’s why I believe the only realistic way left to restore fairness is to give killers the option to surrender after the gates are powered.
And frankly, I’m both surprised and disappointed by how much opposition this idea has received. If a killer chooses to surrender after the gates are powered… who, exactly, is losing anything?
The survivors’ “sense of victory”?
5 -
And frankly, I’m both surprised and disappointed by how much opposition this idea has received.
How much opposition is it actually receiving?
Because this outrage started, not with a complaint directed at this issue itself, but with a rant about survivors getting preferential treatment.
Most responses I've seen are in favour of the killer being able to abandon, they just disagree with the false equivalence and the utterly needless 'us vs them' slant the discussion has taken on.
3 -
“How much opposition is it actually receiving?”A quick look through the posts shows that there are clear concerns and negative opinions toward the proposal itself. People are, of course, free to hold different views — opposition is to be expected. I’m simply expressing mine.
“This outrage started, not with a complaint directed at this issue itself, but with a rant about survivors getting preferential treatment.”If someone experiences a disparity and articulates it with reasoning and structure, isn’t that a valid and constructive form of criticism? Calling it “a rant” doesn’t address the argument — it just dismisses it without engagement.
“False equivalence and the utterly needless ‘us vs them’ slant the discussion has taken on.”What exactly is the “false equivalence” here? When the match is effectively over, survivors have the option to instantly abandon, while killers are given none. That’s a clear asymmetry in player experience. If simply pointing that out is considered “us vs them,” then what kind of balance discussion is even allowed?
4 -
A quick look through the posts shows that there are clear concerns and negative opinions toward the proposal itself. People are, of course, free to hold different views — opposition is to be expected. I’m simply expressing mine.
Of the 11 people participating in this thread, only -one- person objects to the idea of killers being permitted to abandon when the exit gates are powered.
That's not anything to write home about.
If someone experiences a disparity and articulates it with reasoning and structure, isn’t that a valid and constructive form of criticism? Calling it “a rant” doesn’t address the argument — it just dismisses it without engagement.
Because it's entirely the wrong angle. Getting mad at the developers over something they aren't guilty of, and sideswiping at survivors that have nothing to do with the issue just stirs needless drama and toxicity. You don't need to pretend like it's all sunshine and daisies on the survivor side to get the point across that escorting survivors out the exit gates sucks.
What exactly is the “false equivalence” here? When the match is effectively over, survivors have the option to instantly abandon, while killers are given none. That’s a clear asymmetry in player experience. If simply pointing that out is considered “us vs them,” then what kind of balance discussion is even allowed?
The conditions for a survivors' surrender involve having no agency anymore. The killer always has agency. Even in the situations where four survivors are stacked up together at the exit gates, killers still have agency and yes, sometimes the survivors mess up and the killer gets an extra kill.
Exit gates open is still not as 'over' as the situations for which survivors got an abandon option. That's the false equivalence.
-3 -
Let me be clear.
I don’t hold survivors accountable for using the abandon feature. I have no intention of blaming players for doing anything that’s permitted within the system. There’s absolutely no obligation to self-restrict the use of officially implemented mechanics. Choosing to “gonext” when defeat is inevitable is a rational decision. Even actions like t-bagging dances after securing a win — while annoying to some — are still within the bounds of what the game’s design allows, and thus not something I consider blameworthy on the player’s part.To me, all responsibility lies with the developers.
And frankly, I’m not even angry at this point — I’m just exhausted by how consistently disappointing they’ve been. The issues I’ve raised throughout my posts are things that should have been easily anticipated by anyone who’s spent a reasonable amount of time playing killer.
As a side note — though many will remember — the developers once stated that if a downed survivor abandons the match, the result is considered a draw. That announcement alone sparked widespread confusion and backlash.
Even this single incident speaks volumes about how disconnected and irresponsible the team is when it comes to their own statements and design decisions — and how unaware they seem to be of the actual player experience.The core problem lies in their ongoing pattern of reactive, short-sighted decision-making, and a fundamental lack of imagination regarding how those choices affect the balance of player experience.
You’ve emphasized the difference in “agency” between survivors and killers. Yes, it’s a common argument: that killers shouldn’t be allowed to surrender because they still have the ability to act. But the real issue isn’t whether someone can act — it’s whether there’s any meaningful value in those actions. Some killers may enjoy escorting survivors out, exploring the map, breaking remaining pallets, or farming a few more bloodpoints. But in reality, most killers — once defeat is certain — just want to move on to the next match.
Being able to move doesn’t automatically make that experience meaningful. If there’s no purpose, no impact, no engagement — it may technically be “action,” but it’s not a meaningful experience.
2 -
Part of me wonders if this whole debacle comes from just not being able to articulate very well, or some attempt to balance Survivor side MMR because it works different to Killer MMR - All Survivors share one MMR, whereas all Killers share a Killer MMR but also have their own, so if you do really well as say Blight, that not only makes your Blight games harder but games for all the other Killers slightly harder too even if you have never touched them. I think that's problematic in a game where all the Killers are so vastly different from each other that some of them blatantly cannot handle and are not designed to handle the same Survivors Blight can.
If the Devs are in fact doing this by making Survivor abandonment a Draw but Killer abandonment a Loss, in an attempt to skyrocket really, truly good Survivors who win too much out of the range of Killers that can't handle them, then it's a really tone deaf way to do it and a really poorly implemented system. But then, MMR was never actually balanced, which is why so many believe it truly does not exist. Hell, not long ago I faced a p100 Day One Pinhead and my poor casual team was not ready for that level of aggressive box-juggling, we're just not on that level and don't frankly want to play at that level, because it's not any fun for us. If you ask me, MMR just shouldn't exist either - except for the weakest of the weak and strongest of the strong, so babies and ubertiers do not go anywhere close to against each other.
0 -
I don’t hold survivors accountable for using the abandon feature.
To me, all responsibility lies with the developers.
So my question then is: Why bring survivors up at all?
Yes, it’s a common argument: that killers shouldn’t be allowed to surrender because they still have the ability to act.
That's not a common argument at all, that's your misinterpretation of what people are saying.
Yes, people are pointing out the difference between these two situations. Not to claim that killers should not be allowed to surrender, but because you are building your argument on the basis that they are the principally the same. They aren't. That's what people are trying to get through to you.
Killers shouldn't get the ability to surrender once the exit gates are open because survivors got the ability to surrender once everyone's downed.
Killers should get the ability to surrender once the exit gates are open because the whole t-bag ritual sucks.
Being able to move doesn’t automatically make that experience meaningful. If there’s no purpose, no impact, no engagement — it may technically be “action,” but it’s not a meaningful experience.
Sure, but that's still not justifying the false equivalence between survivor abandon and killer abandon.
The points that you are trying to dismiss are accurate. Summed up succinctly:
Survivor abandon is for when they can't play anymore.
What you want is an abandon for when you don't want to play anymore.
They are not the same. It's not a 'textbook example of a double standard'. That's what people are trying to get through to you.
3 -
I must admit, I couldn’t quite grasp the intent behind your message. The only thing that came through clearly is that you’re quite convinced my logic is flawed.
Unfortunately, after reading your arguments, my perspective remains entirely unmoved.
My point is extremely simple:
•When survivors win → They can leave whenever they choose, or hang around in the safe zone until the killer graciously escorts them out.
•When survivors lose → They can go next the very moment they’re downed.
•When killers win → They’re forced to clean up bots.
•When killers lose → They’re left to shoo survivors off at the gate, like some disgruntled doorman.
This discrepancy in experiential value strikes me as a clear double standard — and that, to me, is precisely why killers should be given the option to surrender.
By contrast, I remain unconvinced that teabagging or BM alone justifies the addition of a surrender option. If we go down that road, we’re essentially saying that as long as survivors don’t engage in overt BM, killers should be expected to play out the endgame, no matter how pointless or one-sided it becomes. Even without explicit BM, survivors can still hide until the final seconds of the EGC or engage in all sorts of passive-aggressive antics. It seems that, for you, teabagging is unpleasant enough to warrant a surrender button. (BTW, isn’t this the very situation you described as “an abandon for when you don’t want to play anymore”?)
But for me, what drains the fun out of the game isn’t any single act of disrespect — it’s the fundamental disparity in post-game experience between the two roles. That’s the real issue.Of course, I understand that you may not see it that way — and that’s fine. I have no intention of changing your mind. It’s become clear to me that our perspectives will never align, so I see no reason to continue debating this further. Whatever your stance may be, this is a clear structural imbalance in my view — and that’s perfectly fine.
I just hope this gets read by someone on the dev team who still remembers what fairness used to mean — and maybe, begins to consider the idea of experiential disparity.
-1 -
My point is extremely simple
I can see that. In fact, you simplified it so far that you completely lost track of what DBD actually plays like.
When
killers win→ They’re forced to clean up bots.Except killers aren't forced to clean up bots anymore, remember? You can just leave.
When
survivors lose→ They can go next the very moment they’re downed.No, they can only go next when they're ALL downed.
And to further illustrate the difference, do you know how they play out without an abandon option?
As killer, it is as it is now. The killer has to spend as much time as it takes them to get to the gate and kick the survivors out of the trial. If you can't be bothered to do that, you have to wait out the EGC, which takes up to two minutes, max, with the exception of Plot Twist, which would extend it to four minutes. Again, that's only if you refuse to chase them out. If you do chase them out, it's seconds.
On survivor side, though, without the option to abandon, a killer can lock you in that game for up to four minutes, no matter what. And the survivor can't go around the map collecting BP for breaking walls or pallets, either.
By contrast, I remain unconvinced that teabagging or BM alone justifies the addition of a surrender option. If we go down that road, we’re essentially saying that as long as survivors don’t engage in overt BM, killers should be expected to play out the endgame, no matter how pointless or one-sided it becomes.
So you want to expand the system even further to whatever arbitrary point -you- decide that the match is done? That's never going to fly, considering we've seen plenty of extremely defeatist attitudes on these forums. There'd never be another match of DBD lasting longer than 1 gen.
Even without explicit BM, survivors can still hide until the final seconds of the EGC or engage in all sorts of passive-aggressive antics.
They can't hide, they have to be near the gates, or else they lose their chance at escape. The further they stray from the gates, the more of an opportunity you have to kill them. There's plenty of 'just leave' videos on youtube to prove that. And these 'passive-aggressive antics' can be shut down by shooing them out the gate.
It seems that, for you, teabagging is unpleasant enough to warrant a surrender button. (BTW, isn’t this the very situation you described as “an abandon for when you don’t want to play anymore”?)
Tossing around a ton of big words and formal language and you can't even read properly, it seems. Maybe I need to write it out again for you:
People aren't objecting to killers being able to abandon during EGC. People are objecting to your false equivalence to survivors' abandon.
it’s the fundamental disparity in post-game experience between the two roles. That’s the real issue.
And that's the reason you're getting pushback. Because that disparity isn't what you think it is. Again: Survivors get to quit when they -can't- play. You want to quit when you -don't want to- play. The sooner you drop this 'experiential disparity' fallacy of yours, the sooner you can move to actually get something done.
0 -
The survs won't admit it, they are the ones getting benefits from all the double standards things the devs offer them. They will never change. And the ugly truth is that your only choice is to swallowing this treatment and keep playing quietly, stressfully. Or just stop and play a different game.
It's pretty sad, reading these sort of posts, killer mains point out the problems clearly and intelligently, but the other sides will always be too egoistic to accept it, and will just never admit anything.-4 -
I once managed to kill all 4 after the gates were opened and they were tbagging at the gate lol without even using the freddy perk or noed. But i was deathslinger and managed to grab someone off a totem right infront of the gate, and the chaos that ensued ended with all of them down or on hooks. So some rare cases it aint over till its over.
2 -
Oh boy here we go again~
I stated my point that the abbandon system needs a big overhaul. It is okay for me that survivors can abbandon when nothing else can be done.
What isn´t right for me are the following situations:
- Giving Survivors the ability to abbandon the game when the get picked up twice and healed. Like common, if you get picked up twice the game isn´t far from over. Even if the Killer is toxic and stands on you and downing you over and over again your team can rush gens while you crawl to an open exit game forcing the Killer to pick you up.
- Giving Survivors the ability to instant abbandon the game when the last nose touches the ground. Let there be a timer of 20 seconds for perks like unbreakable or deliverance to trigger.
- Giving the last Survivor the ability to abbandon when he is the only person left in the trial, while exit gates are open and he isn´t downed. Like dude why can I abbandon when I run to the exit gate?
The double standards are big in this game in this situation. I got slugged for 4 Minutes, the Killer is wasting my time against I am standing at the exit gate for 2 whole minutes and spam tbag and before someone comes with the argument, well the Killer can just come to the gate and maybe get a kill. No this won´t happen against good survivors, they will spam emote close to the gates wall.
Solution is pretty easy. If three or more Survivors are standing in the exit area give the Killer the abbandon feature. Now some will tell me well the survivors will do it in front of the gate and thats the point. In front of the gate isn´t as safe as the border of the exit.
-5 -
Even disregarding the various gameplay arguments (good or nonsensical), Killers cannot abandon when the exits are powered/opened for a simple reason: the game instantly ends when a Killer DCs/Abandons.
Some achievements, and any quests demanding escaping through the gates, would become nigh-impossible since gate escapes would become a lot more rare.
Think about it, before bots were a thing and the recent Myers rework allowed him to Mori Survivors on the ground if on 2nd hook, Survivors would go in lockers and stay there forever out of spite to deny the "Evil Incarnate" achievement (since they could still get pulled from the locker and sacrificed, but it would void the achievement).
Now imagine trying to go for "Outbreak Breakout" or "Hand-Eye Coordination", or hell, any map-specific achievement, if the Killer could instantly decide to end the game the moment the gates are powered/opened? Achievements that are already obnoxious and utterly dependant on chance to even try to get would become borderline impossible.
However, if BHVR implements functional Killer bots that would not void any achievements, then that aspect would be covered.
But unless the game doesn't end when a Killer DCs or Abandons, there's no way that opening/powering the gates can enable a Killer to just dip. Even if the achievements didn't exist, gates escapes would become rare and nearly every games where the Killer lost (and/or doesn't have an endgame build) would end the moment the gates are powered/open and barely any matches would actually be played to the end.
1 -
It's not like you can't just throw an exit switch and let the end game timer do It's thing. Maybe even force gate camping survs outto speed things up a bit
0 -
Given that we keep giving more ways for survivors to abandon a match, I think it's perfectly fair to give killers the option to abandon during EGC.
0 -
survivors have bots, killers do not. If a killer has end games collapses challenges they can complete them, same cannot be said for survivors so yeah system is fair.
-1 -
Until the feature stops messing up stats and MMR, we don't need anymore abandon options.
0 -
Why does this read as if ChatGPT created it? Honestly, if you're going to put out an opinion, take the effort to write it yourself.
5 -
I mean you could make this argument for the Survivors. A lot of people abandon to skip the mori animation etc because it'd "hurt their ego".
6 -
Well, not really. Once the mori animation plays, or if they're all slugged, there's nothing left to do. The Survivor has already done all they can in the match, so they've played it through.
-3 -
I wouldn't say that the exit gates opening means the game is over. I've done some of my best work in the endgame shuffle. I've had horrible matches become 3ks especially if I am playing Drac with blood warden and the red shield add on. Sometimes that is the best time to roll with it and have some friendly killer fun with the survivors, sort of a killer way of saying gg.
-1 -
thats not really true regarding all being slugged. people can have perks to pick themselves up or even unhook themselves but the game doesnt take these into account so people can still abandon even though survivors have the ability to get up, heal, unhook, do gens….play the game.
i have played a few killer matches where people have abandoned when all down but then the bot used a perk to get up and unhook the bot on the hook so im in a match with about 3 bots.
-1 -
Simple, base kit survivors lose if they’re left on the ground. They cannot pick themselves up without perks, and cannot escape the killer’s grasp unless the killer picks them up, which the killer doesn’t have to do. Not only are the survivors unable to do anything to win, they are also unable to do anything to speed up the 4 minute bleed timer basekit.
Now flip the scenario around to killer with an exit gate open. Already the scenario is different. Although EGC has started, the game state can be anything from 3 survivors on hooks to 4 survivors teabagging at the gate. And base kit, especially for some killers, the opportunity to get a better result or outright win is still there. (I’m sure I don’t have to show you any of the thousands of “just leave” killer clips.) And even if the killer cannot win or improve their result, they can force the survivors to leave and speed up the process. They are not stuck waiting 2 minutes like a survivor would be waiting out the 4 minute bleed timer.
Another reason this probably isn’t implemented is because BHVR doesn’t have working killer bots for every killer yet (though we know they had basic ones for 2v8). So if the killer abandons, then the game probably just ends, which would make certain archive challenges and achievements impossible. Because survivors are replaced with a bot, killers can still get theirs, but getting an endgame rescue achievement or similar would become nearly impossible if killers could abandon in EGC without becoming replaced with a bot.
0 -
Good observation, and that’s because chatGPT did. You can see it with the arrow symbols, bullet points, double dash symbols, and phrases like “it’s not about X - it’s about Y”.
I’m giving the OP the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he is using because of a language barrier or just to help him write better, because there are sections that were clearly not written by chatGPT.
0 -
why take the effort if chatgpt puts the opinion of the individual into words for them?
1 -
…and once every Survivor is in the exit gates, there's nothing left for the Killer to do either.
People are only opposed to one of these qualifying for an abandon, though.
1 -
Push them out?
Several killers also have a basekit way to kill a survivor if they're trying to stay in the exit gate and leave last second.
If I'm playing trapper for example and I walk to the gate, at most I have to left click a few times per survivor to push them out. If I'm slugged as survivor, there is nothing I can do basekit to speed up the wait time of 4 minutes on the ground.
0 -
If the killer is allowed to abandon during the EGC, it should count as if each remaining survivor passed through the exit gates, unless they have an "Exit via hatch" challenge, in which case it counts as that. Achievement problem solved.
Or you could say: If the killer player abandons, their character just stands still. The survivors can still do whatever they want (grab items, tbag, etc.) until the timer runs out. It would literally be the same as the existing ""solution"" that people suggest (just go AFK) except it wouldn't require the killer player to be annoyed.
As a survivor, I would NEVER have an issue with a free escape. Oh, boo hoo, I didn't get to see the exit gate. AT LEAST FOR ONCE I GOT AN EASY WIN!! Jesus, even when we're trying to give KILLERS something, survivors can't catch a break…
Killer is a solo role, so they're not "ruining" the game for their teammates when they bail. Sure, don't let them just give up at 5 gens, but by the EGC they've made a good faith effort. If anything, there should be FEWER restrictions on when a killer can DC.
Yeah, survivors can always make mistakes, but someone who has had a bad match might not be in the mood to walk all the way over to the exit gate for the 1000th time to find that out. And they shouldn't be forced to try. It doesn't matter how delicious a food is, or how much someone might like it if they gave it a fair taste… they DEFINITELY aren't going to like it if it's forced down their throats.
I mean, I personally would never use this feature, but what the **** do I care if someone else would? What do we gain, as a community and as a game, by pissing off killers in these situations?? Are we going to give them AFK crows next? Or ban them for "too few hooks" because you don't think they're trying hard enough???
2 -
the killers keep pushing for more, and here's how it goes: we all know they'll kill as many as they can. After cutting down the survivors, they still feel letting anyone walk away is too easy , and the moment you give in, they immediately come up with the next demand. it's never enough for them.
1 -
Pushing survivors out isn't any more agency than hatch standoffs were. The entire situation was caused by two people refusing to accept defeat, knowing that their action would only result in loss unless it was a reaction. If the survivors are far enough in the exit gate that you would not be able to pick them up after a blade wipe, not even getting into things like heal tech, how is that agency? And if its not over yet, then why is it ok for survivor abandon to ignore so many perks and mechanics that can be used to prolong the game for them?
I can understand arguments about the mechanical nature of the game itself, like how there are no killer bots so a killer abandon is a hard cut to the results screen for all parties, but I will never understand the selective nature people use regarding what they consider player agency, as they never seem to reconcile between sides. If survivors could actively humiliate themselves in order to cancel a mori animation instead of having to sit through it, they would be more comparable. Like some kind of self induced Mortal Kombat babality or friendship or something. Instead one side gets to avoid the situation entirely while the other has to actively deal with it while being subjected to the grace of their opponent(s). Its almost like these things can affect player mindsets going into other matches, and lead to them doing everything they can to ensure they don't wind up there again. And we all love the strategies and choices that leads to.
It really is something that should have a more elegant solution, and it should be equally applicable to both sides, instead of just favoring one and mostly ignoring the other. A lack of player agency in endgame (and in general) is an across the isle issue, so it begs the question of what the meaning behind half the abandon conditions is actually supposed to be.
Several killers also have a basekit way to kill a survivor if they're trying to stay in the exit gate and leave last second.And many more don't. Even perks like blood warden require hooking someone during that time, so its only ever a threat if someone is outside the gates to be hooked.
If I'm slugged as survivor, there is nothing I can do basekit to speed up the wait time of 4 minutes on the ground.This is something that absolutely needed addressing, which is why it always baffles me what the line is for people when comparing the roles. Is it the duration? Because killers can absolutely have more than 4 minutes of their time wasted through things like excessive hiding. They can do it for up to 10 IIRC. The lack of movement? If survivors could zoom around at sprint burst speed on the ground but were unable to escape or interact toward their objective in any way until the match ends, would that somehow be better? How about if they could actively grovel for the same amount of time it takes to swat multiple survivors out? We should have a better solution that addresses the unified issue of
one side being able to stall victory to waste their opponent's timerather than multiple smaller ones between mechanics like abandons and self pickups that very clearly favor one side in consideration.In lieu of that, they could at least try something like (off the top of my head) allowing the killer to close a gate and auto eject any survivors in it out of the match if, say, 50% of remaining survivors are in it. That way if its just one, smack em, but if its a matter of lingering in the safe zone, pushing out can be done more efficiently. It could even lead to situations where any remaining survivors who get left behind form a "second round" to endgame. Maybe adjust the EGC timer or show any remaining survivors the gate switch auras for a few seconds when it closes to give them a chance to come up with a gameplan. Ideas like that obviously take testing and ironing out, but again, not even on the radar.
Post edited by Ryuhi on3 -
Here's the wonderful thing about giving killers the option to abandon in EGC. If they feel like they have something they can do to change the outcome of the match, they don't have to abandon. Why force killers who lack the tools to catch survivors waiting in the exit gates to teabag to waste time when they should have the option to move on to the next match?
0 -
While I agree, the structure of the game is an important consideration. It would have to be a checkmate specifically, as the elimination nature of the survivor role paired with the lack of killer bot replacements means that killer abandoning is a hard cut to the game's conclusion compared to a game which can still continue without one or more survivor players playing. It could still absolutely apply to situations like all 4 in the exit gate while lacking an exit blocking aspect of the killer's kit, though honestly considering abilities like that would fall in line with regards to perks that get ignored with the abandon system, so maybe they could be skipped similarly. But it wouldn't be able to apply to check situations similarly due to the killer role essentially being load bearing to the match itself.
Basically it wouldn't be able to be for games that are mostly over, it would have to be ones where the only way they could change would rely on the winning side purposely allowing it to.
0 -
Survivors can abandon after being picked up from dying state twice and being put into dying state a 3rd time. I wouldn't exactly call that a checkmate situation.
If the killer player doesn't want to play out the final 2 minutes of the match, let's not force them.
2
