Anti go next needs to turn off at some point

Because the devs are only concerned with The Killer's experience and time! Everything they do is from The Killer's perspective and consideration. The bulk of changes for the past year have been solely about The Killer, so this is really no different.

If its almost over you can hang on for a little longer.

Its kind of an "it aint over till its over" thing. As even if you are the last person standing or even crawling you can still survive with hatch or door tricks. The only time dieing on hook would help anyone else is when the other can find the hatch, so thats why thats the only time allowed to "go next"

Sooo… I will try to take this serious.

What would be the criteria for the unhook to proc?

One dead at a specific amount of gens?

What if 2 are dead and 3 gens are on 99%?

Can someone dodge then?

I think this topic is the same thing as Killers want to abbandon matches when the gates are open. Yeah the game is over but as long as there is a possibilty to recover its not over.

Aunt Edith says: There is a reason why the Anti Go Next was invented and this reason was the following "If I think the game is unwinnable I should have the option to go next." Which was a horrible mindset, since nearly every game was a 3v1 and furstrated many players (Killer and Survivor) because a normal game was nearly impossible.

And BHVR has kinda become careful with such "quality of life" updates since if you red the forum some really hot takes like "I should abbandon if my mate misses a skill check or if I play the map two times in a row" really existed.

Its always weird when considerations that are pro survivor get called pro killer. Everything about diminishing going next is the biggest boon to the survivors who don't ragequit more than a killer who has to waste more time getting rid of a player, while the teammates are bought more time to try to make up for the deficit the person leaving causes. The only people it hurts when working properly are the ones who want to be able to abandon their teammates without needing, well, the abandon feature.

You already get "the killer will win soon" baked into most of the abandon conditions, even when its not a done deal. If you're actually at that point while on hook, the abandon feature activates. Thats not the same thing as when someone thinks the killer will win soon, which is extremely variable and depends on the temperment of a given player. And again, doesn't even account for perks like deliverance or unbreakable which could lead all the way to a full reset, but why would anyone bring them when people will choose to abandon before they can be used correctly? Doesn't matter that the abandon feature already defeats the point of multiple perks, people still want more.

Edit: do you really not get why the OP would want to???

Of course I do. Just like I'm sure killers wasting time swatting out at the exit gate do. But like how the limitations of the game's design make that a bridge too far in that situation, people can wait for abandon or death on the hook. Just remember to thank the many go nexters who convinced the devs it was a necessary change through their actions

It happens to me all the time; nothing will remedy that issue. If a Survivor wants to leave, they literally go. Some actions include: AFK, throw a tantrum, burn pallets, make noise, sandbag, etc. Or my fave when The Killer has Awakened Awareness and the Survivor isn't wiggling. Idle Crows do nothing for Survivors, but help The Killer. What can I do if someone has a murder of crows on them? Nothing. The real issue is that no one wants to discuss the why; it's always about more punishment, which clearly isn't working.

"Clearly not working" is when they disable it and survivors quit on a dime more often. It does have an affect just not against those that shouldn't be booting the game to begin with.

I'm always ambivalent about the whole go next thing.

On the one hand there's nothing I hate more, as killer or surv, than seeing someone have a tantrumn because they got downed for the first time, or realised the killer has lightborn, while the game is still winnable. Like sorry you screwed up one chase or you can't do your clicky flashlight thing all game, poor baby. Yes of course you can ruin the game for everyone else involved because one thing went wrong. Such a bad attitude to the game, and player who do this should absolutely be banned.

On the other hand, when I'm playing survivor, and the killer is hard tunneling someone and manages to get them out of the game at 4 or 5 gens. Then that game is effectively over. I can deal with it in the odd game but it's a VERY repetitive experience at the moment.

Example, last night i managed to stomach 4 survivor games, 2 chuckies, a vecna and a singularity.

First chuckie we got 2 gens done relatively quickly, then chuckie tunnels out one of the randoms. And the game kind of goes to hell, we all die at 2 gens. 4k

Game 2 singularity on lery's who only engages chases on 2 players, takes one out at 4 gens. 3k and killer let a surv get hatch

Game 3 another chuckie (honestly sick of seeing him atm seems half my survivor games are against this little rat) this game goes a little better. We have a jeff who turned out to be p100 who leads the chuckie on long chases. Chuckie switches to tunneling a dwight on 3 hooks in a row. Literally ignores everyone else, I tried throwing myself at chuckie during chase to prevent the third hook ,he didn't even bother hitting me, just straight up ran around me and then i couldn't get between them again. 3k with 1 gen left, 1 surv manages a gate escape after hatch was closed.

Game 4 vecna, tunnels out a bill super quickly, literally gets a mini mori at 5 gens.

At this point i simply turned the game off, it was over an hour of thoroughly unenjoyable games where I was unable to achieve anything. If people want to stop seeing the go next mentaility then the game experience for survivors needs to change. Mediocre to bad survivor players so lets say a good 70% of the playerbase are going to die in the majority of their games. And that makes for a pretty bad game experience. So ppl will and to hit that next game button to get on with it until they find a game where they actually manage to achieve something.

No offense, but I like that so much better than the person intentionally letting the killer kill them because they want out.

As a killer main… going next prevention was defienetly in favor of survivors. Many times it happened that i downed someone and they just killed themselves for no reason, 3 gens popped after that and I was left in 3v1 with 2 gens left which was mostly a guaranteed win. Same when I played survivor, we had someone went down within 10s of the game, they killed themselves and pretty much ruined the game for every player left in the game.

Things that are healthy and shouldn't be changed:

→ DC penalty and no abandoning for killers or survivors (this clearly is good, because a lot of players insta dc because of map, killer, fast down,… it just wasn't fun).

→ go next prevention (mentioned above)

→ basekit bt in EGC (while EGC is heavily in killer favor I was never fan of free kill or hook grabs and I'm glad this is gone)

→ EGC slowed downed when anyone is hooked or downed (this clearly makes options to adjust the decision on both sides)

→ 8 gen kick limit (while it might be a bit tricky, it still removes the old games where killer sat on three gens 5m next to each other and kept kicking it and rotating around giving very hard counterplay to that strategy, not even speaking of eruption brine meta.

→ NOED totem being highlighted (i hate all noed users as this perk is 99,9 % of time run by killers that have one hook per entire game while playing pretty decent killers and I hope it's reveal never gets removed)

I like the double standard on this topic :D

So abbandon works if the following is in play:

1. All Survivors are on the ground or hooked (game doesn´t recognize if someone could pick themself up/unhook themself or a boon is there)
2. Survivors get picked up 2 times (the actual game point why this happend doesn´t count)
3. You are the last Survivor in the match (I don´t know if this is a bug but I could abbandon my last games running to the opend gate
4. No Gen was completed for 10 Minutes

Reasons which I read on this forum why survivors should be allowed to leave a match:

1. Game feels unwinnable
2. Getting a specific Killer
3. Getting a specific map
4. Getting a Killer 2 or more times in a row
5. Killers which cause Phobia like Clown or Plaque
6. Teammates are trash at looping
7. Someone reached 2 hook stage
8. Someone has a Ping over 50

Reasons Killer want to abbandon

1. Bully squads
2. Outmatched
3. Gates are open and all Survivors are waiting to tbag the Killer

From all these topics I see only one which could be argued with why you should be allowed to leave the game, since the game is most likely over and this is the Gates thing for the Killer side but in all Forum Posts about these I read the following. "No You could still get a Kill so there is no reason to abbandon." Yeah… in OPs discussion. The Killer could still lose the chased survivor and he goes for an unhook or the pick up. All gens get done and you escape.

These are the same storys just from the other side. So… I don´t get the "You could still archive something excuse." Just be honest.

The Killer wants to get his 4k as long as it may take while the survivors don´t want to miss out to rub their victory into the Killers face.

Same result.

Like everyone said at the time, all it did was sweep the larger issues that led to going next under the rug and removed Survivor autonomy.

The biggest issue in going next is behavioral, which can't be fixed by mechanics alone. It can only be adjusted via incentives and disincentives, or by removing choice. It doesn't affect "survivor autonomy" any more than killers not being able to go next does, the only reason it could feel that way is because the survivor side is elimination based, so defeat means being able to leave the match. Since the killer side's defeat is only measurable by the end result screen (due to NOT being elimination based) that "autonomy" never exists.

The 4% was intended to give players a reason to not give up, but its risk factors made it a last ditch effort and not a reliable mechanic. There are ways to boost that number, and most of them are still possible. Luck offerings still work. Slippery Meat is still a perk, as are Deliverance and Wicked. Up the Ante does as well. The game has evolved to give multiple ways to not only make self unhooks more viable, but make players able to work them into their gameplan. The need for it to be a last ditch chance has long since passed in the game's evolution, its just not available for free anymore. And again, if it weren't synonymous with ragequitting over the past few years, they probably wouldn't have needed to make that change.

This system wasn't the best choice, but it wasn't the worst, which would include ignoring it entirely. Most of the games issues involve behavior being a primary component, which is why so many of them don't have easy solutions. Considering the necessity of the 4% has gone down considerably over time, its been relegated to requiring a cost since people can't help themselves. The same goes for a lot of things like camping and tunneling, but they couldn't figure out how to handle them properly so its back to the drawing board, but the anti-go next is in a position where it accomplishes its job well enough while providing alternatives in exchange for a minimal investment. If anything, the abandon feature actually causes issues with it due to disincentivizing the ways self unhooking can actually be used intentionally.

Easiest solution…let anyone DC to be replaced by a bot without penalty and give us back the abiility to unhook ourselves

It isn't that I don't understand it, it's that it was something that could have been retained. BHVR chose the most punishing and frankly unusual option to get there is all. Honestly, I think that applies to gen kicking as well. And in both situations, things haven't really been addressed any farther than the scope of their nose. Sure, giving up is harder and trials don't last an hour because of gens, but we now have a system that allows us to give up "legally" that pops more often than it doesn't (which to me is adjacent to where the game was when it wasn't "legal"). In the end, it would have fared much better had they addressed those aforementioned larger concerns with the game. But that's honestly neither here nor there since we likely agree that they were never going to do that anyway. 😭

Well, to be entirely fair, we're not talking about a game that's very fair to begin with or even properly "organized". When the game was more chaotic, entitlement certainly existed but it didn't manifest the way that it does now. I think in many ways, going next was the Survivor variant of camping/tunneling/slugging or 3-genning (when it was more aggressive). They're ways of exerting control over the trial that fall outside of fair play. The only real difference post-anti-go next is that one side is not allowed to do that while the other still is. While you have your anecdotal evidence that trials were ruined by giving up, I have my own that trials were and still are ruined by Killers tunneling at 5 gens. Except the former is bad and the latter somehow isn't (both by BHVR's and the community at large's examples). 2025 sought to address going next and camping/tunneling/slugging and only addressed one. To me that's pretty cut and dry.

Now we can agree to disagree on that front, but my ultimate stance is that this one-sided balancing is not good for the game.

 I think in many ways, going next was the Survivor variant of camping/tunneling/slugging or 3-genning (when it was more aggressive).They're ways of exerting control over the trial that fall outside of fair play.

I really don't see it. Camping/Tunneling/Slugging all have legitimate applications that far surpass "You literally cannot take any other action at this moment, but you can sacrifice a hook timer that may or may not have any value to lose with this choice." that 4%ing had. It was purposely designed to be a bad choice unless it was the only choice, otherwise the chance would have been higher and/or the penalty lesser. The LCD strats on killer CAN be applied in ways that are that lopsided, but they aren't inherently. Thats a big part of what has made them so hard to address, their legitimate applications are significant enough that they need to be approached with more nuance.

The only real difference post-anti-go next is that one side is not allowed to do that while the other still is.

One side actually has valid applications of their problem situations, the other doesn't. And not only that, but that agency wasn't even lost, it was just given a cost. Its no different than killers needing to use specific addons to change the function of their power, but they have a forced consumable cost to it. In this case, survivors can either spend a consumable (offering) or put a perk into their loadout that gives them more control over it than they did to begin with. Hell, Up the Ante re-enables it too.

The only thing lost was the status quo of having something for free, and with the amount of things that get added basekit (which does include on killer, even if not as many) the cost is negligible. By comparison, if you really preferred Doctor's shock ability to be a ring rather than a cone, you'd need to give up an addon slot, a green addon (3,2500 BP), and need to maintain a steady supply of them by chance through blood webs. I'm not saying its ideal, I'm saying the cost is something killers have to deal with for managing their actual loadout. Thats not even getting into killers where cetain addons feel compulsory, like the Knight. Its really not that big of a deal, and yes I know survivors have consumables in items and addons as well, but offerings are basically clutter unless they're BPS or Cakes at this point, and the perk choices can easily work as fallbacks for if you are out.

While you have your anecdotal evidence that trials were ruined by giving up, I have my own that trials were and still are ruined by Killers tunneling at 5 gens.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, which is why I don't discredit the experiences of others if they contradict my own. Despite what people may think, I've been on the receiving end of LCD strategies far more than I've ever practiced them. The difference is that I try to separate my personal feelings from how bad they feel toward trying to find ways to actually fix them, instead of just calling them bad and asking for them to be abolished. Thats why my approaches at addressing issues like that are both carrot and stick, because I actually try to understand both sides of the argument, despite my personal feelings.

That said, we're operating on an unknown variable: For every match that even a single player gives up on, how many of them were at the point where it would be considered necessary? The answer is extremely low due to the game's elminiation structure, and impossible to quantify since it relies on the decision making of any individual who forces the choice on their team. Again, its like allowing any crew member to make an abandon ship call without having a centralized expert to make that kind of judgement call, there is a reason why those types of operations use a chain of command and not just let the ship's cook decide the fate of the crew (outside of their cooking.) Blame the ones who abused the system for the slight inconvenience to the ones who used it properly.

2025 sought to address going next and camping/tunneling/slugging and only addressed one. To me that's pretty cut and dry.

They tried to address the others, and wasted a lot of time and manpower to do so, but they're much more nuanced problems than they are willing to treat them as. The consequences are far more reaching, and again, the ability to self unhook still exists when intentionally planned around. I would have MUCH RATHER them have actually approached the other systems correctly, which is why I constantly advocate against Jenga style balancing. You need to set a strong foundation, not pick away at individual aspects and hope the tower doesn't fall over, which is the problem they ran into with almost all of their anti systems. They even had chances to save the fumble with things like the fresh hook incentives, but there seems to be no actual direction in those types of decisions. When you only focus on appeasement and paint it as concern for game health, people see through that extremely quickly when it doesn't deliver, and at this point I honestly don't know if they're capable of getting changes on that scale right, let alone the first time.

Now we can agree to disagree on that front, but my ultimate stance is that this one-sided balancing is not good for the game.

I agree with that 1000%, and that applies to this very conversation. Not being able to go next is, again, more of a boon to survivors than it is to killers, and the legitimate uses of the 4% are still accounted for without even needing a perk, just an offering will do, and they don't have any bearing on your loadout 99% of the time.

I do. The mods used to take conversations and move them to the feedback forum, which I used to think killed conversation, but I honestly believe it was done to earmark things internally. I know it doesn't seem like they listen to much, but thats all the more reason why I oppose ranting and clogging up avenues. I've also seen many ideas (both good and bad) that have made their rounds through the forums long before being tested or adopted in game.

Feedback channels like this can be valuable as much as they can be rubbish. Places like twitter are better for pointless posting, but places like here (and even Reddit to a degree, hence the AMAs they used to do) can be a great crowdsource of ideas and insights. As there is no way to either curate or validate info from semi-anonymous sources, it should (and hopefully is) taken with a grain of salt in most cases, but thats not to say people don't make their arguments with the health of the game in mind. That said, the official presence on the forums seems more sparse than ever, so for all I know, it does get ignored more often than not now.

Without knowing what happens in your average meeting or internal communications, we'll never know. Still, a lot of the names that have been here over the years have been speaking more to the devs than the people they were arguing with, and I'm positive multiple of them have gotten through beyond just complaints.

And yet we're still here a decade after the game's launch still arguing about the same things. My point is that even if we're trying to get to the bottom of these things, we're just have the same circular arguments year after year that never seem to have much impact on the game. So the argument of whether something is conductive to discussion or not is sort of moot. Unless anyone genuinely believes that going back and forth in these threads for another year is suddenly going to solve the game balance, we're just here shooting the breeze.

The difference is that survivors have to abandon the match entirely to escape the prison that the killer controls. I genuinely believe that design choice was made to boost killers' endgame strength. It's no different from removing Distortion to encourage 4K slugging. I've also seen multiple threads where killer-mains openly discuss removing the hatch altogether.

Also, crouching in the exit gate doesn't stop the killer from playing, it actually increases the odds of hooking another survivor. If players were allowed to take their chance and potentially unhook, it would extend the playable portion of the match. Sure, that survivor might not have the skill to change the outcome, but I've been in plenty of games where a last second unhook completely flipped the game.

The whole problem of the go next epidemic was the step BHVR took when they saw that many players dced vs Skull Merchant.

BHVR showed the community that dcing over and over gives results and so many content creators (TikTok, Insta and so on) jumped on the train to boycot nearly everything.

How often I red in this forum alone that it should be allowed to dc against a legion till BHVR does something against Mend time. Or that we should all agree to dc against ghoul till he gets skull merchant treatment.

This cycle is a never ending one.

Theoretical: If all Killers would have a 20% winrate I bet you that still people would complain that they lost a game. It is exactly the same thing with Killer.

The thing is BHVR nerfed with stats (which is a problem in my book at all but that is my beer) but showing that the quicker way is to just dc is a problem.