Giving up seems to be so common now, why?

Lol, you think crawling would stop the Killer from humping?? Given how the Killer moves much faster than the slugged Survivor, you know that's a load of hogwash.

I doubt we want the same thing. I want in-game comebacks for survivors instead of bandaids. You don't get rid of quitter mentality with an unwinnable match.

Also, this is quitter mentality as well:

Yeah, they wouldn't be happy about it, and there'd be nothing they can do. Killers, on the other hand, can do something about Survivors at the exit gate. They just refuse to use the option available to them.

How about we try before we shoot it down.

I'm curious about this now. Anti-DC because you'd abuse it yourself?

If Survivors had Basekit Unbreakable, then sure, they can do that rather than abandon. But we have to operate under the assumption that no one's running the perk, until the day comes when we can see our teammates' perks during the match.

Yes, it would stop them from humping. Crawl to the hatch, end the match, gg next. Why is that so difficult? You want to waste time lying there crying while the Killer is taking a walk, that's on you.

Being able to go next (or even just give up in general) further destabilizes the balance of the game, so that feels like a weird point to try to force. If anything, removing those types of unknown variables is how you get a groundwork to attempt achieving balance. The game is based on an expectation that it will be 1v4 for a reasonable amount of time, and the concept of time's value is transient enough based on that foundation alone. Stable foundation over Jenga.

I think the lack of either a clear or personal wincon is a big cause of discordance in discussion with a lot of aspects of the game, and the confusion feels almost by design at times. They want to remove as much frustration as possible from the feedback of game results, yet use them as the sole determining factor of everything every single player has or hasn't accomplished in the entire trial.

The emblem system used to be tailored to addressing these goals, allowing players to easily create personal wincons that focused on as much or as little of their personal input into a given match, with flaws in how said metrics could be impacted by other players (I.E. if everyone rushes the hook to get their altruism up, there was not enough to go around and it could actually cost matches due to poor prioritization.) The idea was designed around rating players individual input into as many core tenants of the expectations of their participation as possible, with obvious limitations imposed by either other players or opponents (a survivor who gets permatunneled can live long enough to escape, but still only ever get emblems in boldness.) Not a perfect system, but it felt more focused on giving players a more fair metric to gauge their abilities rather than strictly outcome bias.

Deprioritizing that to the point of just being a monthly BP bonus removed the drive for players to engage with as many aspects of the game, and instead maximize their focus on the outcome. Its why metas keep getting more solved, players get more sweaty, unhealthy strategies get more prioritized and leniency/versatility less prioritized. Pair that with bad matchmaking, backfill completely destroying matchmaking quality, and player ego (in the sense of the importance of feedback to the player, not strictly in the "I'm the best" mindset) and you end up with everyone at each other's throats more than ever. The negative outcomes tend to weigh heavier than the positive ones for a lot of people because their entire feedback structure for their impact on a given match has been boiled down to "but did you win?" If the answer is no, they see no value and want to leave immediately for another chance, like a gambling addict on a slot machine getting their next quarter before the slots even stop.

I honestly believe that if MMR was never adopted in the form it has been, people would be less adamant about being able to quit matches early. I have no way of knowing what other impacts it would have for the game (for better or worse,) but it feels like its been long enough to be able to make that type of correlation. The degree it has impacted player satisfaction in a given match is hard to ignore, and trends in behavior in other games over time and across genres makes it a pretty interesting topic to reflect on with this one.

Why is that so difficult? Because we don't know where the hatch is. And like Ampersand said, if there's more than one Survivor alive, then there is no hatch. Pretty sure you're just trolling at this point because you can't counter my argument.

They're definitely trolling, I wouldn't bother.

I force survivors out the gates constantly to ensure my time isn't wasted. It's easy. A survivor can't force a killer to hook or mori them in order to ensure their time isn't wasted. The abandon option was the solution to that, and fair enough. Too many folks purposely being disingenuous here because they want to feel victimised but the point is that everyone has options.

This is before the entire system was changed but okay, hatch is not a win. Interesting that you do abandon (and specifically to remove an earned loss) yet you're quick to drop you're inflated stats to show everyone how great you can do in solo. What's the point of that, exactly, when you know its rigged? They should remove hatch escapes from the stats and count abandons as deaths. Then we'll have some proper numbers and everyone can see they're ERs are like 35%. You act like you wouldn't care but something tells me you would.

If the devs decide to implement an abandon option in the event that survivors are tbagging in the exit gate, then whatever, no skin off my nose. But there is, and always has been, an option.

It can't really be an option, since the killer is load bearing and there is no way for the game to properly make those types of identifiers, which is usually what the argument boils down to. If two people are given a free cake and one of them is diabetic, they cannot necessarily eat that free cake. The approach to solving the solution should have been designed around the underlying issue for both sides, but was done in a way that is possible for one (due to being elimination based) and not the other (being load bearing) on an intrinsic level.

It was a very lazy solution that even undermined multiple survivor perks in their intended applications and ability to prevent scenarios that the abandon feature is now a blanket opt out for. Basically my stance is not one that survivors should not have their "time be respected" in extreme scenarios as much as the insistence of such a platform demands exclusion from an aspect that is a part of competition itself. I also strongly believe that to say rules for thee and not for me in regards to something as unavoidable as that while simultaneously having it be baked into the core gameplay loop for the opposite side tends to increase frustrations considerably in a death by a thousand cuts way more than just a direct comparison of specific scenarios. I'm ok with agreeing to disagree on a lot of aspects of the conversation, I just really dislike having comments disparaging personal feelings about some being blanket statements for anyone who disagrees, especially since that betrays concepts like cognitive dissonance as a reason for reconciliation of ideas to not be able to happen.

 Your suggestion of being able to close the exit gate is fine, though I don't think it would change much in terms of "choosing the length of time for your inevitable defeat," since it ultimately functions the same way as chasing them out (unless I'm misunderstanding you).

When you have 4 survivors in the exit gates, you need to swat each one of them 1-2 times, with a blade wipe in between each, and things like heal tech can easily be done to extend things even further while taunting beyond just tea bagging. This is why i mentioned the death by a thousand cuts, because by this point, you have seen that blade wipe plenty of times in the match alone. The killer role has many time wastes where the player can do absolutely nothing about them, so by that point, it becomes less like a period and more like an exclamation point depending on the temperament of the player at that time.

I am not talking from the perspective of my own temperament so much as I am anyone who finds frustration in this. Those types of actions have absolutely impacted many killers reasoning in not "playing nice" in subsequent matches, and poor sportsmanship is a well known contributor to behavior in subsequent matches regardless of role. When I speak of these things, I'm focusing specifically on concepts like game health, as forcing unnecessary frustration, regardless of perceived temperament, bleeds into unrelated future matches due to human nature. Its why so many games have concerns about correcting unnecessarily unsportsmanlike behavior, and games like LoL were notorious for it for years. As the game grew in popularity, they started taking these situations more serious and buckled down on things like chat harassment and BM that carried evidence beyond simple taunt spam, and the game's community removed some of the toxicity from its perception. This also included taking a hardline stance on aspects like leaving matches early, with entire systems focused specifically on making it as difficult as possible to circumvent while having pretty much no impact on normal play beyond improving it. And the average match is far longer both in potential and average duration than DBD, and isnt even elimination based.

This game isn't that success story, not can it be. Since there is no ability to drop in/out after being disconnected, its structure does not allow the same responses to these issues. That said, the extent of the effort in this game has been to make a chat filter so strangely strict you can't even say the names of half of the characters in it and a slew of other false positives that have been complained about and presumably tweaked for years. Then the abandon feature is designed to prevent "time waste" specifically during the scenarios where the killer would BM survivors, but with zero consideration for the other way around outside of a 10 minute timer for eternal hide and go seek championships. I know you don't have objections to parity, which is very respectable and something I shared before certain considerations were brought up in discussions, but the structure of the game does not allow killers to have anything closely resembling the protection from bad behavior that survivors lament. Not only that, but the dismissals given are commonly used as one stop responses to anything remotely focused on removing the underlying problems that are partially addressed specifically with a favoritism for one side's considerations on a universal concern.

The crux of the matter is that they overdid it for one side while practically ignoring the other, not just in the application but in the idea itself. If they had changed it so that you would have to engage in a time wasting animation where you needed to actively grovel at the killer's feet in order to be able to abandon early (not passively, actually do something like a short series of skill checks while throwing yourself at their feet or something designed to be embarrassing or demeaning) that would be the only way it could be done to have parity with the forced smacks and blade wipes involved with swatting players out. Instead you get to skip the mori animation because it would be a waste of time to have to sit through it, let alone give that Dwight a chance to use his deliverance to reset the other 2 slugs when the killer picks you up to hook you. Since one side is elimination based and the other is not, there is no way to reconcile parity in that direction without having the ability for a killer bot to replace the killer and giving them an abandon option during a similar Check scenario, so that fact becomes a limitation of how the issue could be resolved evenly across the two roles. Since the stealth option for killers can take up to 10 minutes, it makes most of the <30 second opt outs seem extremely lopsided before even getting to things like 4 minute bleed outs, but the numbers game is easiest to justify when focusing on the 5-10 second smacks that are the culmination of a dozen or more instances of the same time waste that led up to that point in the game. And people want it that way, otherwise an idea like giving the killer a shrine in the basement they could activate to abandon once the gates are opened or force ejecting survivors with a single action at the gates wouldn't receive any pushback.