@carrymeplzisux I would differentiate rage quitting and denial-of-kill quitting. Mine are often executed long after my teammates are dead and gone, so I'm just cruising into the final five to see if I'll get lucky and find some other short squads. But when it's just two squads and I can see the other is a Mirage, a Gibby, and a Valk: why would I just give them a free kill? They already get the win and however many kills they've already racked up. Isn't that enough?
And I don't necessarily get upset when someone gets the better of me in-game. I've spent a lot of years in gaming learning to differentiate between somebody killing me legitimately, killing me because they got lucky, and killing me because they're able to do things that I don't even recognize as possible within the gun and motion physics of the game. The first one is fine, and no hard feelings. The second is galling, but not a game-breaker. The third is the thing that I believe developers should seek to design out of their games, but it turns out that in their courtship of the best players, the streaming gods, they will do anything to create the widest possible skill gap - no matter how unbelievable the exploits may seem to the average player. And this is what drives people like myself, and I think the OP, to shake our heads. How many times do we have to "hang in until the bitter end" before we're finally aloud to say that we already know how it all ends? And the answer is "poorly." And how could it not end poorly? At best, we each go into a match with a 5% chance of winning. How did any developer ever convince anyone that those odds are a selling point? I'm just saying there comes a time when you have to let the wins take care of themselves and focus on other aspects of the game. Denying kills to other players may smack of bitterness and bitchery, but I feel like I've earned the right.
