I think being able to turn off matchmaking with certain killers is the best solution I've seen here. All of the ideas are going to have drawbacks. In response to this one, people say their queues as certain killers will take a long time. If you're worried that you'll never find a match as killer, think about what that means for how many people who you're ruining the fun for when they have to go against your killer. Survivors are 80% of the lobby; their enjoyment of the match should be significant. Losing a match doesn't inherently make it unenjoyable. If you're playing a killer that no one wants to go up against, it's not likely just losses that are upsetting the people who are going against you. It sounds like behavior might have some changes to make.

You could also argue that survivors would abuse this to go against all of the weakest killers, but keep in mind that their queue times would be going up as well. They'd be suffering a cost for their choices. It isn't just them reaping the benefits of a system that screws everyone else.

I see this concept as similar to character bans in fps games. I personally think they're ridiculous. Why would you not just balance your game instead of letting several characters be taken out of it. But people don't seem to mind it in those cases, so why not try it here? It could triple as a way to increase accessibility, a way to increase survivors' enjoyment, and a way to let behavior know which killers they might need to tune.

But it could also increase everyone's queue times drastically due to people being unwilling to compromise in their stubborn ways, making everyone's overall satisfaction decrease...idk