Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on this and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
Get all the details on our forums: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/436478/sign-up-now-to-receive-a-recap-of-your-2024-dead-by-daylight-stats/p1?new=1
dear survivors, if you tbag me for using low tiers killers at red ranks
Don't be mad because you only see spirits and deathslingers and nurses, you ######### ask for it
I know it's not every survivors, but if you see them this much, thank these #########, i'd love to play weaker killers, but if I get rushed to death and get tbagged and then get EZ in chat, i have no problem making you DC and make you lose pips and get less than 8K games, i have no ######### issues with that, stop being ######### if you are so tired to see meta killers at reds
Comments
-
Maybe I'm the exception but most of the time I enjoy going against Deathslingers.
Nurse and Spirit on the other hand...
1 -
Yes, but he's the other Killer who gets complained about because his 1v1 game is really strong. Sure he can easily lose from lack of pressure, but if you get into a chase with a good one, you probably won't have a good time.
7 -
there's no such thing as low tier killers. Every killer is viable, some of them just require more effort, that's it.
PS: now please send me some of your salt :)
2 -
wanna bet?
1 -
This is big facts. You can play any killer and win in red ranks.
2 -
Sea or kosher?
3 -
It's not salt, but your statement implies a disparity when there is none.
Every killer is viable. But not every killer is as good as the next. Some are clearly easier to play than others.
15 -
I hate those types of survivors makes players want to shift away from any non viable killer even more
like i be playing pig and get a swf and they gen rush and t bag it's like no [BAD WORD] of course your going to win you would have to royally mess up not to.
6 -
that simply not true viable means you can deal with an average swf not the full meta 2k+ hour for all 4 members but just every survivor is at least decent and honestly that is enough to beat a lot of killers as long as they have proper prioritise aka 1-2 always on gens.
0 -
I've been playing very clean games and not even camping the last person at end game, and getting t-bagged after not getting any kills and other such BM and post game chat abuse.
It's like these people are BEGGING to be bubba camped I swear.
4 -
It is true. Every Killer in the game has recorded wins of 4Ks against SWF teams. Not every Killer has the same success record, though.
0 -
that means nothing
0 -
It's literally a means of showing who is viable and who isn't. Since every Killer has recorded data of 4Ks against all red rank 1 Survivors, that's empirical proof all killers are viable.
It doesn't get more meaningful than that.
1 -
red ranks mean nothing you can get their easily as a swf from r20 my brother did with me.
stats don't show the skills of players neither does rank and with it being so easy to reach red ranks the only way to know if a survivor is good is by seeing them play in game not from meaningless end game stats.
1 -
Honestly I see every killer getting teabags. Spirits, Nurses, Freddys etc. They all get the bags.
1 -
You are taking this game way too serious OP. Just play who you want and ignore the idiots. They're probably kids trying to get a rise out of you. It's not worth getting worked up over idiots.
1 -
Waah oh poor you, if you get mad you can play free to win spirit! Play with "low tier" team mates and then tell me how sad "tbags" make you.
0 -
I did padded jaws Trapper with meme perks vs 2 keys and still got tbagged at the exit gates from someone running all the crutch perks, and the team was sure to wait around to make sure I saw them key out
This happens literally every time. No exaggeration, everytime I try something “fun” or memey I get the most toxic teams. I dont blame people for only picking top tier killers and slugging/tunneling at 5 gens
3 -
i play a lot of Wraith and i know that feel. I try to see it as some kind of achievement (they usually do that if you give them a hard time) but some do this even though they destroyed me already (they're just bad people hiding behind an alias).
Survivors always complain about seeing the same OP Killers over and over again but when they finally see a loopable low tier killer they get all cocky...
In addition, there is this "circle of hate" in the game which leads to people doing this (survivors get bullied, destroyed and insulted by the killer and then they take revenge the next game, the same goes the other way around)
0 -
None of this post refutes anything I've said.
My point remains:
Current data proves all Killers are viable.
0 -
current data is unreliable
so your "point" is invalid
0 -
Bullcrap. Here's direct data.
2 -
ah yes lets put combine ALL the stats for killers regardless of rank(rank means nothing), skill, what players the killer faced, and the fact that having a high play count as a skillful killer makes you kill rates lower.
you are obviously new and much like the devs rely too much on stats.
THE DEVS EVEN SAID DON"T USE THIS FOR BALANCE BTW because going by this obviously pig is the one of the best killer in the game and nurse sucks.
7 -
Is this good enough?
3 -
How you possibly look at data that shows Killers overwhelmingly have a 65-70% kill rate and claim they are not all viable. The only outlier is Nurse.
0 -
yes there's a thing as a low tier killer, just like in fighter games theres low tier character. Even single player games sometimes have tier list.
Low tier =/= unviable
1 -
That data is so bad nobody should be using it
2 -
I also like going against Deathslinger.
0 -
While some are worse than others I agree. I’ve played old clown in red ranks since I got him. Picked up plague now
0 -
Bad in what sense? Are you saying they made it up?
0 -
Lol I haven't seen a Nurse or spirit in ages, it's mostly Freddy, Trapper and Legion.
0 -
I can't help it, when you love something you take it seriously, I know it's just a game, but I can't help myself
0 -
Well the first obvious point is, Nurse is the best Killer and everyone knows it, so why is her kill rate so low, even in red ranks?
Also, Freddy's kill rate could be exacerbated by the fact people suicide on hook to him, which makes it more likely the rest of the team will die too, ez 4K.
What I want to know is, what does red ranks mean here? Does it mean the Killer is red ranks? Or does it mean, kill rate, for red rank killers, when against red ranks survivors?
Because if it's just red rank Killers, then does this include all the games where red rank Killers are matched with rainbow rank teams, or even just all green rank teams (I'm sure you've seen how bad the matchmaking can be?). In these games its an almost guaranteed 4K even if you are using perkless Wraith. Should we include these games in our method of ranking killer effectiveness?
1 -
Lol! Bags for everyone! Bags! Bags for everyone! That’s funny.
0 -
because that is what is expected
losing games often are from 0-2 kills and winning games are from 3-4
that will obviously bump up the numbers especially since it is rare to have no kills if you know what you are doing.
nurse is such an outliner because their are so few people good at her that she doesn't have many winning games and losses as her are commonly 0 kills.
also these stats INCLUDE solo que and that is not the standard of power level for survivors it's swf and it's like this BECAUSE swf is so common.
if we only had stats for swf which the devs will never release the kill rates would be much lower.
0 -
What does ANY of that have to do with a viability of a Killer and the point I am making?
0 -
your point is all killers are viable and you used stats as proof i disproved that by explaining why stats are meaningless and the reason why they are is just fact.
literally the ONLY argument for all killers are viable you had is stats and it's just not true even the devs said don't take the stats seriously and all they really show is freddy being too good and too easy to play that's it.
you have no argument here
0 -
You gave examples of why stats might skew ONE Killer to be off from another and to create a disparity.
You have NOT produced an argument to prove that ANY Killer is not viable.
0 -
You haven't either and if anything i have more reasoning then you do to show most killers are not viable.
if your gunna strawman you clearly lost this argument and have nothing to prove me wrong and yes this response was a strawman.
0 -
You. Have. Not. Proven. ANYTHING.
Jesus, you are the stereotypical pigeon that craps on the chess board and struts around clucking like you've won.
I produced statistics proving that all Killers outside of Nurse have a MINIMUM Kill rate of 60%+ and it only goes up from there. That's pure viability, EVEN AT RED RANKS.
You have not produced or cited a single piece of evidence to disprove that. Not one. Not even a little bit. That is NOT a strawman. At all. Statistical data is as far from a strawman as you can get. It's hard data.
2 -
cool your just gunna strawman and cling to stats harder than almo
i already explained why kill rates are around 60% but apparently you lack the capacity to see beyond anything in pure numbers or maybe you just can't understand simple logic.
you want to base stats as the absolute hierarchy of evidence? this is how you sound "Current object of obsession is SUPER BAD just look at it's STATS almost all players die with it and it's hardly used obviously this perk needs a buff or at the very least it's fine as it is".
that is the logic the devs used before the announced OoO potential changes they literally said the perk was in a good place in a stream without using logic much like your doing.
what matters is the logic to why things are as they are and if you don't understand then i can't help you.
1 -
also the devs LITERALLY SAID DON'T TAKE THE STATS SERIOUSLY
if the devs are saying they are not reliable then YOU CAN"T SAY ANYTHING AS THEM BEING PROOF
so find a new point because the devs themselves said not to use these to be used on anything about balance. the one and only thing they show is the popularity of killers and that freddy is over performing due
to high super high kill rate( it thought it was like 9% but it's still average) AND popularity and when looking at someone like huntress with a high popularity you see she has a really low kill rate but that is the opposite with freddy and when using LOGIC you can see that it is because of freddys super simple and strong power that even mediocre players can use effectively.1 -
Saying to "not take them seriously" is an attitude perspective, it does not make the data FALSE. It means it is going to variance based on things like suicide on hook.
It does NOT affect things like full escapes at 0K - which the metric of determining if a Killer is not viable.
You keep trying to use whataboutism that does not address that underlying point:
ALL KILLERS ACHIEVE 4Ks AT RED RANKS THEREFORE MAKING THEM VIABLE KILLERS.
You have yet to disprove THAT statement.
2 -
dude im done with you
"all killers can 4k"
lets ignore what survivors you got, if it was a swf, what map you got, what happened in the game, and if it was because of luck like getting them all downed one by a single chainsaw sweep as leatherface.
hey you know what your right! because i have an alt account at RANK 20 even tho i have over 2k hours and i can completely wipe out all survivors as any killer. in case you also can't read sarcasm skill is a thing.
0 -
All killers are viable, if your definition of viable is x.
Not all killers are viable, if your definition of viable is y.
Case closed.
0 -
You still have not produced a single bit of evidence that supports the claim that there is an unviable Killer.
0
![[Deleted User]](https://forums.bhvr.com/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
