dear survivors, if you tbag me for using low tiers killers at red ranks

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 :)

This is big facts. You can play any killer and win in red ranks.

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.

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.

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.

current data is unreliable

so your "point" is invalid

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.

That data is so bad nobody should be using it

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.