"Unviable killers"
RakimSockem
Member Posts: 1,692
So with the release of the most recent stats (I know, i know. Taken with a grain of salt), can we stop all the crap about there only being 3 viable killers in the game?
Literally EVERY killer in the game has above a 50% kill rate IN RED RANKS including the killers people say are unviable and unusable. And while the stats don't show everything that goes into a match (items, add ons, moris, dumb decision making), it DOES show that all killers CAN perform well at the high levels.
So maybe if you're not doing well as killer, you just need to get better because someone out there is getting hella kills with these so called weak characters
20
Comments
Agree but you shouldnt take 100% of your opinion only out of the stats, 50% killrate doesnt mean EVERY game 2 kills, that can also mean 4 games 0ks and 1 game 4k... and that 1 game 4k can mean mostly a luckily bad survivor team as killer. When I play legion against good survivors, I cant do anything, not because I am bad or dont know how to mindgame, legion has no ability to shorten a chase so I JUST relie on the mistakes of survivors until I catch them.
Mostly I get only 1k and IF i am lucky and get bad survivors I will get obviously 4ks. So my point is, only because you see the stats of the killers doesnt say or mean that ALL killers are completly fine and JuST LeARn hOW tO PlAy.
"Viability" means, that the killer is able to win against every tier of survivors, if played good enough. The statistics show nothing about killers versus swf, so that's no proof for nothing.
Im honestly surprised legion wasnt down with clown
wait, how does 4 games with 0k and 1 game with a 4k balance out to 50%? I'm confused on your math there
@supersonic853
Thats true I was suprised too. But it CAN it doesnt has to be but it can be because so few ppl play legion so it is way easier to get a better killrate if the killer isnt played that much you know. So basicly the more ppl play a killer, the harder it is to get a better killrate.
What they mean with the word "unviable" is that you'd probably have no chance against a tryhard swf team with the killer that is not viable. Doctor, Leatherface, Trapper for example.
SWF is included in the data because it's all matches.
So you want an entire different stat for SWF matches vs non SWF matches? And then from there, do you also want it broken down into a separate chart for 2SWF with 2 solo, 2 SWF with 2SWF, 3 SWF with solo, and 4 SWF? That's just a waste of time and ridiculous to even consider doing. Doesn't make too much of a difference tbh. SWF groups are more altruistic and make dumber choices most of the time (I know because I play in 4 man squads often and my friends do dumb things to make sure I get out, and I do the same to make sure they escape)
I wasn't surprised in the slightest. Clown has literally nothing going for him. Joke of a killer.
@RakimSockem
Well I guess I discombobulated myself and my brain xD Its 25% then your right, but I guess you got my point, it doesnt mean that you will always 2k in every game. Thats my point
I don't understand your point? When anyone says there's only 3 viable killers, they're referring to when they're playing SWF squads. I am familiar with a lot of survivors at red ranks and also play with them as survivor, so I know if I play a lower tier killer I will absolutely get demolished, for example. So I will play a top tier killer against them. I can still do well outside of survivors like that, but against survivors who play survivor as well as I play killer? No chance.
I also disagree with the idea that because all killers have higher killrates than you'd expect, that means that a killer isn't unviable. Technically speaking, LF isn't a viable killer against most survivors in red ranks, but you can think of many scenarios how he would have a higher than you'd expect kill rate. Because as the devs stated, these are raw pick and kill stats, they speak nothing of the other information, and people use it to justify their opinions.
You effectively attempt to kill any sort of discussion on the things a killer can use by randomly tossing up "BUT X KILLER HAS Y KILL %!" Yeah. Go play Trapper against good survivors, or even in general, and tell me he shouldn't have 2 traps by default, or removal of his RNG traps which often cause a trap to have 0 impact. Or how Wraith in his current state shouldn't simply have a Windstorm/Swifthunt built into his kit.
Why don't I just sit here and make up random stuff from these %'s like other people have been? Hey, so, I think DS is fine because x killer has y killrate, which is high, like all of them, therefore DS isn't OP because despite DS being a meta perk run almost universally by survivors, clearly it doesn't have much of an impact on killer kill rates!
Right of course. That's how averages work. Some will be below average, others above. And the average would be 50% if there was a perfect balance of Above and below. The fact that most killers are 60% or above however does show that more matches lean towards 4k than 0k though.
TO BE CLEAR, I'm not arguing that killers are OP or should be nerfed and in fact I think some killers could use some buffs.
The only thing I'm saying is, the data show red ranked killers are able to play ALL the killers at high level and perform well in the current state of the game. And with the kill rates in the 60% and above range, it means your matches as killer will more often end with 3ks and 4ks than with 0k or 1k. That's all I'm saying. They're all usable. This is coming from someone who mains Trappers, Michael, and Wraith when I play killer.
Well its kinda a good thing all killers have 50% or above because isnt that what the devs are aiming for and once youve killed 2 if theres still like a bunch of gens left you've probably guranteed the 3rd kill. But another thing that impacts it is how many times the killers played. Like really high skilled players would play legion or at least i hope the people who know how to play him. His amount of plays would be different then others.
I mean, it's kind of funny that people use these raw statistics for their arguments.
I can just as easily tell you that Nurse needs to be buffed because of her pickrate and killrate. She 100% does need a buff due to it. She simply has the lowest killrate.
Yet, people will tell me that the Nurse stats are skewed for this reason, or that reason. But guess what? The same argument doesn't work when I talk about similar variables for the other killers. It's funny how that works.
@RakimSockem
Could be or could be not, we have no proof for that ^^ Whenever I see a legion as killer, this happens:
Pick rate and viability are not correlated, but nice try I guess? I main Trapper, Wraith, an Myers (sometimes Huntress) because they're fun to play imo. Has nothing to do with viability, I just like those characters (and apparently a lot of people have been picking Trapper but I suspect that has to do with the Tomes)
Either way, I made no comments anywhere in this thread suggesting anything should be buffed or nerfed so idk where you're coming from with your comment
you posted a picture that shows a bad killer match against a team that was mostly above the killer's level. I could also provide screenshots of trapper matches where I got 4ks but that wouldn't prove anything. We've already discussed that for the average to be at a 2k, there would have to be some matches with 4ks and other matches with 0k. If no matches ended with 0k, then the average would be much higher
@RakimSockem
He was actually a decent legion that tried to apply and spread his pressure with dying light and tanatophobia but we just didnt heal and pushed gens, at was even in doctor map, a good map for legion because its small.
I don't think the devs should be spreading the idea that if you play a certain killer you will rank up and do better than if you played any other killer. I can (figuratively) guarantee that there is at least one person in the top 10 players who can get to rank 1 every month with both survivor and killer using no perks, no addons and the "worst " killer, while blindfolded , doing a handstand and speaking fluent mandarin backwards..
the concepts of "builds", "tier 1 characters" etc etc.. to be quite frank, it's complete nonsense. The game doesn't make you a good player. You make you a good player. The constant promotion of the idea that you must play x using y build.. is utter nonsense which has been proven wrong multiple times across multiple different games (MTG, WOW, etc etc). A mediocre player playing the top killer with the top build, is never going to beat a rank 1 god playing wraith , while blindfolded with no perks. THat is just fact. All these statistics are meant for is for the middle man who just wants to be able to compete, but if they never learn how to play the game, it won't matter who they play as. It's ideas like this that actually ruin the ranking system, because everyone is in the red ranks simply because of the build/killer they are using. But as soon as you nerf the killer /build they suck. They cannot adapt and are forced to accept the reality that they need to "git gud". Not meaning to be rude, just stating the obvious.
I thought by "viable killer" people mean as much as:
"is able to 4k with up to 12 hooks regardless of how good the survivors play IF the killer in question is played to their full potential"
Obviously you can do well as any killer at any rank.
Actually I even had a perfect "12 hook game" as Bubba against a full 4-(wo)man red rank SWF team with items yesterday completely "without camping/tunneling/slugging/without hooking the same survivor twice in a row" at "Hawkins" BUT:
- it was an extremely close game (3 hooking each survivor without going for the same survivor twice in a row resulted in ALL OF THEM being alive at 1 remaining generator and a game that was longer than my console can even record).
- AND all of them made crazy mistakes in nearly EACH of their chases.
- AND they were slow on the gens.
If it hadn't been for all the mistakes they made during the chases and if they had been quicker on the gens I would have probably gotten 0-kills despite playing Bubba at full potential and finding + downing everyone fairly quickly.
And that's where the term "viability" comes into play in my book. I need to play Bubba perfectly AND the survivors have to make horrible mistakes in order to make a "12 hook / 4k" even possible against halfways experienced survivors.
Therefore my favourite killer isn't actually "viable" since MY success is always the result of survivor mistakes rather than my own skill.
You can tell me if I'm just seeing things wrong but that's how it seems to me.
Every killer can do well against some red rank survivors because red ranks are full with people who don't belong there. There are survs who only run in straight lines and ignore windows + loops. Of course you can win against these players.
And with the upcoming rank reset change, there will be even more people at red ranks.
The problem is when you are playing against well-organized survivors who also know how to run routes correctly.
So you are saying, that you know what the data would show so you don't need to see it? Ok then.
The way I see it, if both the survivors AND the killer are playing at their best, the match should end in a 2-3k.
In the scenario you described, the survivors mistakes is what earned you the 4k. I didn't watch the match obviously so I can't point out any mistakes you may have made during the match (if you made any. we're all human so it happens).
I wish all games were as close as you described that one, with maybe one person being dead when the survivors are on the last gen. Landslide victories on either side shouldn't happen very often and in my opinion, it should come down to half the survivors dying last minute and the other half barely escaping (being on death hook)
you're reading too far into what I actually said. What I'm saying is it would be cool and all to release those stats, but I'm willing to bet there isn't a huge difference in survival rates between SWF and non SWF teams. There will be a difference, but it won't be a huge one.
"So with the release of the most recent stats (I know, i know. Taken with a grain of salt), can we stop all the crap about there only being 3 viable killers in the game?"
You literally just contradicted your entire post. I know these stats aren't completely valid but now I'm going to make a conclusion based on them being valid.
"And while the stats don't show everything that goes into a match (items, add ons, moris, dumb decision making), it DOES show that all killers CAN perform well at the high levels."
No, it does not. As you have even said yourself ad nauseum, there a many, many factors not being taken into account for these stats that skew them heavily.
The devs have stated repeatedly, do not use these stats for drawing conclusions as they are heavily flawed, exactly as you are doing now, along with the other 100 posts made on the forums exactly like yours.
Yeah the whole 'viable' and 'not viable' thing is just kinda nonsense in this game, doesn't really have any agreed upon definition.
Doesn't matter what rank you are, you can do good with any killer.
What conclusion did I come to? Where in my paragraph did I state anything as definitive or conclusive?
Literally my paragraph could be summarized to say "People need to stop complaining about only 3 killers being viable. Kill rates are high across the board. People need to improve because there are others out there doing just fine with all killers."
I mean, as long as I enjoy playing them I will care not for their "viability"
"So with the release of the most recent stats (I know, i know. Taken with a grain of salt), can we stop all the crap about there only being 3 viable killers in the game?"
"And while the stats don't show everything that goes into a match (items, add ons, moris, dumb decision making), it DOES show that all killers CAN perform well at the high levels."
^ All the conclusions you are drawing.
"Literally my paragraph could be summarized to say "People need to stop complaining about only 3 killers being viable. Kill rates are high across the board. People need to improve because there are others out there doing just fine with all killers.""
You literally just posted your conclusions you drew from the stats after saying you didn't draw any conclusions. You are saying people are wrong about certain killer viability based on the stats, that is a conclusion. You are implying they're incorrect based on the stats
I think it will be like day and night. But if BHVR would release those stats they would need to bring solos near swf. They don't want to invest those resources, easy like that.