Score per minute is better. If you're playing solo, then your score per match figure will be falsely low due to joining much more games already in play,
Win/loss is the best stat IF the same parameters/conditions are attached to all games (something which clearly doesnt occur with regards to public games at present - for example, playing in parties or not, game types and style etc,)
By the looks of it, league play will appear to have very "stable" parameters though meaning the win/loss stat will be a meaningful stat to compare IF comparing players in the same division etc.
Agree with the last part but not spmin better than spmatch.
Speed of win does not increase the value of a win - in fact I would say win margin would be the only thing to increase the value of a win and even that is not counted. If you win faster then you will have a slightly higher game total and then a chance of more wins to losses as more games played. That alone is enough with the time element.
Many players rush to get score but even on non-TDM score is not linear to result, as it is individual, therefore high score per minute will include players who lead their team but whose team lose, whereas another team who share their score will appear lower in score per min, but will have a better score per match overall as they win more. Tactics is relevant not an arcade high score chart like space invaders.
Otherwise why team games, why win. You can just score.
Remember also someone can go hell for leather bombing objectives and defusing whilst giving tons of points to enemies for failed attempts and could get an ok spmin in spite of losing the match fast (and therefore have a low spmatch).
Both though, are not linear to a win. Until that time - and I could create that here and now - W/L should be the only consideration.
Im not entirely sure I follow as I thought we were virtually in agreement here.
Lets say a TDM game always last 10 mins.
I join a game half way through and go 10-4. Another player, who happens to be equally good/bad as me who started the game, goes 20-8.
Using just this game, we both have the same SPM but he has twice as much "Score Per Match." Seems quite straightforward to me.
I know that over a lot of games, these discrepancies will iron out a lot but depending upon factors that have nothing to do with ability, some players will be more unfairly measured under the Score Per Match method (for example, those that play solo considerably more - they get thrown into more 'in play' games then those in paries.)
Now, if your point is that in TDM, it should actually be "Net Kills Per Min (or 10mins etc)" then fair enough, I agree that for TDM, that would be an even better stat to measure players on as one half of your task in TDM (ie, not dying) is now factored in too.
In objective games, the fact that deaths arent recorded in SPM is a gap in its measure, but not as much as the TDM case as in those, many times a death can almost have neutral (if, not a postive) impact on a teams chances of winning (flushing out opponents to trade kills in SnD for example.)
Score Per Minute DOES have gaps across all game modes (maybe FFA is an exception?) but it is by far the best single stat that Ive seen so far, given the game context/circumstances, at giving a quick insight into a players ability. In TDM, it can also be reliable if the KD stat (for TDM only) is also included, just like in Black Ops 1.
Win/loss, as is so far, can be a good indicator but that again can be disrupted or be "noisy" by factors other then a players ability (playing always in 6 man parties being the most obvious example.)
We are probably not far off agreeing. I'm at work now but later today or this weekend I will post a new thread with 3 primary points.
One about Score Per Minute vs. Score Per Match as an accurate determinant of individual contribution to any game type. One will revisit TDM standings (I'll just bump my old tables and points one), and I'll make a wins/losses ratio vs. score per match/minute.
Have a good one so long.