My K/D matter to me, not very much, but only because I'm not going out of my way to increase it. I use it as a gauge to determine if what I'm doing is effective or not..
For instance I started Ghosts out camping hard and my K/D was 4.3 however I didn't feel like I was contributing enough and having a K/D that high usually brings bad publicity. So I changed up my game and started pushing a bit harder and my K/D dropped to around 1.7. To me I was doing something wrong for it to drop that much that fast. So I changed it up my playstyle again and now I've level out between 1.8 and 2.0.
I'm not playing the match solely to preserve my K/D, if I did it would be around a 3.5 or 4.0. Instead I use it a secondary source to determine my effectiveness.
You had me up to the point you started giving your opinion on the levels of noobery for the guns. Yes, K/D isn't the be all, end all to show how good a player is. Performance metrics are complicated and with the lack of stats in Ghosts, there isn't really a way to quantify how good a player is unless you play them personally and see with your own two eyes.
My main point of contention with your post is your opinion that somehow the Honey Badger is a "skill" gun when compared to the "noob" LSAT. How can you make that statement with a straight face? The honey badger gifts the user an attachment, thus basically giving the user the 3x attachment perk for free. It has great range, very little recoil and still does good damage. The LSAT, on the other hand, doesn't come standard with the VMR sight. One must use it in place of another attachment. And, unless you have grip on the weapon it takes some skill to work with the recoil at distance with the VMR sight. In the hands of a skilled user, both weapons shine. In the hands of noobs, both become noob weapons.
It is not the weapons that are the issue, it is the skill level of the player using them. This intellectual fallacy needs to start being addressed by the players themselves or this kind of thinking will continue.
Did not read this in its entirety (no offence, I will go back up and read it) but this topic has been beaten to absolute death.
here is the summary from the <who knows how many posts before this one>
In a game modes where you can win without killing: KD does not matter. Period, we can argue that all day but anyone and everyone should know this by now. Examples Domination (best example), Headquarters.
In game modes where the goal is to eliminate the enemy (or at least beat them down lol) yes KD is everything (best, but not only example TDM)
Odd cases: KD should matter in SnD, but you *can* win matches with an average team negative KD. This happens a lot when the enemy trie to hard to kill the other team, instead of playing the bomb objective (ever see someone trying to kill the last player alive and failing, instead of defusing the bomb?)
- This is not *me* saying it *just because I said so*... like indicated, this topic has been kicked around so much it cannot even remotely be unique.
And as far as looking at someone's stats as an indicator of "skill" :
1 - stats are meaningless. Someone who is "very good" will have good stats.
2 - Just because someone has decent stats, does not mean they are good
3 - why do people care what their stats show. Show people how good you are by being a team player. Having great personal stats and a W/L in the toilet is not impressive. As a hiring manager, I have seen a lot of people lie on their CVs
4 - if you see someone who has "meh" stats, that does not always mean they are a "bad" player.
This is a game, setup in a virtual world. If one needs a game to show how good one is, they are compensating for something lacking in RL.
Sorry... thinking out loud there.
I used to play with someone who had excellent stats. He took pride in stats so much, that he was not a dam player, at all. He would rather back out or hang back to preserve his stats (W/L was not important to him - not saying it should be, but you get my point). Anyways, playing with him was not fun at all.
If you can have fun, be sociable, be a team player (when the situation calls you to be), that is awesome. My stats are not good. I am not sure I have ever had a K/D over one (usually my goal playing solo is to get as many points as possible to prestige fast), but my W/L is up there because playing solo or on a team, I play for the win and watch my teammates back and let them know if I think they are in trouble.
Not everyone appreciates that, but I often get invite to play with people.
Ah, heck. We all love arguing about KD. That's why it ain't ever going away!
I'm with Toland - you just about had me until you started arbitrarily deciding which weapons are noobish and which are leet. I agree with you that you can look at a player's weapons stats and determine a trend for that player. The player may rely upon two or three weapons. I've seen this with a lot of high kdr players. Now, you can excuse that to some degree. If they've only recently made it to the highest prestige, for example, then they probably found the one they're most comfortable with and used that one gun to get through all the prestige levels. They may now be working on leveling up other guns. However, a player that is well settled into the highest prestige and still relies on only a couple of weapons, IMO, that player's "skill" is not as broad as it could be. That player has a weakness and that weakness accompanies their favorite weapon(s).
Similarly, you can look at perks, lethals, tacticals, attachments, streak reward useage, etc. In my experiences, most high KDR players have a narrow band of features they use in the game. As an opponent, I don't have to get online and look up your typical load out. I can figure out what a player relies upon by seeing your KDR in the lobby before the match starts and then after 2 or 3 engagements, I know what you tend to rely upon. That means ... I know your weaknesses. High KDR or not. So, how skilled is a player who gives away his strengths and weaknesses?
The bottom line is that KDR, on its own, is certainly not a be-all, end-all measure of a player's skill. It must be looked at with a lot of other factors. To that end, I wholly disagree with EnenDavey - there exists more than enough information about players within IW stats to determine a player's habits. You just have to know what to look for.
rlbl, you're right about the meaning of stats while playing the game. Who cares? because you're not going to have time between matches to look up every player's stats and other information. I agree, as well, that "good stats" =/= good player. But, what of players who have good stats AND a good WLR? I've come to see that some people who do great playing solo can also have less impressive performances on an organized team (that's because the work gets spread out better). But that also does not apply to every player. In fact, it probably applies to few players. Finally, yes, "meh" stats does not mean "bad player."
...what of players who have good stats AND a good WLR? I've come to see that some people who do great playing solo can also have less impressive performances on an organized team (that's because the work gets spread out better). But that also does not apply to every player. In fact, it probably applies to few players.
I know a guy who is a good player, has good stats to back it up (stats are always in the double digits... legit). The one thing: He only played when his mates were on. They were very organized, but when he was solo he did not play (much).
I am one of those players that when I play solo I do ok, sometimes very well (often finishing at the top of the boards in confirms and kills - I mainly play KC when solo). When I play with teams I do not always do as well (I often surround myself with better players than I). As well, I am that guy who is going for the win, and counting on my mates to cover me if they are not going to help cap (domination).
Although they are out there, you do not find too many players that have a high KD and high WL from team games. A lot of them do so in FFA. When they try to play games where it is not every person for themselves, they do not do as well (are these the players of which you speak?)
Props to those out there who claim to be good, have the consistent stats to back the claims up, play well solo and in a team, and are genuinely fun people to hang with (virtually)