We're pretty much on the same page rlbl. You're absolutely right - finding players, outside of FFA, who have strong KDR (positive) and strong WLR (also positive) and generally run solo is not that common. Well, they aren't hard to find. But players in the 2.0 kdr or higher area with positive wlr's and run solo and do not play much FFA are somewhat hard to find. But they are out there. Some of those guys do fine on teams, some do not. Actually, that may not really reflect what I'm trying to say. They do great either way. But their team play stats won't reflect their true capabilities because, like you for example. When you team up, you party up with guys that are genuinely skilled. Well, solo players who have good performances often do so because they are out there fixing their teammates' mistakes. When you're on a team that doesn't make many mistakes, you're not going to have as good a performance.
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.
I'm one of those players. I use 1 or 2 guns exclusively on most maps and against most players. I don't think players like me need to be excused for anything. If I'm running around with my AR and beating players with SMGs, LMGs, SRs and ARs, what's the problem?
One exception. I'll change my gun to match another player who seem to be beating me consistently, for example, with an LMG. I came across an LMG guy once and he just had my number. He traveled the same route as me on the map, and had a similar playstyle, killing me every time we met with my silence AR. When this happens, I'll switch to either an LMG or an unsilenced AR.
I'll do the same if I'm overmatched with any other gun. But, given the fact that when I die, it's usually because another player was quicker or anticipated me better, switching guns would have made no difference.
Finding your best weapon is the ultimate adaptation. If I do consistently well with one gun, I see no reason to use others just to use them.
I don't really have a problem with players who rely upon a single weapon ... but what of players who perform well regardless of the weapon in their hands? Are they less skilled? Equally skilled?
Personally, I want to have the same finesse using my most hated weapon as I do my most favorite weapon. Quite frequently I run out of ammo in both my primary and my secondary before being killed. Well, I'm not going to let being out of ammo dictate whether I live or die. That means I have to find another gun and I have to do so fast. There's nothing faster than picking up the first gun you come across.
The problem is that I may be set up for running & gunning and suddenly find myself holding a bolt action sniper rifle. Or I might be set up for sniping and pick up a shotgun. After scoring sometimes a dozen kills with one class and suddenly having to switch gears to a different weapon's strengths ... that ain't easy to do.
But it is fun has heck. I've gone through as many as five or six different guns with attachments I would never have put on the particular gun. And I generally don't use camos so sometimes the camos can be distracting, as well.
Anyway, hopefully my point comes across.
Well that's a different point than the one in your previous post. Of course you want to be relatively proficient at any gun. I pick up the first gun from the first person I kill. I'll use whatever gun chance has given me.
However, rarely do I run out of ammo in my primary before I'm killed. If I'm killed, I simply go back to where I was killed and pick up the ammo I just dropped. So, although an issue to consider, it's not all that a big deal in my game at least.
If a person does well with any gun but still loses to me most of the time, I would say I'm a more skilled player, even if I only use one or two guns. I've seen plenty of people switching up their classes against me. I'll admit though, that it's the terrifically skilled run and gunner with an SMG who usually gives me the most trouble. But, like I said, when this is the situation, I'll switch my class to match that one particular person.
If a gun works well for a person as an all purpose gun, I don't see anything wrong with it, or that I need an excuse for exclusively using it.
People see K/D as an indicator of a players skill. And since they don't have a better stat they fell it matters. Personally I think that K/D only matters in TDM. In every other game mode, even FFA, W/L would be a better indicator. If I win every game of FFA but others have better K/D in FFA who really is the better FFA player. Same goes for objective based game modes. In team based games however W/L is skewed by players only interested in maintaining great stats. And many players don't have control over who they are teamed with. So although W/L would be an important stat for FFA, the team aspect of objective based games which is not simply to kill (like TDM) makes it a unreliable stat as an indicator of a players skill in objective based team games.
In TDM a positive K/D generally means a positive contribution to the team goal, which is to win by killing more than you are killed. However, like in many of the game modes, this can be abused if some of the players don't really care about winning as long as they maintain positive stats. I have never understood this mentality but I know many care more about there K/D than winning the game. They see it as an indicator of their skill because, although not a perfect indicator of skill in TDM, there is a high correlation between K/D and a players skill in TDM. This is why I have suggested a better stat for TDM, a weighted K/D. Specifically I would like to see a stat for K/D x average kills per game (lets call it KDA). This would be a far better stat in TDM as an indicator of a players skill because it also take into consideration their contribution to any victory. In my case my KDA in Ghost would be 2.09 x 15 = 31.35. Of course even this stat can be skewed by players who only play in a team or leave when they aren't doing very well but, in spite of those limitations, it would have an extremely high correlation with a players skill in TDM.
For objective modes I think many of the problems could be resolved and the stats more reflective of player skills if IW implemented a 2 tier point streak system, one for objectives (which hurt your personal stats) and one for kills. Objective streaks would be rewarded with assault streaks and kills would be rewarded with support streaks. It also balances the K/D better by rewarded players that play the objective and risk their life with streaks than obtain kills. See IW you can use other mechanisms, other than nerfing everything, to balance the game.
How does that reveal anything about a player's skill in TDM? I mean, there's guys out there that are content with getting 7 or 8 kills a match, so long as they don't ever die. Let's say they do get killed now and then, though, and so their kdr is 7:1. That means they would have a team contribution weight of 49 to your 31.25, did half the work you did, and did not even meet their quota of kills (which, to me, is 12 in a standard TDM match). To be frank, I don't see anything new that the stat provides.
What I do see is how the stat understates stronger performances. Pulling off an average of 15 kills a match is harder to do than pulling off 12 kills a match - regardless of how many times you get killed. Under your program, however, a guy with a 2.6 kdr and averaging only 12 kills a match is statistically as good as you.
Given my two examples, the incentive would then be to score fewer kills and, instead, stay alive. Don't you think that promotes more camping? Not that I have anything against camping, but the community already often complains about campers.
In reality, I don't believe stats like K/D matter. I think the community takes stats a bit too seriously like it's their life to hold onto a high K/D ratio. I mean at the end of the day (specifically in the real world), what do you profit from having good stats in a video game?
Let's just say the next COD title did not record stats, there was no K/D, no W/L etc and you could not compare your stats amongst other players.
How differently would the game be played? Would there be a reduction in players quitting during a match? Would there be less complaints about one's playstyle or what weapons/loadouts they use?
Would the community really care about how well they do in COD?
vims, actually, I firmly believe that if stats, specifically, KDR, was not a part of Call of Duty, no one would buy the game. You're right - it has no "real world" value, but if a "real world" value were needed to play a game, games would not be played at all. It's all about entertainment. Entertainment is a means of escaping reality. In the alternate world of Call of Duty, KDR matters. For that matter, in a way, KDR is at the root of every discussion in the forums, outside of Off Topic.
Whether we like it or not, when it comes to Kall of Duty, KDR is King.