kd alone no. In team deathmatch anf FFA is says more but in for example domination.
I rather have a players with kd/s around the one that will and can cap a flag than players with kds of 2 which don't cap. Only killing people. (And a lot of time not even protecting flags)
decent objective players > kd players
I have a pretty bad KD rate
This is because i am ****
But i get fun out of it so ill take that,i had the game on day 1 so ive had several weeks of spawn die,30 deaths is nothin with the daft spawn.
PS the thing about judging a KD by its cover is hard to take when everyone suddenly appears on a new account with a perfect 50 games played & 50 wins,as all they play is infected,the ducks with hoops game at the funfair,unless you get the 2 retards who try to beat the game by the infected m8 blockin a doorway so his m8 can hide & then can say i won a game ....DORK
My 2 cents: Personally, I use k/d as kind of a "pride booster." Meaning, I like looking at the leaderboards at the end of the day and seeing that my k/d is considerably higher than average. It gives me a good feeling inside, knowing that I am playing well and have proof to back that up. What I don't use it for: bragging. I would never enter a lobby and start talking trash to someone because "their k/d isn't as good as mine." That's absolutely absurd and childish.
I do, however, enjoy the benefits of having a high k/d. Kids "ooing" and "aweing" over it in lobbies, or just backing out because they don't want to play against me. Makes me giggle.
Admittedly, K/D for me is a bit of the same. I think its amusing when people back out once they see my stats. On the other hand, having higher stats than average can make you a target. I play solo on Xbox Live and Iast week I played against a bunch of punks rolling in a full party, who felt the need to talk smack when they were able to bring me below my average K/D a few games even though I didn't even have a mic.
I was paired with a bunch of randoms all of which couldn't maintain a positive score and went deeply negative feeding them kill streaks. It was a tough few games that made me pretty mad, but overall it was a good challenge. I managed to stay positive and have a few good scores. My stats did take a small beating, but at least I didn't back out.
K/D is a good measure of if you can you win your gunfights. When you play solo, being paired up with a fair team is based on luck, so having a high W/L is more a function of playing in a party. On PSN I play both on my own and in a clan. When we play together I can probably count the times I lost on one hand.
What draws me to COD is progressing my game play. What I liked about BO2 was how detailed the Elite website tracked your metrics and all the achievements you could unlock. Ghost is definitely a step back in that regard. You don't even get a patch for earning a KEM strike, which is a big miss.
If you're asking if K/D can be used as a legitimate argument as to whether a player is good or bad, then the answer is no.
It's no because we all have different perceptions of what a good player is.
To some people, the person with the highest k/d is the best player.
Have you ever played Infected over and over again? You can tell which people in those lobbies play Infected for 50+ games in a row. They often have 5.0 W/L and 3.5 + K/D. Then again, they get 7 kills with the bulldog per game, and hide in a corner once they are infected. They finish the game with a 7:1 ratio and a win (almost always winning). It slowly adds up.
Is this player, with a 3.5 k/d a better player than someone with a 2.5 k/d that plays various game modes, does a decent amount of objective work, has good accuracy, and can win most gunfights with a variety of weapons?
I would say no, they're not.
Some people might argue that the point of playing is K/D and W/L, and that's all that matters.
Here's another example:
Let's say you have two players that use the exact class and play the same game modes, run with players of equal skill, ect. Pretty much they play under the same conditions in game.
However, one player has a 2.0 while the other has a 1.5
The player with the 2.0 has a much better television and headset.
Stuff like that matters... and in Ghosts, when you go from playing on a 50' to a 24' you'll find that those long distant kills are way more challenging, and spotting enemies at a distance is harder in general.
You can replace the t.v. with other things like the headset, internet connection, controller, ect.
And then obviously, people who play solo have lower W/L and probably lower K/D than people who play in groups, but that doesn't mean they are worse as an individual, it means their team of randoms is consistently worse than a team that is working together.
Ignore the stats, you'll have more fun. Back in the day I had a 1.9 K/D, No one gives a F*** about that now, and it wouldn't be any different if I had a real 4.5 or something crazy like that.
K/D is not a good signal to one's skill, it's just the most obvious.
Sorry I didn't reply to your comment directly, it glitched into responding something else.
Anyway, when you said that it depends on the gamemode they play it got me thinking, and I've came up with a solution (or atleast my personal point of view).
The way I see it, their are four mixtures of K/D comparing to W/L. The first is low of both. Low W/L with a low K/D probably is seen to be a player who typically wants to have fun. Nothing there, so K/D can't really matter or lie.
A low K/D and a high W/L probably means yes he is more of an objective player. Its like in Domination. You risk being stationary in one spot for ten seconds while during those ten seconds an enemy can come out of nowhere and kill but atleast you got the objective. Reversing it to a high K/D and a low W/L shows that he probably rage quits most of his games. If you have a high of both, you are a tood core player.
So yeah, my personal preference on this. What I learned is that K/D and W/L do matter if compared to eachother.