- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
Posted by: Plasma Prestige
Let me preface my post by saying that my K/D in Halo 4 is slightly less than 1 as of this post's original submission. I am not here to justify my skill--or lack thereof--in this discussion. The conclusions I reach and the arguments I present are all based on my observations of Halo multiplayer for the past five years. I am also not here to arbitrarily assign all ranges of kill to death ratios to certain skill levels.
So, now that that's out of the way, let's get to it.
When measuring skill in competitive arenas in video games--and usually shooters--it has become custom to use one datum: the kill to death ratio. And for good reason. In these games, the primary objective is generally to obtain more kills than the opposing team(s), so it would be logical to presume that a player who killed more than was killed positively contributed to the team.
What disturbing "consensus" I have seen, however, is the placement of the average K/D ratio. Please note that I am not talking about players' K/Ds who are average; I am literally talking about the statistical average when analyzing data. While there is a correlation between these two sets, they are not identical.
Many users of the B.net forums--and of the Waypoint forums as those have emerged as the Halo HUB--seem to think that the average K/D ratio is above 1.0, and players who have a ratio of 1.0 are below average.
This is a conclusion I completely disagree with, both in the statistical analysis and skill-gap aspects. If the statistical arithmetic average K/D for the entire game's competitive population is significantly less than or greater than 1, then there is something wrong with the game's balancing or matchmaking. Now, let's move on to the more controversial aspect: skill.
I believe Recon (Number 54) said some time recently that a 1:1 K/D is an indicator that the matchmaking system and the player are working together properly (apologies if this is out of context or incorrect). I completely agree. In fact, I would argue that any significant (say, 0.5) deviation from this is a result of poor matchmaking results or, less likely, balancing. This makes sense: clearly a player with 0.5 ratio who tried is not playing against the right people and the same goes for a player who has far surpassed 1.5. Now, this needs to be analyzed in trends, not single matches, as outliers do occur.
My ultimate point is this. While K/D is a measure of player proficiency to some degree, we as a community need to reach the consensus that an average K/D is in fact around 1. I feel if this is agreed upon, a lot of the squabbling and biting seen in some of the more heated debates about matchmaking systems will settle down in the future.
'Nuff said.