Personally, it's fine by me if you think that. I was only offering my point of view. However, I still think it should be noted that in matchmaking, you don't necessarily know your opponent's background. You don't know whether or not they're going through a bad phase in their matchmaking career, or what their best map or playlist is. On the subject of Campaign, what I said is by no means a rule; it's merely something I have noticed.
Now that's certainly true. As I said, there is no definitive way to judge someone's skill. I've had awful days where I get dumped on by people I KNOW I could beat on even an average day (playing on my laggy ass TV in London makes a huge difference, for example), only to have those people berate or mock me for being worse than they inferred from my K/D. Nothing available to you in lobby is close to definitive (even a detailed waypoint stalk can only go so far), but I was just maintaining that K/D is the best way to judge, both in my experience and what I'd argue to be logical terms. Fair enough. Without sounding cocky, I'm better than most people I meet in MM, and I've played the Campaign through once. I guess our experiences are just different.
I think MATT's point rings true, at least to an extent. Mind if I use my own stats as an example? I don't want to come off as self-inflating, I just think I can use these trends to make a point. (I don't include numbers as to avoid a stat war or any silliness like that; but if you must check, go for it.) I use playlists stats, like Pegasi said as a better indicator if I truly want to look at someone's stats. Playlist and Recent Games. But anyway, back to the larger point: I started playing Reach with about a 1.08 K/D. Over time, I've managed to accrue a far higher average K/D. However, my recent playlists and favorites as I got better show higher than that (Rumble Pit, Squad Slayer, Anniversary Classic have numbers that show nearly double the performance increase). Because I have 4000 games played, these more recent numbers don't have as big of an impact. I think that's what he's trying to get at. That being said, someone with 4000 games AND a solid 2.00 would be far more impressive, as that indicates the person has been consistent or averages across their lifetime stats a 2.00. However, someone who only shows a 1.6 or something across 4000 games may have actually simply improved more faster and would possibly outplay the 2.0 guy. K/D doesn't tell you everything. Actually, I see it as an overused indication. Sure, it's the easiest to identify with but unless the person plays solid Team Slayer or Rumble Pit and never plays anything less than Party v Party in Team Slayer, K/D is not going to give you the full story. There are too many inconsistencies and random elements (Randoms v Teams, bad Teammates, bad day, etc.) to rely on one number. 10 games with the player gives you far more useful information, such as a better gauge on how good they are, how they play and what they prefer to play. I generally start categorizing players and gauging them in Matchmaking after the first 2 or 3 minutes of the match. I generalize in the lobby, as I said before in this thread but I do not really think too much on it until the 3 minute mark or so.
Certainly true. A quick glance at someone's overall competitive k/d doesn't give you their entire Halo history; it is at best the Cliff's Notes of the Cliff's Notes of their playing career. It can be misleading, it can leave out crucial details, etc. But in the context of what this thread is about - judging players quickly in the pre-game lobby to see which team ought to win - it works most of the time. It's a good generalizing tool that gives pretty reliable results. And that's really what we're talking about here. I can count on two hands the number of games I've played in the last six months where I was REALLY surprised, either by an individual player or a team. A few times, a team full of average-looking players was so coordinated that their individual averageness seemed to be a moot point; that always surprises me (but that's what I get for often playing with talented guys who are lone wolves at heart). And a few other times, a single player with a mediocre k/d turned out to be really good - one guy in particular gave me all I could handle in a team game, then beat me by a few kills in a 1v1. When I checked him out in full, I found the usual scenario - he plays mostly MLG and it's clearly dragged his k/d down about .5 lower than it would be. Regarding campaign, I don't look at that at all. To me, the best team players in MM are guys who usually play with a team and have the right mindset: they do callouts, they know when to risk their own neck to support a teammate, they understand map control, they keep power weapons away from the other team, they know how to flex between offense and defense in objective games, etc. None of it really has anything much to do with campaign. On the other hand, lots of players in matchmaking are awful team players, even many of those who frequently play as part of a team. It's rare to run into guys who are really the whole package in terms of teamwork. Edited by merge: If you mean that random elements like these factor into k/d, I don't think that's meaningful. Basic probability would indicate that over the long haul, everyone's luck in these categories is so close to the same as to have any variance be microscopic. Of course I mean among players that have played lots and lots of games - more than a hundred, maybe more than 500. But it's basically like poker, which works the same way. I used to play a lot of poker and I ran into so many guys who would say they were good players who just lost money because of bad luck. That's incorrect. In the long term, everyone's poker luck is the same: you get dealt the same number of bad hands, you're involved in the same number of bad beats (kings vs. someone else's aces), you run up against the same number of superior players, and so forth. Now people who consciously choose to minimize these factors - say, seldom or never playing with randoms - will have a better k/d because of it. But two guys who have played hundreds of games entirely with randoms will have the same luck effect, which means it washes out. Everyone's k/d is affected in the same way by bad luck (randoms vs. teams, bad teammates) and in the same way by good luck also (randomly paired with great players or coordinated teams who need one more guy); only by choosing to avoid those possibilities in most of your games can you avoid those effects on your stats. Sure. Ideally, I'd research a player on Waypoint and Halotracker, then play a hundred games with and against them (split 50/50). Then I'd know them better than they know themselves. But we don't have that luxury in the one minute before a random MM game starts.
I think I misrepresented what I was trying to say...I was moreso trying to indicate that player habits such as playing alone more frequently, playing more MLG or Grifball which could skew K/D either way, boosting in Rumble Pit/Multi Team, or always playing with a team could inflate or deflate a player's K/D by a serious amount. I've met players with close to a 2.0 who couldn't hold up to their numbers playing individually with randoms but because they almost always played as a team, they maintained such a high K/D. I used poor examples in my post.
I feel that you're somewhat missing my point. I look over K/Ds quickly in lobby and if anyone on the enemy team has roughly a 1.5 or higher and a decent number of kills to begin with then I make sure to keep an eye on them, anything 2 or over and I'll be damn sure to think twice about challenging until I'm confident I can outshoot them. Teams of people with generally high K/Ds is obviously of more concern. Yes, K/D can only be useful to a point and you shouldn't treat is as a concrete indication by any means. Yes, 3 minutes of play or even 10 whole games is a much better indication of skill. But at the risk of sounding trite, this thread is called "predicting skill" and I'm just a little surprised at "experience playing against them for a while and then gauge their skill" being a suggestion. I would have thought that's a given, but even you admit that K/D is still worth a look in lobby, moreso than any other indication which could be used to predict. That's all I'm saying really.
I am strayng a bit from the topic, I see now...but the point I was tying to make is still related, I suppose I didn't directly tie it in well. My point being that these predictions should be flexible. While at a glance, you can estimate a players skill, too many people I used to play with take that number too seriously and use it as the sole indications of skill when playing against other people. I suppose I'm moreso using this somewhat relevant topic to indirectly rant against that philosophy. To tie it in, I'd like to say that I elaborated on the finicky nature of K/D to indirectly indicate that it should not be the only factor to consider when evaluating a player, even in the lobby. When I do look at a player's Service Record in the lobby, I also look at their Legacy and Date Joined, for example. Those two can also give me a half-decent idea of what to expect. My point was that these numbers are not concrete and should be considered a generalization that may not hold true in game. I consider the counterpoints I listed to K/D above when viewing their stats in the lobby as to prevent too serious a judgement or consideration. I probably should have directly stated that sooner. However, I would also like to say that I used the playlist stats/recent games when playing in the Throwdown to predict my opponent's skill, although obviously that is in a different context. In those circumstances (competitive customs) I still advise and consider all of the stat-picking and consideration I listed above. In the context of Matchmaking, which is the primary point of the thread, I still consider the fact that these stats do not always hold true (and armor/gamertag generalizations I listed earlier) and that I cannot get a completely accurate picture until I play. Hope that helps clear things up. I was missing the point; I hope this ties everything back in.
I suppose it would be great if from the lobby we could view an opponent's K/D for the playlist currently selected over the last 10 or so games, with any anomalous K/D ratios filtered out. Perhaps that would give a much more accurate representation of the player's current skill.
I'd say that's true up to a general maybe even hero but, also look at there career if there positive by over 20% than you might want to look out, they at the very least know there way around maps and know how to get kills. Another way is armor. If they are using low rank armor and there high ranked than they are probably good, also the color. My observation is if they use full black or a weird combination but still kinda look good, with it (like sage and whit, or orange and yellow) be careful they may be better than you think. It all deals with the Psyche.
I don't think k/d is a truly accurate indicator of someone's skill level, one of my friends' k/d could be 10; but only because everyone he plays against (including me) sucks at Halo. Think about it...
We're talking about matchmaking k/d, not customs. I don't even look at people's k/d in customs because it's meaningless. Matchmaking numbers are less likely to be completely skewed.
Define Skill:The ability to do something well "Predicting skill" All depends on how you define "Skill" there are two main skill sets imo I call this set "aim/twitch/dueling skills" which the skill involves the ability to kill without dieing with a high skill player been able to get perfections/killtactulars etc without dieing which would be deadly to vs in 1v1 DMR battle obviously K/D is best pregame gauge. 2nd skill set is "strategy skills" which the skill involves your ability to win the game you entered in with a High skill player been able to win even vs a team of highly skilled players which involves knowing when to attack when to take a flag how to make diversions etc and obviously best gauge is W/L. There not mutually exclusive but ask yourself what skill set are you trying to find out about a player or what you want from a player, if there good at fighting or winning then check the retrospective stats. But someone focusing on K/D can be detrimental to your W/L and vise versa, A good obvious example on how someone focusing K/D be bad for your W/L is: Killing someone without sprint in middle of hemorrhage CAN be worse then waiting for him to walk across map because him respawing can put him in a better position to defend his base faster then walking back. Might be thinking oh that's situational or barely any effect on game etc etc but point is in that situation killing someone lowers your chance(however low the chance may be) to win and i can guarantee most snipers camping your base wont think twice about shooting a guy slowly walking in middle of hemorrhage. There are millions of other situations where K/D will negatively effect your chances to win mostly small but there there and when u add them all up from all the players can easily lose a game. I don't think i need to explain how focusing W/L can negatively effect your K/D. "There not mutually exclusive but ask yourself what skill set are you trying to find out about a player or what you want from a player, if there good at fighting or winning then check the retrospective stats."
Even W/L has some real issues with it though. I barely ever play in a party and when I do it's generally with one other person, and I also play a lot of Objective (particularly since Squad Slayer got axed), so my W/L has no real chance of reflecting how good I am even in a strategic sense. Simply being good at the mental approach required for CTF won't cut it with randoms who either won't or can't coordinate. This is why I think W/L is definitely an interesting and potentially useful stat, but if anything is even less reliable than the already questionable K/D.
I know it's a bad, but to predict skill if they are a high rank, then I check their KD, if they are positive +40,000 I'm worried, yet in games KD seems to prove me wrong multiple times.
I almost never play in a party and if i play with anyone it's usually 1 maybe 2 people and i mostly play objective games and I have over 50% W/L in every playlist. Your W/L does reflect your ability to win/strategize though its just not in the same values as K/D your not gonna get a 2.0 W/L so its like: 50%+ W/L = 2.0+ K/D. Been able to carry a team of randoms to get you a win is just as skillful because if they can carry randoms they can carry you or coordinate with you, as been able to carry yourself to a high K/D that game because if they can kill they can assist you in fights and not feed kills to enemy team. It just comes down to what you value higher K/D or W/L both valuable stats for gauging specific skill sets but whatever you value higher will be more important to you but imo i think there equally valuable stats. (still personally I value W/L much higher)