Kill Death Ratio verse Kill Death Spread

I have a concern with Halo that’s bothered me for awhile now - Bungie and now 343 Industries continue to use this standard of evaluating a player’s effectiveness by using the kill/spread “ratio”. In addition, many (if not all) 3rd party websites like do the very same thing. Why do they use this stat but at the very least, why do they not include the Kill/death spread stat that is arguably a much better indicator of skill?

Now I’ve heard numerous people claim that at the end of a game that the person with the better kill/death ratio is better…but this is wrong in my opinion. There are people out there in the halo community that believe that a person who averages 3 kills and 1 death is better than the other play who averages 30 kills and 11 deaths per game. One player is +2 and the other is +19.

This is an extreme example but is serves the purpose of point out the flaw in using the Kill/death ratio. Obviously the plahyer who averages +19 is far better than the player that averages +2. Possibly the reasoning is that using the k/d ratio is flawed in that a player who strives to have the best kill spread, in the end sacrifices his K/D ratio in order to help the team actually win games. The more you camp and stay out of the action, then the higher your K/D ratio would be…but I wouldn’t say that player is better or more skillfull for camping during all their games in order to reach a higher k/d ratio. I believe that the higher the kill spread you acheive in a given game, then the more you have to be attacking people and in effect, your k/d ratio decreases with the rise in kill/spread.

In the end, I propose that the better indicator of skill is by looking at someones average “Kill/death “spread” per game”. I ask you this, who would you rather have on your team…the person that has an average kill spread of +19 per game and a kill/death ratio of 2.72…or would you rather want the player that on average goes +2 and has a kill/death ratio of 3.

This brings me to my final question…which do you think should be the standard for evaluating a player at a glimpse? If you choose K/D spread, then I know that you understand what I mean…but if you choose K/D ratio, please try to explain to me the reasoning behind your choice. (As I just cannot see any good reasoning to support that opinion).

I like your idea.

Thanks Viral, I like it too…but at the very least I think it should go hand and hand with any area that shows the K/D ratio. Frankly If i was in a slayer match and i saw someone with a 3 K/D ration but an average of a +2 kill/spread then I would know that he’s a camper and will have very little impact on whether I lose or win my match/game. If it’s something with a 2.72 k/d ratio and a +19 average kill spread…I know that if I cannot match his +19 of some sorts, then I will lose the game easily and quickly as he is a “go getter” and in the thick of the battle all the time…in which he mostly always wins the 1v1 battles and survives.

I actually just calculated my own k/d spread against someone that had a much better k/d ratio than me. In double team my K/D ratio is 1.87 and his is 2.49. In the comparison you’d think he was WAY better than me. When you look at the kill/spread per game, I’m at a 6.16 and he’s at a 6.55. None the less, his is higher than mine but this basically means that on average in a game between him and I in double team, that 50% of the time our K/D spreads would be a tie, and the other 50% his K/D spread would exceed mine by one kill.

Now obviously our stats are derived from playing others but in a perfect world this is what would happen. There are even more extreme examples and trust me when i say that i can find plenty of situations where someone’s K/D ratio is better than mine, but my average K/D spread is better than theres. If K/D ratio was a perfect indicator of skill, then this should not happen.