The higher the k/d someone has the lower it is somewhere else. Proving that if there are very high k/ds then someone has the short straw and that also means for people to have high k/ds a vast majority of players must be very bad.
This can be backed up, my kd is 1.80
on cod 4 its around 2.4 and mw2 its 2.7
so anyway checking my halo 2 stats and im only 1.2 which makes me feel bad, however that only proves to me that in general the playerbase had more skill
WHY IS EVERYONE MISSING THIS POINT
Oh, were you making a point? --- MvC3 Mains - Spidey(Y)/Deadpool(B)/Doom(B) | Experimenting: Phoenix(A)/Dante/(Y)/Doom(B) XBL GT: KageSenshi ------ Chikara - Chie - Yuuki
What is viewed as an acceptable K/D in online shooters on gamefaqs has steadily increased. This is how you get the incredible situation of somebody describing a 1.5 K/D ratio as that belonging to an "average" player.
Personally, I'd prefer it if people stopped harping on about such a meaningless stat, but that day will never come to pass.
If you can't see that the average K/D doesn't necessarily have to be 1.0, think of a simple example.
Suppose that player A and player B have a 1v1. Player A wins 10-1. Then Player A's K/D for that match was 10, while B's was 0.1. The average of these two is 5.05. If the Halo 4 playerbase was split into two equally sized groups - those with K/D's of 10.00 and those with K/D's of 0.1 - then the average K/D would be 5.05.
A high K/D ratio can indicate anything from "has incredible innate talent" to "mercilessly slaughters thumbless guests and teams of two to pad stats". Don't read too much into it.