There's alot of factors wich decide/contribute into beeing a good, great or bad player. Think about it.
Here's some things to think about.
Imagine a guy who got 10 kills in a round (in melee) a good or a bad player? Must be good right? After all he's got 10 kills... or he might suck bigtime in blocking/fighting at all BUT he had very good positioning and was flanking the team, or atacking from behind bashing into unsuspecting players who were busy dealing with people on the front?
What about the archer who has at the end of the map only 2 kills, but 5 deaths? According to his K/D he must be bad, right? But what if that same archer, was the archer who just killed 3 horses, kept stunning important (high armor) players with his shot?
What about the shielder, who's just the worst duellist in the world, and has no skill in manually blocking at all? He must be bad right, cuzz it seems he can't fight without his team, let alone without a shield, right? But perhaps as long as he has his shield, avoids axes, he can be a force to be reckoned with. Maybe he's making sure to cover other allies from enemy arrows and bolts and blows?
What about the cav who got 15 kills at the end of the round? Must be good, right? But what if that guy only killed some people who were spawning late (and thus usually get couched in the butt, or have no real defence unless they have a polearm themselves).
What does this mean? simple, everyone is usefull and useless in their own way. Don't send a 2h to finish of an archer in open fields. Don't send the guy with the shield who can't block without it against the guy with the poleaxe. Every playstyle has it's pro's and cons, and is good against something and bad against something.
On topic: 177 ms
As a dedicated crossbowman: k/d 1.8/1
As a 32/6 Mallet-user: k/d 5/1
As a Pole-user (pike only): 3/1
