No there aren’t. But I won’t continue to try and educate someone who can’t understand basic math. You’re the one obsessing over control and assuming outlandish scenarios that would never occur in actual matches. I just played a clash match where I had 2.0 kd exactly. There were two other players with 1.5 or higher on my team and the opposing team had nobody in the positives except their top ranked player. We one by over 60 points. Do you know why? Because I and two other people killed a lot and died a little. And the enemy team died a lot but didn’t get many kills. It’s literally basic arithmetic. I’m consistently one of the top players on any team I’m on with a high ratio of kills to deaths. Meaning I am killing the other team more than they are killing me. Now is there a purely hypothetical outlier where a player with a bad kd could be more beneficial than one with a good kd in extreme circumstances within very specific game types? Sure maybe one in ten thousand times that happens. But most of the time the game matches people based on connection first and then takes what it finds and tries to “balance” it using the ELO stats of the 12 players to divide teams. This means good solo players with high ELO will very frequently end up against stacked teams of lower ELO or against other solo players who’s ELO is weighted to be as close to equal as possible which means the high ELO players will end up on teams with very low ELO players in bungie attemptbto “balance” matches while still prioritizing network connection over skill. So no In 15 matches across multiple game modes with a variety of players of me being the top first or second player there is simply not a possible way that the losses were a result of me performing above average. You’ve officially made an ass of yourself and are desperately trying to play it off by acting as if you aren’t literally saying “positive kd isn’t good and negative kd isn’t bad and a player who gets high scores is probably why a team loses” when that’s in fact EXACTLY what you’ve said in a roundabout way. It’s laughable and I’m done entertaining this stupidity.

[quote]I won’t continue to try and educate someone who can’t understand basic math[/quote] One day maybe you'll understand math a bit better, maybe think of this and laugh at your past ignorance. I hope so. You are perfect example of how being math challenged hurts you in life even if it's just a video game. [quote]assuming outlandish scenarios that would never occur in actual matches[/quote] Scenarios don't need to be "Outlandish" for you to be disadvantaging the team. The edge cases just illustrate the wide bounds of k/d that can actually produce equivalent results. But a wide variety of very common scenarios in the middle of those bounds can cause the "Control as Clash" player to disadvantage the team. [quote]I just played a clash match [/quote] Now you're trying to say analysis of Control scoring should apply to Clash and is flawed because you suddenly want to switch to talking about Clash? Clash is the simplest scoring mechanism which is why your basic math understanding works there. And that's why Clash is probably the best mode for pub groups since when dealing with people who don't understand the other mode's scoring do OK just by killing stuff. In clash it's simple, high k/d is better. But translating that to all modes is where you lost the plot.

YOU were the one who started talking about control because only under extreme circumstances in that game mode could your outlandish claims work on any level. Bottom line I’m very good at pvp. I work at it. You’re clearly garbage at pvp. If my team loses when I’m performing at my usual level it’s not my fault and you’re an idiot to suggest it. Bye -blam!-.