Now don't think that I'm bragging I just need a backstory to my thoughts. 
 
I was playing MW2 Team Deathmatch on the weekend after about a week and a half off and didn't have the groove I had when I played for every day.  As usual, some random kid decides to make a comment about he owned everything and is the best...
 
So I said, "You aren't that good, I'll beat you next round," just to see where it would go.  So he gets all excited and calles me a homosexual and said he was going to rape me and such.  Turns out I had a higher score the next round with a score of 22-6.  He left the lobby the next round without saying a word and I didn't brag to anyone or anything, I just don't like to see these little kids wreck everyone's online experience so I like to shut them up.
 
My question to you is, what would you consider a "good" fps/mw2 player?
 
Obviously everyone has things that work for them and I don't complain against strategies I just try to adapt my game to beat them.  But to be awesome at these games is it just to have a high K/D ratio? High Accuracy? High Score? Or Overall Win Ratio? I've noticed the little "ticker" on the bottom that shows your online friends shows their score rank and their kills rank but not the others.
 
There are many ways to get a good K/D ratio some being much easier than others, camping, spray and pray, run and gun, witchblades(marathon, lightweight, commando), "noob tubers", or even a high accuracy can bring your KD up. Whenever someone is trying to justify how good they are, they always seem to say. "Whats your K/D?" to compare theirs to yours. But maybe you just play Ground War all the time and let your killstreak rewards do the work for you. Seems to be a defining characteristic of a "good" player, but it can be a false characteristic.
 
High score seems to be just based on play time.  Even if you're not good at the game if you just play constantly your score is going to go up.  Or play a game mode that isn't based on you killing people, you can rely on your team to capture the flag, or dominate the area. Points come from playing not skill. Although if you're better than everyone else, your score is going to be higher because it goes up faster. So maybe the highest score is the best player, or maybe he has more time on his hands on the real "best player".
 
Overall win ratio doesn't seem to be a factor, unless you play Free For All.  As all the other game modes are team based, if your team is terrible and you are awesome, and the other team is a bunch of average players, chances are you're going to lose. Obviously there are situations where one man can change a team, but team based games are exactly that, a game where you rely on your team.
 
Now I left Accuracy for last because it is my definition of a good player, but it is completely situational.  Clearly there are snipers that sit back and camp and only take 7 shots per map and get 6 kills.  Then let killstreaks do the work.  But that isn't a good player.  I'm talking overall accuracy, with any gun you play with.  
 
How many shots does it take you to put down an enemy that whips around a corner?  Do you panic and "Spray and Pray", just fire from the hip?  Or do you focus, aim down the sights, line up the shot, and burst fire till he's down?  That sounds like it takes a long time.  But I see that as the skill of a good player, the ability to do that quickly without wasting bullets. Then you don't need perks like scavenger because you aren't shooting bullets uselessly into the wall.
 
My most regular class is sleight of hand pro, stopping power pro, and ninja pro. I used the m4 till I got the FAL, then moved to the m16.  My accuracy is 25% and I have a K/D of 1.5. (I had a hard time with the learning curve from MW to MW2). But now am never below a K/D of 3 during a map and guess my accuracy now is around 34%. I aim down my sights and put an enemy down with one or two taps of the trigger. Rarely 3. I would say that I'm good, not the best, but good enough to say I'm good.
 
So what say YOU, GB community...

Depends on what gametype, if your playing team deathmatch, score wont really say if your good or not. But, a high K/D will. If you are playing Search, get a shitload a points and go negative, you are still good for that gametype. I dont think accuracy really counts for anything but wins do if you play with a full team with the same people consistently. It varies on a number of factors.
 
EDIT: i didnt read it thoroughly enough, but if you were playing team deathmatch, a high k/d is what you should aim for to be considered good. As you are getting more points for your team than you are giving the opposition

I would add another category (though I voted for score) that has to do with adaptability. Sometimes your default play style just doesn't jive with either your team or the other team. Being able to be effective with varying tactics is probably IMHO what makes a good MW2 player. If a player can snipe, sneak, or simply assault their way to a 2:1 kd ratio, or bomb planting or whatever, then that's what I call good.

Score. I'm a bit of a stickler about my K/D spread as well, but I make myself feel better if I realize "hey, I may have died a lot, but because of me we captured the HQ enough times to win the game"

Kills are how I rate myself while I play MW2. Especially in TDM. A K/D under 1 means you are helping the other team win. Therefore, if you are 22-6 and someone else is 30-29, you are the better player, as you gained 1400 points for your team and he only gained 100. 
 
I wish I could say accuracy was the most important only because I am leading my friends list for that right now (I use assault weapons for the most part, sometimes I snipe when the situation dictates a need for it.), but that doesn't matter because my K/D is a bit worse than I want it. 
 
Wins are more important on the objective maps, but that is more of a rating for a team, not for the individual.

I don't care, I think people should just play for fun.

" I don't care, I think people should just play for fun. "

damn it, i clicked the wrong thing... KDR is most important i think.

zzzzzzzzz

If you're talking about per-round score, then score. If you're talking global score then I don't think it matters one bit. Per round, if you have a high score it means you are completing tasks that are helping your team, regardless of game type. MW2 scales the points distribution for each gametype, so if someone gets a high score, they've probably helped the team.
 
I don't know how many times I've seen people stare at a bomb in S&D because they don't want to ruin their K:D ratio. Those people aren't good. They suck.

I'm going to answer without reading, just because you said otherwise. 
 
A combination of all of them.

" I'm going to answer without reading, just because you said otherwise.  A combination of all of them. "

definitely K/D ratio. You can get a better score by playing for longer than someone else, not from being better. A sniper isn't necessarily better than a assault rifler, but his accuracy will be a whole lot better. And you can be carried by other teams so wins doesn't count, although it is a somewhat good sign, as if you're good enough from time to time you will make the difference for your team.
 
And another thing about accuracy, when i'm aiming down my sights with an m4, it sprays a bit but as long as i get one hit on the enemy, it messes up their aiming.. that is the key to a long range battle after all. You're still doing a good job even though it may mess up your accuracy score a bit, but when compared to an m16 user, iin terms of your accuracy you won't be as good, but you'll still kill the guy and it doesn't take any less skill. Just a different method of taking the guy down.

It all depends on the game type really. 
 
Objective Games- The "good" players will be the ones with a high overall score and a decent-high amount of kills. Players who go negative are either die-hard bomb planters/flag capturers (Good players) or "bad" players. 
  
Deathmatch Games- This is all about the kills and killstreaks. Go positive and you did a good job. Go really positive and get killstreaks and your a good player. 
 
On another note. I consider anyone with a barely positive k/d ratio alright. Above 1.50 and your good. 2.00+ you're either a selfish asshole or you're amazing. 
Win/Loss ratios don't bother me. Sometimes you can't do anything to help your team because some players are not that good. Also you have to take in the times players can lag out. 
Accuracy doesn't bother me that much either. I sometimes take "safety" shots to see if the object I see is a head or a broom. Most players will have around a 20% accuracy anyways.
 
Overall for me, it's all about the k/d.

I REALLY wish they had a score/match or score/round stat.

I chose score because its basically a combination of kills and objectives. In my eyes, a good player is a someone who racks up a good enough KDR at the end of the map or scores the highest; even if they don't happen to have the most kills. It depends on the circumstances and the mode. If they do all the dirty work like capturing the flag at the expense of constantly dying for the team; then they are a team player. Though for objective games they don't really have to cap the flags; as long as they know that what they have to do is protect the flag and provide covering support for the guys taking the objective; then they're good (if they do a good job at it).

*shrugs*

you have convinced me that accuracy is the most important when seeing if someone is a good player.  But when comparing myself to my friends and vice versa since we have all roughly the same accuracy its all about the KDR

All my friends obsess about KD but i really couldn't care less, even though I'm higher than all of them :P

K/D ratio...

why is there no option for "fun"?

I would have to say score since that is the option available, but to be honest I don't really think it is any of those. Personally I think it is teamwork, which is not always reflected in the score. I am not a deathmatch player so games that feature objective based solutions I think are more fun. TF2 for example can have the medic perhaps be the most important player on the team, but he might not have the highest score or K/D ratio. He might not even be one of the top scoring players on the team, but the team can't win without him.