Less spam, more history.

Yea there are other important things in a tactical shooter but if you think kdr is not one of the most important stats then you are very foolish. The only time kdr is negligible is if your playing full support and even then you'll be more successful not being dead. These threads are annoying

where does it say DUST is a tactical shooter?

empire total war ftw ^^

I just bought it for $5 on steam but no MP campaign thats wack.

As for the OP K/dr and team work both win battles but Strategy, cunning, and sheer balls win Wars.

Edit: Think bigger than just one battle

Yea there are other important things in a tactical shooter but if you think kdr is not one of the most important stats then you are very foolish. The only time kdr is negligible is if your playing full support and even then you'll be more successful not being dead. These threads are annoying

I'd call K/D ratio fans more of a tragic figure. They comes from a different school of internet warfare, if you will. They are the best of what "MAG" has to offer, but it just doesn't work in the reality of this game. Take for example Hannibal of Carthage, by far considered the best Hellenistic general of his time. Problem is Hellenistic warfare was hilariously unprepared for the Roman school of war. A Hellenistic general was expected maneuver and delay battle until he held an undeniable advantage. Battle would commence and he would score a victory by inflicting some casualties and getting the other army to route. In Hellenistic warfare retreat and surrender were often allowed and expected, a golden avenue was given to let the other force leave. Terms of peace shortly followed thereafter. This should sound rather familiar as our K/D ration fans believe that kill/death ratios decide the day, they expect one victory after much maneuvering to make their enemy take the golden avenue of retreat, and come terms.

Roman warfare pretty much dictated that it wasn't over till you were no longer a threat. That meant total annihilation or subjugation. Carthage itself was subdued a number of times each time attempting the throw off Roman control. Finally the Romans got pissed enough they said **** it and just burnt all of Carthage to the ground and replaced it with a Roman settlement.

Just giving you all a heads up that you're using a very old style of warfare and it's since been improved on a lot by both ancient military tactics and modern day stuff too. You've all got a lot to learn.

Oh, Edit: That reminds me the Romans had trouble with their fleet doctrine too. So they decided to turn naval battles into glorified infantry engagements. The Romans stuck a Corvus on their boat, basically it was small bridging device with two spikes on it. Once it crashed through the deck of the other ship the spikes would hold them in place. With the other ship tackled shall we say, the Romans then sent troops over onto the other ship and promptly slew sailor Carthage who couldn't withstand the the sudden numbers flooding onto their deck.

I should also mention that Carthage had a terrible time rallying an army from distant lands and cultures, while the Romans had the strength of their homogeneous cultures to pull from.

TL;DR? Culture and scorched earth tactics work much better than K/D ratios.