Your blood is my trophy...

This is old stomping ground for me, the first person shooters (FPS) games. I recalled playing counterstrike 1.6 and other Half-life based competitive shooters. The community that revolves around these games are the single reason I left the games. Most people that play an FPS that I would encounter either had a very short temper or had an attitude that rivaled a 13 year old (or were of that age).
But among the community, achievements and respect are earned not from being sociable or well-known, but for how many have been slain and how well the character can dodge a helping of lead. And if that's not enough, there are stats that involve the victories of the bloodbaths and stack them versus how much the player is a meat shield(their deaths), and make the Kill-to-death ratio percentage. That lone percentage is so crucial in these communities, it's almost as important as the number the government labels a person with, only thee percentage can change depending on how well someone can do, basically the measure of someone's skill within the game.
Normally, I would agree to something like the ratio, but when weapons of different powers and other factors don't affect the percentage, then it's not a true measure of the player's skill. As an example, Player1 (P1) plays with normal powered weapons and with most of the people doing same, no overpowered instant kill guns. While Player2 (P2) plays with the weapons that guarantee an instant kill with little drawbacks, and plays with people that P1 would play against. Obviously P2 would dominate the game and kill almost everyone while P1 would have a bit of trouble killing just one person. And before the comment of "It's skill that determines who's best" I've already called BS, and my proof is the AWP from Counterstrike (any version really). It's a Sniper true, but when someone shoots a toe to kill a people instantly, the Army needs to start researching how to make AWP's in real life.
Another ratio FPS fans like is the kill per minute. Again, I would normally accept the stat, but this is against the clock rather than the other players. Looking back to the first example, when P1 kills all his foes, he takes at least five shots before he can claim a kill unless he gets the head shot and then it's a quick kill. But since he is an average gamer, he can't pull off the head shots and takes about ten seconds for a kill. On the other hand, P2 can look at a player and they are dead, it's instant and takes only a second. His kills are going to be alot higher than P1's kills, therefore his kills per minute will be higher than P1's, just like the kill-to-death ratio, except it's a much bigger difference between the two players.
I guess this time, the rant wasn't targeting an audience of gamers (go figure...), rather their idea of ranking. As I speak of ranking, FPS ranks aren't alter by the guns as well. P2 will still have a higher rank than P1 for the sole fact P2 can spatter anyone with one hit and P1 needs to actually try and has a fair chance (dear *insert divine figure* no!) of death. And the icing on the cake is I found the only thing to prevent this is other players calling P1 a noob. Last I checked, muting and ignoring features prevented that and if he remembered that in grade school we were taught stick and stones proverb...