Actually in my experience, it's not accurate to make that claim. In fact it's hard to make any claim at all on who is good or bad in that particular online multiplayer game, or with many online multiplayer games. There are exceptions of course. One thing is for sure, you can't judge someone soley based on records or how often they get slaughtered, if you will, and I'll explain why.
First of all, records are related far too closely to ping. If you have a good connection, you have a good record. That is a pretty safe assumption, and it can have almost nothing to do with player skill. However, there are exceptions. Sometimes someone with a poor connection, will achieve a good record. Other times, someone with a good connection will achieve a poor record.
In my experience, and I have a poor connection, sometimes I'll achieve a very good record and other times I'll achieve a very poor record. Well, you say, that's because you were playing with different levels of competition concerning ping rates. Or you must have been on a highly skilled team when you were doing well, and on a poorly skilled team when you were doing bad. Or you were getting lagged out of existence a lot. Or you have a pentium II with a tnt video card and everyone else had a pentium III with a GeForce, or visa versa. And sometimes all these factors combine to make it feel like you seem to never miss at times, and other times it seems like you're using rubber bullets, and you have a bullet magnet on your forehead. To this I'd reply "Yes, you are correct on all accounts."
My point is, there are way too many factors involved to determine who is good or bad based on the records achieved in few played games. Now if you see someone jumping off a cliff, or running headlong into certain death every round, that's one of the exceptions.
If you could compile everyone's lifetime stats, compare them with your average ping achieved in each game, factoring in the averege ping of everyone you competed against, and who you competed with, and also factor in team wins and losses, and how often you died by getting lagged out of existence, and also how many kills you achieve on those who get lagged out of existence. Calculate in a stat that shows the avering ping of those you actually killed and the ping of those who actually killed you. Combine all this on how many times based on pure stupidity you commit suicide, then perhaps it would be possible to make a somewhat valid claim one way or the other concerning the average player skill level.
And then, you could take this somewhat valid claim that a certain individual is "bad" at CS, and extrapolate that further to determine that the reason they come over to this forum and make suggestions that end with "like in counterstrike", is because they are poorly skilled in the online multiplayer format and would like to play the same game in a single player format that would allow them to configure bots to a lesser skilled level than the human players they regularly compete against, thus allowing them to obtain greater enjoyment from the game. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
[This message has been edited by Mr. T (edited 04-04-2000).]