No, actually I don't play almost any 3v3. Why would you look at my 3v3 k/d but completely neglect my time played? Lol talk about going full retard. I don't even remember playing any 3v3 on this account XD there is a reason the best of the best play 3v3. There is a reason most mlg fps, like halo and cod, are 4v4. Smaller games require more teamwork, decision making, and guns kill (because a 1v1 scenario where both players are actually looking at each other is much more common). Go ahead, look around for people who share the same opinion as you, you won't find many Edit: not to mention my 3v3 k/d being lower than my clash k/d would prove my point anyway, not yours. If clash took more skill to play than skirmish, then my clash k/d would be lower as it would be harder to do well. Man, you say "don't go full retard" but you can't seem to follow your own advice. [spoiler]muted[/spoiler]

You aren't understanding, in 3v3, you are only focusing on 3 players (when joining as random), therefore it is easier to negate a new players 0.1kdr (who is on your team). However, in clash or control, you have to worry about 6 potential players, and if you join as a random, it's luck of the draw for how many 0.5kdr players, and lower, will end up on your team or the other. Either way, if you join as a team in either match up, at least coordination is present.

We're talking about k/d, not winning, so I'm not talking about negating another player's poor performance. I'm talking about the general skill level of the player base for the game mode and how easy it is to do well as an individual. Obviously you aren't understanding.