To be honest, k/d ratios, as well as records in general, are overrated. A lot of the time, the players who have a high k/d just farm HWW and Clash of Nations - these are easy maps which can make an average player look good as long as they stay active.
However, having said that, these are my thoughts on records.
Accounts with higher levels *tend* to be more experienced, and therefore better at the game. You do come across some high-levelled accounts, who just join every game and don’t play any of them - but a good rule of thumb is, the higher the level the better the player. I know some people will contest me on this - yes I realise high levels are overrated and I agree, but they can be an okay baseline.
Similarly, accounts with higher k/d ratios *tend* to be better players. This is far more reliable than player levels, as most people realise. This is because if you have a higher k/d, you tend to stay in more games, go AI less, and be more active. This means it’s more likely for that player, in that game, to stay active - then being an annoyance for you later.
My third pointer would be towards games joined/won ratio. Players with huge numbers of games joined but hardly any won (occasionally I come across like 220 joined but 0 won, like how?) are the ones who just go inactive. Every game. In contrast, someone with only 30 games joined, but 12 coalition and 9 solo victories, will be a better player. Again, this is a generalisation - and this is where looking at the games they join most is helpful. If someone has a high ratio of games won to games joined, but they ONLY play Clash of Nations or HWW, they are probably an okay player, but like to farm noobs. That’s fine - but where I get nervous is when I see Antarctica, Doomsday, and World at War in their top 3. The best players will have all of these, as they like a challenge. Also, somewhat obviously, higher numbers of solo victories point towards better players.
I would say to take all of these things combined. Someone with just one of these - a high k/d, high level, or high games joined/won ratio - won’t always be the best player. However, someone for example who is level 140, with a 3.6 PvP k/d, and has 120/210 games won, will be a formidable opponent. Also, bear in mind that the higher a player’s level, the lower their k/d tends to be. This is why I usually don’t take much notice of anyone with an abnormally high k/d who is under level 80 - a lot of the time they’re slightly above average players who think they’re good, so they make a new account which they want to look good, and sweat it out. They’re not good players, and they’ll get bored of it eventually. Some of them, of course, are - so be wary in any case.
Okay so finally I just want to touch on this - accounts which look ‘bad’ may not always be controlled by bad players. Some accounts may look horrific - but it’s just good players who can never be bothered to finish their games. In some cases, you can get an account which looks horrible - but they fancy absolutely smashing everyone to pieces on this map, for whatever reason - and they do. However, having said this, most accounts which look bad, are.
Wow I really went on for a while! Hope you found at least some of this helpful. As for the specific players of your match - a PvP k/d of 4, for a player who is rank 205, is incredible. Like, he’s a good player. Similarly, the Rank 117 with a 7 k/d is also probably a good player. As for you? You’re probably fine too.
Moral of the story though: Don’t put too much emphasis on your record! Only you know how good you are, and you can’t lie to yourself 
