- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
MC Confusing back in this b--ch with a parking sandwich and a chicken ticket....
Posted by: Divine Demon
I can't believe so many people prefer Halo 3's ranking system as opposed to Halo: Reach's. I mean, I understand that Halo: Reach's ranking system doesn't take much skill to level up, but neither did Halo 3's. If you had a fresh slate on Halo 3 you could easily get a 50 in one week, start off with Basic Training and then go camp on Team Swat until you're 50... I prefer the Credit system, it's fun working for credits to buy stuff. The reason its easy to boost on Halo: Reach is because of all the credit glitches...
Verdict: Credit system, but try to keep exploits/glitches minimal? In other words, a credit system that takes skill.
You would have to be good to get that 50 in one week, unless you were pathetic enough to pay 20 dollars to get boosted.
For somebody getting their first 50 on their own, it wasn't easy.
Halo 3 kept the competitive aspect. Halo 3 actually had a skill gap. Where is all that in Halo Reach? I have no motivation to play Reach because dicking around in social is only fun for like half an hour.
It wasn't extremely difficult to get a decent level in Halo 3, but the difference is you needed to consistantly win games in Halo 3, and all you have to do in Reach is grind.
You can't have a Reach-style credit system that takes skill. It's all about how many games you play.
Trust me, though. I'm not saying Halo 3 was perfect. The trueskill system had its issues, and of course boosters....
[Edited on 03.09.2012 6:31 AM PST]