I personally think the 1-50 ranking system should be brought back,but the big problem are the booster,deranker and quitter,but
last night i figured sometthing out,my friends gold membership expired and we wanted to create a 1 month test membership like all the halo 3 boosters and deranker did,
BUT it doesnt work anymore,you have to share your paypal or bank information and just then you’ll get the 1 month test membership,cause after that month the test membership will turn into a normal 1 month membership which you have to pay for.
Because of this,boosting,quitting or deranking(the biggest problem of halo2/3 is solved because of microsofts avarice)
i dont think they will pay to do this now cause the sense of selling that account is to make money,but if you have to pay for that account before you can sell it,its just senseless,you wont go positive in term of your money and i dont think they will still do it,i wouldnt,and thats why i think the ranking system should be brought back anyways
> account costs what, £10? sell it for £30, boom profit …
>
> 1-50 will just kill halo.
Kill halo? umm… look at Halo 2 & 3. They had a ranking system and they were arguably the best Halos to date. A ranking system keeps people playing the game. I know I revisited Halo 3 just to get my rank up higher and higher. In Halo 2/3, rank means something, it shows skill. In Reach, it shows how much you’ve played, there is no way to match players by skill. 343, PLEASE add a ranking system! Thousands of people are begging you to add it in Halo 4!
> account costs what, £10? sell it for £30, boom profit …
>
> 1-50 will just kill halo.
yh a 1 month membership costs 10 but to you really think people will buy it just to sell it again? AND you cant even sell it cause if you delete your paypal/bank information the account gets locked,i had it a few times and nobody gives away his bank information and nobody buys an account for 30
Can people stop complaining that your Reach rank doesn’t show your skill? It’s not supposed to, moaning about this is like complaining the bamboo stalks in Reflection don’t show your skill. Arena division was the skill-displaying aspect, rank was purely there to reward you for playing.
> > account costs what, £10? sell it for £30, boom profit …
> >
> > 1-50 will just kill halo.
>
> Kill halo? umm… look at Halo 2 & 3. They had a ranking system and they were arguably the best Halos to date. A ranking system keeps people playing the game. I know I revisited Halo 3 just to get my rank up higher and higher. In Halo 2/3, rank means something, it shows skill. In Reach, it shows how much you’ve played, there is no way to match players by skill. 343, PLEASE add a ranking system! Thousands of people are begging you to add it in Halo 4!
It wasnt just 1-50 that people played for. People played halo 1, 2 and 3. Simply because it was the game everyone played.
Cod took that title from halo. Its mostly the social aspect why halo is failing right now.
doesnt help reach was bad and had a lack of ranking system but if you think its going to solve halo’s current issues single handily. You have another thing coming.
> Can people stop complaining that your Reach rank doesn’t show your skill? It’s not supposed to, moaning about this is like complaining the bamboo stalks in Reflection don’t show your skill. Arena division was the skill-displaying aspect, rank was purely there to reward you for playing.
Reach’s ranking system, was so bad. there was No incentive to play the game. You didn’t feel that you earned your credits. It was just given to you on a plate, whether you played well or not. Unlike exp in 1-50 where you had to earn credits that what made the game last longer thats what gave it a incentive to play
> > Can people stop complaining that your Reach rank doesn’t show your skill? It’s not supposed to, moaning about this is like complaining the bamboo stalks in Reflection don’t show your skill. Arena division was the skill-displaying aspect, rank was purely there to reward you for playing.
>
> Reach’s ranking system, was so bad. there was No incentive to play the game. You didn’t feel that you earned your credits. It was just given to you on a plate, whether you played well or not. Unlike exp in 1-50 where you had to earn credits that what made the game last longer thats what gave it a incentive to play
>
> Hail to the king, 1-50.
yes because being punished for not being good at the game is so much better right?
> > > Can people stop complaining that your Reach rank doesn’t show your skill? It’s not supposed to, moaning about this is like complaining the bamboo stalks in Reflection don’t show your skill. Arena division was the skill-displaying aspect, rank was purely there to reward you for playing.
> >
> > Reach’s ranking system, was so bad. there was No incentive to play the game. You didn’t feel that you earned your credits. It was just given to you on a plate, whether you played well or not. Unlike exp in 1-50 where you had to earn credits that what made the game last longer thats what gave it a incentive to play
> >
> > Hail to the king, 1-50.
>
> yes because being punished for not being good at the game is so much better right?
You are never punished in 1-50, you merely are only rewarded when you deserve it. Science has shown via operant conditioning that if you are rewarded for doing something you in turn are more likely to do that which was rewarded. In reach there was no reward for anything you did. You could just AFK and get credits, and arena was a joke since rank wasn’t displayed globally and was reset monthly/every 3 months. Humans, especially males, have an innate desire to display prowess. It creates a feedback loop of good feelings, and is addictive. People also do not like seeing effort thrown out the window every couple of months, it creates a feeling of frustration.
And before you say “oh but video games are about fun etc etc” realize that to many the definition of fun is being challenged. The feeling of satisfaction one gets from surpassing ones limits is one of the greatest human experiences. And before you say “oh its just a game” realize that there have been riots over the results of “games” resulting in death and property damage. People take games seriously. Its human nature since as seen in the animal kingdom games are ways to practice valuable skills, and winning in said games informs one of their rank in a group. While the latter value has disappeared, humans are still programmed to have a natural urge to play and be competitive in games.
Its simple evolutionary science really. Stay in school kids.