why is it so hard to rank up in halo reach

Why is it so hard to rank up in reach im a eclipse and wow its to hard.

try ranking up from forerunner and/or inheritor. BOTH take 3.5 million.

if you wanna rank up faster learn to use the custom challenges.

> Why is it so hard to rank up in reach im a eclipse and wow its to hard.

It’s not that it’s hard to rank up, it’s just very time consuming. I’m an eclipse going to nova. I feel for the forerunners and reclaimers out there. All of a sudden, warrant officer doesn’t seem too bad. It will happen for you, just be patient. Custom challenges really do help, the problem is that many just don’t understand them enough yet.

Nah, it’s not hard it just takes way too long.

> Why is it so hard to rank up in reach im a eclipse and wow its to hard.

How is it hard? Everything you do in reach will earn ur cr.
If you really want credits then play FF doubles on you own

I miss when ppl played halo just to play halo:(

> I miss when ppl played halo just to play halo:(

I know, I miss Halo:CE too.

> I miss when ppl played halo just to play halo:(

No one ever played Halo just to play Halo (well not no one, but 99.9% never did) No Halo would have been as popular as it was had it not been for it’s ranking system. Sure the gameplay WAS better in the past, but we wouldn’t hold Halo on the pedestal that we do if it weren’t for it’s ranking system. One of the primary reasons Reach was such a flop is because it has no incentive. It takes weeks to months to rank up, there is 1 ranked playlist with terrible settings and a subpar ranking system, and then there’s the lolgameplay in general.

And CE doesn’t count because there was no XBL, you had no other choice but to play Halo just for Halo.

Also OP, it’s so hard because Bungie is dumb and was trying to make us all bored so their game would fail. Seriously though, why the hell would they give us this terrible ranking system.

I play Halo for the love of the game, not for the credits. Also a Forerunner, wouldn’t phase me if all my stats/creds were set back to 0.

> > I miss when ppl played halo just to play halo:(
>
> No one ever played Halo just to play Halo (well not no one, but 99.9% never did) No Halo would have been as popular as it was had it not been for it’s ranking system. Sure the gameplay WAS better in the past, but we wouldn’t hold Halo on the pedestal that we do if it weren’t for it’s ranking system. One of the primary reasons Reach was such a flop is because it has no incentive. It takes weeks to months to rank up, there is 1 ranked playlist with terrible settings and a subpar ranking system, and then there’s the lolgameplay in general.

So people played for years for a imaginary rank?

> > > I miss when ppl played halo just to play halo:(
> >
> > No one ever played Halo just to play Halo (well not no one, but 99.9% never did) No Halo would have been as popular as it was had it not been for it’s ranking system. Sure the gameplay WAS better in the past, but we wouldn’t hold Halo on the pedestal that we do if it weren’t for it’s ranking system. One of the primary reasons Reach was such a flop is because it has no incentive. It takes weeks to months to rank up, there is 1 ranked playlist with terrible settings and a subpar ranking system, and then there’s the lolgameplay in general.
>
> So people played for years for a imaginary rank?

not JUST for it, but a game with an incentive based ranking system is going to be far more enjoyable than one without. Perfect example: IMO while Reach’s gameplay is better and far more enjoyable of MW3s, yet I play MW3 of Reach. Why? Because MW3’s ranking system is far more rewarding and enjoyable. Honestly, I don’t really like CoD at all, yet the ranking system is so addicting. I spent the first month after the games release playing literally during ANY and ALL of my free time because I wanted to get to that next prestige so badly.

Reach’s gameplay is not enjoyable enough to just play by itself, and is one of the main reasons it is where it is. It’d be one thing if the game played like H3 or H2 and had these horrible ranking systems, in which case it would at least not be #7. But Halo will never be #1 again, no matter how amazing the gameplay is, without an incentive based ranking system.

I’m not saying that NO ONE is going to play a game without a decent ranking system, Reach is clearly evidence of that, but I can guarantee it would not be #7 had it been given H3’s ranking system. Reach’s ranking system made the like 12 and a half kids who cried about it on Bnet happy, and pissed off hundreds of thousands. That’s where Bungie went wrong as a whole. They tried to hard to please the bad kids of bnet, that they pissed off/turned away anyone good at Halo, and most of the “casuals”.

> So people played for years for a imaginary rank?

1-50 is imaginary?

Technically all of the ranks are fictional, not imaginary.

Also prestige-ing makes zero sense, regardless of the title.

> > > > I miss when ppl played halo just to play halo:(
> > >
> > > No one ever played Halo just to play Halo (well not no one, but 99.9% never did) No Halo would have been as popular as it was had it not been for it’s ranking system. Sure the gameplay WAS better in the past, but we wouldn’t hold Halo on the pedestal that we do if it weren’t for it’s ranking system. One of the primary reasons Reach was such a flop is because it has no incentive. It takes weeks to months to rank up, there is 1 ranked playlist with terrible settings and a subpar ranking system, and then there’s the lolgameplay in general.
> >
> > So people played for years for a imaginary rank?
>
> not JUST for it, but a game with an incentive based ranking system is going to be far more enjoyable than one without. Perfect example: IMO while Reach’s gameplay is better and far more enjoyable of MW3s, yet I play MW3 of Reach. Why? Because MW3’s ranking system is far more rewarding and enjoyable. Honestly, I don’t really like CoD at all, yet the ranking system is so addicting. I spent the first month after the games release playing literally during ANY and ALL of my free time because I wanted to get to that next prestige so badly.
>
> Reach’s gameplay is not enjoyable enough to just play by itself, and is one of the main reasons it is where it is. It’d be one thing if the game played like H3 or H2 and had these horrible ranking systems, in which case it would at least not be #7. But Halo will never be #1 again, no matter how amazing the gameplay is, without an incentive based ranking system.
>
> I’m not saying that NO ONE is going to play a game without a decent ranking system, Reach is clearly evidence of that, but I can guarantee it would not be #7 had it been given H3’s ranking system. Reach’s ranking system made the like 12 and a half kids who cried about it on Bnet happy, and pissed off hundreds of thousands. That’s where Bungie went wrong as a whole. They tried to hard to please the bad kids of bnet, that they pissed off/turned away anyone good at Halo, and most of the “casuals”.

Well, that makes sense. I was wondering that since people here are saying 1-50 will automatically make H4 the best.

> > > > > I miss when ppl played halo just to play halo:(
> > > >
> > > > No one ever played Halo just to play Halo (well not no one, but 99.9% never did) No Halo would have been as popular as it was had it not been for it’s ranking system. Sure the gameplay WAS better in the past, but we wouldn’t hold Halo on the pedestal that we do if it weren’t for it’s ranking system. One of the primary reasons Reach was such a flop is because it has no incentive. It takes weeks to months to rank up, there is 1 ranked playlist with terrible settings and a subpar ranking system, and then there’s the lolgameplay in general.
> > >
> > > So people played for years for a imaginary rank?
> >
> > not JUST for it, but a game with an incentive based ranking system is going to be far more enjoyable than one without. Perfect example: IMO while Reach’s gameplay is better and far more enjoyable of MW3s, yet I play MW3 of Reach. Why? Because MW3’s ranking system is far more rewarding and enjoyable. Honestly, I don’t really like CoD at all, yet the ranking system is so addicting. I spent the first month after the games release playing literally during ANY and ALL of my free time because I wanted to get to that next prestige so badly.
> >
> > Reach’s gameplay is not enjoyable enough to just play by itself, and is one of the main reasons it is where it is. It’d be one thing if the game played like H3 or H2 and had these horrible ranking systems, in which case it would at least not be #7. But Halo will never be #1 again, no matter how amazing the gameplay is, without an incentive based ranking system.
> >
> > I’m not saying that NO ONE is going to play a game without a decent ranking system, Reach is clearly evidence of that, but I can guarantee it would not be #7 had it been given H3’s ranking system. Reach’s ranking system made the like 12 and a half kids who cried about it on Bnet happy, and pissed off hundreds of thousands. That’s where Bungie went wrong as a whole. They tried to hard to please the bad kids of bnet, that they pissed off/turned away anyone good at Halo, and most of the “casuals”.
>
> Well, that makes sense. I was wondering that since people here are saying 1-50 will automatically make H4 the best.

Can’t tell if sarcasm. I have never seen anyone say that. Although, I know that it would push it far closer into the direction of the “addiction” that previous Halo’s had that made them so popular. I don’t think a 1-50 system could put Halo back on top by itself, but it sure would help.

I for one prefer an actual system that doesn’t give any benifits to the people who no life the game over those that just play it casually.

Unlike in CoD where higher rank = better guns/equipment all it means on Reach is that you have more options to change how you look, meaning you’re rank on here doesn’t mean anything but that you’ve played the game more.

Think about the average gamer on CoD, not too good not too bad, gets lumped into a game of higher ranks and due to not having the “best” guns/equip gets mauled. Not very fun for them I’d say. Wheras on Reach even as a recruit vs Inheritors/Forerunners it still begins the match as a completly level playing field and the winners are determined by skill not being a higher rank.

Edit: Additional thought, if you really need an incentive that badly to play a game other than the amusement and fun of playing it, I’d have to say your life would be sorely lacking.

its not hard.

getting onyx is hard.

getting 50 in h2 is hard.

getting inheritor in reach is time consuming, im a reclaimer, you can take my word for it.

> its not hard.
>
> getting onyx is hard.
>
> getting 50 in h2 is hard.
>
> getting inheritor in reach is time consuming, im a reclaimer, you can take my word for it.

getting onyx is not hard by any means…

I know plenty of H3 gamers that quit reach solely because of the lack of a ranking system. 1-50 in H2 and H3 made it competitive and gave the game longevity. Everyone wanted a 50 and nobody wanted a perch for their bird to sit on. I don’t think reach is itself a bad game. Sure there are plenty of things i dont like about it (bloom and AA’s) but it is fun to play. People just like more of a purpose and some sort way to distinguish who is the best.

if u like FF works or PLaying the playlists with massive jackpots work! Run with a group that wins a lot to! i think u get more Cr for winning i think!

> if u like FF works or PLaying the playlists with massive jackpots work! Run with a group that wins a lot to! i think u get more Cr for winning i think!

Oh hey Ganon whats up

Um, you can make a million credits a day using 343 Industries’ smartphone app and controller vibration cues…it’s never been easier to rank up.