Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Bungie should atleast have some dedicated servers for this game.
  • Subject: Bungie should atleast have some dedicated servers for this game.
Subject: Bungie should atleast have some dedicated servers for this game.

Lol

Seriously since Halo 2 the players have been plagued with the outdated host system and enough is enough. We pay money for the DLC, we payed for the game, and we continue to support Bungie in whatever way we can. We deserve a server based online system. Now this isn't a rant about the BR or anything like that. This is just a simple statement. For one, I would gladly pay a monthly subscription for Bungie to create dedicated servers that produce results. Many people are tired of it and it has shown throughout both Halo 2 and Halo 3s time line. People want fairness and an enjoyable time to play the game. Not get frustrated because another guy is red bar, has host and is lagging the game to hell. Many people also complain about how their sniper bullets don't register and this has been proven true in many videos.

  • 06.04.2009 2:38 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I made this post earlier. It was an idea of how to make servers work without costing a fortune.
I am not 100% sure if this could work but I am hopeful. So what are the benefits for having dedicated servers? In Halo 3 most of the lag was caused by the host being on a crappy residential connection but dedicated servers use some of the best internet connections available. Host advantage would be completely eliminated. The only problem with this could be server locations. I hope that if we do get dedicated servers there are some in both Europe and Australia.

Now to get to the point of how to achieve dedicated servers. Bungie should allow the creators of the server to put up ads in the game to pay for the server. Quake Live, which is currently an open beta, is a free to play browser based game where Id has used ads to make a profit. Halo 3 will definitely have a larger population playing Quake Live as well. That would most likely increase the demand for ad space but I am not in any ways an expert in business. I am hopeful that this would work but like I said I am not an expert in business.

  • 06.04.2009 3:08 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Dedicated servers have their disadvantages too you know. It wasn't so long ago that I remember when many gaming magazines were heralding Bungie as the founder for the Future of online gaming. Many magazines ran petitions to urge microsoft to make all games use the host based system the Halo games use. I understand your position as well but I would'nt say Bungies system is broken, and if it aint broke, dont fix it...

  • 06.04.2009 3:08 PM PDT

Lol

If the system allows uncontrollable factors such as host not having a good connection then the system needs to be fixed. For how can a online competitive game can even be considered as such with inconsistencies such as this? The host system has been here even before Halo was made. It is outdated and allows to many inconsistencies for it to be of any use.

  • 06.04.2009 3:37 PM PDT

Don't stop until your good is better and your better is the best!
Highest Skillz
LW-46, TS-50, TO-46 (R.I.P), TD-50, SB-40, MLG-42, SWAT-45, SNIPERS-50,TT-13
Halo is a game it's no different from any other.

Setting up servers is easier said than done buddy

  • 06.04.2009 3:52 PM PDT

No not really buddy! I work in the IT department for my company and setting up dedicated servers is very simple. You got to think in dollars, who would be losing money if bungie set up dedicated servers for all Halo players? The answer is right on your 360, that's right Microsoft!! If Bungie did that then those no need for players to have Xbox Live service, since we would pay bungie instead. So this will never happen, even though it needs to cause the host BS is really frustrating.

[Edited on 06.04.2009 4:10 PM PDT]

  • 06.04.2009 4:09 PM PDT

Posted by: Killer4785
Seriously since Halo 2 the players have been plagued with the outdated host system and enough is enough. We pay money for the DLC, we payed for the game, and we continue to support Bungie in whatever way we can. We deserve a server based online system. Now this isn't a rant about the BR or anything like that. This is just a simple statement. For one, I would gladly pay a monthly subscription for Bungie to create dedicated servers that produce results. Many people are tired of it and it has shown throughout both Halo 2 and Halo 3s time line. People want fairness and an enjoyable time to play the game. Not get frustrated because another guy is red bar, has host and is lagging the game to hell. Many people also complain about how their sniper bullets don't register and this has been proven true in many videos.


Sony sold a plethora of PS3's to Insomniac for server use at a discount price for their 60 player multiplayer experience, and I get less lag, than in Halo 3. I can't believe Microsoft are such a bunch of cheap skates they can't even provide their best game developer with dedicated servers.

Not to mention Runescape and other low level MMO providers have plenty of servers, and they are either free of charge, or $5 a month.

  • 06.04.2009 4:25 PM PDT

I can, Microsoft is the cheapest SOB's on the planet.

  • 06.04.2009 4:38 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I understand everyones arguments but I have no problems matchmaking in Halo 3. Yeah, sometimes it's not perfect, but dedicated servers can lag too ya know, and sometimes they close for days on end for maintenence etc. Can you imagine the backlash Bungie would get from the Halo community if they shut down the servers for a few days? Some nice ideas, but it will never happen. And lastly, "disgruntledfan2" I would like to see some proof of the PS3 lagging less online than the 360. Everytime I play on PSN it lags like s*** for no reason. The reason Live costs is because we get better service than the PS3s online capabilities.

  • 06.04.2009 4:41 PM PDT

So I have a couple of questions regarding dedicated servers vs peer to peer:

1) Wouldn't you have to have servers in every region of the Halo world to ensure that the fellow in Europe who wants to join MM doesn't lag because he is connecting to a server in NYC? Or Kirkland? Only stands to reason that the farther you are away from the server dictates the status of your connection.

2) If they did have dedicated servers placed all around the world, wouldn't you continually connect to the best connection or closet server, and bascially be connecting to the same group of players? And if there weren't servers placed in mulitple countries, again, your connection would suffer depending on your region.

3) You have to continually support a server environment. Without the support, you can't play matchmaking. If Halo 3 had dedicated servers, do you think 3 years from now, long after Halo Reach has come out, and the MM population is 75% less than what it is today, but yet those players still want to be online, do you switch back to peer to peer or just abandon MM altogether?

4) Things can happen. If the server is down, there is no host. At least with peer to peer you can always find a match.

Seems like it comes down to big money. Invest the money to bring the servers online and to continually support wouldn't be cheap. We would either have to pay through our Xbox live gold memberships or as pay service through Bungie. I'm ok with peer to peer as it is. Dedicated servers are nice, but do have their own issues as well. EA servers as an example...

  • 06.04.2009 5:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: SB SKZ
So I have a couple of questions regarding dedicated servers vs peer to peer:

1) Wouldn't you have to have servers in every region of the Halo world to ensure that the fellow in Europe who wants to join MM doesn't lag because he is connecting to a server in NYC? Or Kirkland? Only stands to reason that the farther you are away from the server dictates the status of your connection.

2) If they did have dedicated servers placed all around the world, wouldn't you continually connect to the best connection or closet server, and bascially be connecting to the same group of players? And if there weren't servers placed in mulitple countries, again, your connection would suffer depending on your region.

3) You have to continually support a server environment. Without the support, you can't play matchmaking. If Halo 3 had dedicated servers, do you think 3 years from now, long after Halo Reach has come out, and the MM population is 75% less than what it is today, but yet those players still want to be online, do you switch back to peer to peer or just abandon MM altogether?

4) Things can happen. If the server is down, there is no host. At least with peer to peer you can always find a match.

Seems like it comes down to big money. Invest the money to bring the servers online and to continually support wouldn't be cheap. We would either have to pay through our Xbox live gold memberships or as pay service through Bungie. I'm ok with peer to peer as it is. Dedicated servers are nice, but do have their own issues as well. EA servers as an example...

This guys got it in a nutshell...

  • 06.04.2009 5:11 PM PDT

Posted by: Vexinator
I understand everyones arguments but I have no problems matchmaking in Halo 3. Yeah, sometimes it's not perfect, but dedicated servers can lag too ya know, and sometimes they close for days on end for maintenence etc. Can you imagine the backlash Bungie would get from the Halo community if they shut down the servers for a few days? Some nice ideas, but it will never happen. And lastly, "disgruntledfan2" I would like to see some proof of the PS3 lagging less online than the 360. Everytime I play on PSN it lags like s*** for no reason. The reason Live costs is because we get better service than the PS3s online capabilities.


It depends what games you play, because each game has their own dedicated servers. Call of Duty 4 for instance lagged like a mofo on PS3 during launch. Resistance Fall of Man and Warhawk on the other hand run like butter on my connection with the same amount of lag or less, and they support more enemies than Halo 3. Of course, they also use a couple of tricks on Warhawk. For instance, certain weapons run on the client side of things to prevent host advantage with the sniper when someone does host their own games on their PS3.

[Edited on 06.04.2009 5:17 PM PDT]

  • 06.04.2009 5:16 PM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"

Some serious misinformation going around in here, servers fix very little in an online system in the way of lag. Ask anyone that has been PC gaming since the 90's, servers do nothing to eliminate lag. If YOU have a laggy connection to a host, chances are you will have a laggy connection to a server and your experience will change very little. All a server will repair is host advantage, but it will not remove the advantage given by those with better connection.

Add on the cost and the fact that you can still cheat on server based games and it is highly impractical. Do you want to pay more for something that will not even fix the problem?

  • 06.04.2009 5:22 PM PDT

All I ask is that you don't try to capture me.

The only positive aspect of dedicated servers is allowing private entities (clans, players) to run them themselves, and then admin them accordingly. This is not workable within Xbox Live, so that throws the biggest advantage of dedicated servers out the window.

Also, everything in that numbered list up there is true. Too expensive, impermanent and impractical for a worldwide community.

  • 06.04.2009 5:22 PM PDT