Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Poll [308 votes]: 256 Players in a single match is?
  • Poll [308 votes]: 256 Players in a single match is?
Subject: 256 players, in a single match.

...

Poll: 256 Players in a single match is?  [closed]
Epic:  26%
(79 Votes)
Epic- but too laggy:  42%
(130 Votes)
Fail:  25%
(78 Votes)
PIE!!:  7%
(21 Votes)
Total Votes: 308

MAG, a game announced at E3 will support matches with 256 at once. now that's what a battlefield should look and feel. I know that Lag is sometimes a big issue with halo. and that's just with a 16 player cap. so 256 players sounds like network suicide. But imagine if they can pull it off. massive maps and massive battles, Halo style. thoughts?

  • 06.22.2009 4:53 PM PDT

"We sleep peaceably in our beds, because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those that wish to do us harm."

"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of all those who threaten them."

254 random teammates who based on experience will suck and won't follow orders. I call that a headache.

  • 06.22.2009 5:00 PM PDT

I agree with precursors, 90 percent of all people are incompetent, imagine that on 256 players

[Edited on 06.22.2009 5:01 PM PDT]

  • 06.22.2009 5:01 PM PDT

...

That's true.. I suppose the game will need a clan system. that way you can team up with clan members. and not just randoms

  • 06.22.2009 5:01 PM PDT

"We sleep peaceably in our beds, because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those that wish to do us harm."

"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of all those who threaten them."

Posted by: x NAOKI x
That's true.. I suppose the game will need a clan system. that way you can team up with clan members. and not just randoms


Won't matter, with time zones and life you'd need a clan with thousands of members to get a couple of full matches. And a clan of that size your going to have a breakdown of discipline.

  • 06.22.2009 5:04 PM PDT

Armor Lock isn't overpowered. You just suck at Reach :)

Reach isn't bad, you're just a BK :)

For my gamertag, look up "Ghoulishtie"

It would be cool if xbox could get a game going like that, cause ps3 fails.

  • 06.22.2009 5:05 PM PDT

...

Perhaps. A ranking system in which those with a higher rank give orders might make it more easy to manage.

  • 06.22.2009 5:07 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

funny topic of course fail. server lag like 200% up aint funny at all more like pain in the a**

  • 06.22.2009 5:08 PM PDT

...

It wouldn't lag if the game had dedicated servers. but Bungie never really used them before in the xbox.

  • 06.22.2009 5:10 PM PDT

"We sleep peaceably in our beds, because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those that wish to do us harm."

"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of all those who threaten them."

Posted by: x NAOKI x
Perhaps. A ranking system in which those with a higher rank give orders might make it more easy to manage.


It does essentially, but players will ignore the system. I don't think any game with a foundation like that will work for several years.

  • 06.22.2009 5:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

This is Halo we do not need suoer large games. Even 24 person online would be pushing it.

  • 06.22.2009 5:13 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"

Posted by: x NAOKI x
It wouldn't lag if the game had dedicated servers. but Bungie never really used them before in the xbox.


Yes, it would indeed lag, just not in the same way that a host xbox does. Servers are not a cure-all friend, they come with their own issues. IMO PS3 games offer that crap because they are trying to do what they can to attract people, no matter how impractical the implement.

All that aside, it is a terrible idea, what kind of coherant gameplay could you expect in that kind of arena? None, is the answer. Not to mention the map size you would need if you tried something like that. Epic, does not always mean good.

  • 06.22.2009 5:59 PM PDT

I would like to see bungie up it a little (like, 20 people)

  • 06.22.2009 6:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

It'll be annoying. Think about it - sniper spawns. 42 people make a wild dash for it. They'd have to have an armory and the toughest shielding system ever to keep things fair - and even then it wouldn't be fun.

It sounds like an impressive accomplishment, it'd be horrific for gameplay.

  • 06.22.2009 6:07 PM PDT

...

I implied the idea with the thought that this game would have weapon classes. much like the battlefield series. and I'm not a PS3 fanboy. nor do I own a PS3. (just putting it out there)

  • 06.22.2009 6:17 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

On the surface, it's a good idea, but it would be hard to rank up, and I would get really frustratedbecause i would never win lol

  • 06.22.2009 6:31 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Heroic Member

Halo 3 is for noobs. Gg NoRe.

One word. Dedicated Servers.

Unfortunately, Xbox is a company who likes to grab lots of money rather than spend it on the system people are paying for.

Now if you go to a company like Blizzard with Battle.net that place is great. Warcraft, Starcraft etc.

  • 06.22.2009 6:33 PM PDT

...

It would be fun though. I made this thread for kicks. I'm not seriously hoping for massive player support.

  • 06.22.2009 6:34 PM PDT

SIP FTW awesomesauce

I would have a heart attack if this happenned because it would be so awesome.

  • 06.22.2009 6:35 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"

Posted by: SiKe X
One word. Dedicated Servers.

Unfortunately, Xbox is a company who likes to grab lots of money rather than spend it on the system people are paying for.

Now if you go to a company like Blizzard with Battle.net that place is great. Warcraft, Starcraft etc.



Two words, seriously misleading.

Starcraft and Warcraft are RTS games, that require infinately less bandwidth than current gen FPS would. You cannot even site WoW as it has a much lower graphical quality becuase of it's scale, not to mention you pay a fee for it.

To all: don't let anyone lie to you, servers are not the "simple fix" that some make them out to be. They have some benefits yes, but they will not fix the internet gaming world. If they were that great a implement, it would have been mandated. MS stands to make more money charging you monthly for them like Blizzard does (poor example friend) then running a host/client system on your own hardware.

  • 06.22.2009 6:40 PM PDT

...

Calm down, this isn't a serious thread. and I never said that dedicated servers didn't lag. but they would help.

  • 06.23.2009 3:53 AM PDT

MAG's main multiplayer team base is sorted into squads. They would be great to use, but no one will work as a squad unless a bunch of friends get together. Let's face it, most people out there are those kids who feel like that they can walk around that corner by themselves without being blown up. (Nuclear bomb goes off)

I really don't think this is an option for Bungie.

=)

  • 06.23.2009 4:10 AM PDT

The original BADFINGER! (the second)

Posted by: x NAOKI x
It wouldn't lag if the game had dedicated servers. but Bungie never really used them before in the xbox.
And by dedicated servers they cant just be in AmericanLand try EACH COUNTRY! or Atleast the Major countries-
USA
UK
EU (more than one for sure)
ASIA PACIFIC (Australia NewZealand asia etc)

But if not then i will be just sticking with Halo 3 multiplayer because unless theres dedicated servers in each country its pointless, cause Halo multiplayer is a high skill and competitive experience, it needs to be playable for everyone NOT JUST the Americans.

NO ONE enjoys lag.

  • 06.23.2009 4:36 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Intrepid Mythic Member
  • gamertag: P3P5I
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Achronos
It isn't our shiznit anymore.

Well the gameplay would be horrible. Everyone would rush the vehicles as that is what the game would become. There would have to be at least half a dozen tanks on each side.... The whole idea about Spartans is that they can survive out of vehicles and alone (they almost never are alone). Surviving as an infantry would be suicide and it makes your role as a player almost miniscule.

  • 06.23.2009 5:37 AM PDT

Its not 256 on a team. Its 256 total, with I think 16 players to a team, which isn't an impossible task. I think it would be awesome in a Halo style, but Bungie would need its own servers. Hosting off of an Xbox would be impossible. Unfortunately, I doubt this is the case since the game is coming out relatively soon (A year and a half to two years is not very long to make a game), so I can't imagine that they worked out a completely new server/hosting situation for the game.

  • 06.23.2009 6:03 AM PDT