Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: 256 players, in a single match.
  • Subject: 256 players, in a single match.
Subject: 256 players, in a single match.

Well, imagine the machinima...

I think that they should at least raise it up to 24 players. Battlefront II has 24 players for the oldgen systems, why shouldnt we be abel to have 24?

  • 06.23.2009 6:06 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Heroic Member

Halo 3 is for noobs. Gg NoRe.

Posted by: SweetTRIX
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.


Lol. Servers are of course not a simple fix. But they will help.

Quit telling people the impossible. Anything is possible, and with servers that percent goes up. So please people shouldn't listen to you.

  • 06.23.2009 8:35 AM PDT

I want 12v12 btb that woud be good enough for me.

  • 06.23.2009 8:38 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: DK daze
Dude I don't care and my grammer is perfect.I used "Big", as you recall it to mak is specific."to not do...",is incorrect beause "do" is present tense/perfect(or future) when it was a past tense.

I think 16v16 would be the sweet spot. 256 is kinda...insane.

  • 06.23.2009 10:25 AM PDT

if knowledge is power and power corrupts, isn't knowledge therefore dangerous?
Black Tower

i'm gonna need a bigger mongoose.

  • 06.23.2009 10:34 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

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


i have a group of guys i played cod with. we're a good example of teamwork there was only 5 of us but we worked together and played the team aspect of the game so we naturally kicked ass. All you would have o do on the xbox is party up with a small group of friends and just head out there. you'll do good everytime

  • 06.23.2009 12:12 PM PDT

What spectagon are you in?

Epic lagg.

  • 06.23.2009 12:15 PM PDT

Posted by: D E F A U L T3Dd
Well, imagine the machinima...

I think that they should at least raise it up to 24 players. Battlefront II has 24 players for the oldgen systems, why shouldnt we be abel to have 24?


What is the point? People barely play the laggy big team battle in Halo 2 and Halo 3.

  • 06.23.2009 1:09 PM PDT

I don't join any group that spams me in PM so don't try it.
SPAM applies to anything that is copy and pasted, it is very obvious when you do so don't say you wrote it. Also if you argue with me on the nature of things contained in this signature, you will be blocked and never removed. If you send to me in XBox live you will be Avoided, Blocked, and a complaint will be filed for harassment.

The XBox 360 does not have the processing power to handle that many variable dynamic objects on a single plane. Your XBox will red-ring after about thirty seconds.

Posted by: SiKe X
Lol. Servers are of course not a simple fix. But they will help.

Quit telling people the impossible. Anything is possible, and with servers that percent goes up. So please people shouldn't listen to you.

Servers are able process information much faster and efficiently than a client system. Most high player count games require a server in order to efficiently run a large base environment and track the players on a plane of reference. However network connections are an issue. Instead of having a player with best overall connection host, players must connect to a point that may be in a different country. This severely limits the overall efficiency of a server as all the players will be connecting with various states of network connectivity. This creates a gap between when the time the data is sent to the client, to the server, and then back to the client. This gap is commonly referred to as "lag".

You say they are a "fix" they aren't even a fix, a 256 player game would REQUIRE it. The Pros and Cons of a server make them only viable in large player games. The Pros being a more steady host, the ability to support larger games, and (sometimes) faster connections. The Cons being that Dedicated servers cost monthly maintenance, staffing, and troubleshooting as well as sometimes less viable for international connections.

And no, not anything is possible right now. Unless you want to donate the trillions of dollars to string the world with Fiber Optic cables?

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

Considering your precious 360 is practically incapable of such a thing you may want to rephrase that statement, go try a PS3, come back, get down, and tell me 3 good solid reasons why the PS3, it's hardware, it's games, and it's online fail. Go on. I'll be here.

Posted by: SweetTRIX
IMO PS3 games offer that crap because they are trying to do what they can to attract people, no matter how impractical the implement.

Hmmm, another person who doesn't know their facts. Very few PS3 games use Servers exclusively. Peer to Peer is a standard for the PSN as well. Killzone 2 with it's high player count uses servers as does Warhawk. However games like Resistance and Resistance 2 use P2P almost completely, often with some the lowest lag I have ever seen. Other games like LittleBigPlanet don't even bother with servers.

People seriously, almost all of the above quotes are ridiculous. You need to go and learn about what you are talking about before you say anything. Particularly you two PS3 haters.

[Edited on 06.23.2009 1:42 PM PDT]

  • 06.23.2009 1:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I do not appreciate B.Net Group solicitation. If you ignore this and send me an invitation anyway, I will block communications with you.

Mag has sub-par aesthetics, which probably plays a huge role in why 256-player warfare is even possible. I'm sorry, but I'd rather not have a dumbed down Halo engine just for the sake of larger multiplayer. At least... not in a headlining Halo title.

  • 06.23.2009 1:16 PM PDT

I would absolutely love this. MAG and Metal Gear are the two things that I envy most about the PS3 and since we're getting Metal Gear, this is the final piece of the puzzle for the 360 to be the gaming overlord.

  • 06.23.2009 1:41 PM PDT

the maps would need to be really small
like
foundry

  • 06.23.2009 3:12 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: Dexomega
The XBox 360 does not have the processing power to handle that many variable dynamic objects on a single plane. Your XBox will red-ring after about thirty seconds.

Posted by: SiKe X
Lol. Servers are of course not a simple fix. But they will help.

Quit telling people the impossible. Anything is possible, and with servers that percent goes up. So please people shouldn't listen to you.

Servers are able process information much faster and efficiently than a client system. Most high player count games require a server in order to efficiently run a large base environment and track the players on a plane of reference. However network connections are an issue. Instead of having a player with best overall connection host, players must connect to a point that may be in a different country. This severely limits the overall efficiency of a server as all the players will be connecting with various states of network connectivity. This creates a gap between when the time the data is sent to the client, to the server, and then back to the client. This gap is commonly referred to as "lag".

You say they are a "fix" they aren't even a fix, a 256 player game would REQUIRE it. The Pros and Cons of a server make them only viable in large player games. The Pros being a more steady host, the ability to support larger games, and (sometimes) faster connections. The Cons being that Dedicated servers cost monthly maintenance, staffing, and troubleshooting as well as sometimes less viable for international connections.

And no, not anything is possible right now. Unless you want to donate the trillions of dollars to string the world with Fiber Optic cables?

Posted by: SweetTRIX
IMO PS3 games offer that crap because they are trying to do what they can to attract people, no matter how impractical the implement.

Hmmm, another person who doesn't know their facts. Very few PS3 games use Servers exclusively. Peer to Peer is a standard for the PSN as well. Killzone 2 with it's high player count uses servers as does Warhawk. However games like Resistance and Resistance 2 use P2P almost completely, often with some the lowest lag I have ever seen. Other games like LittleBigPlanet don't even bother with servers.

People seriously, almost all of the above quotes are ridiculous. You need to go and learn about what you are talking about before you say anything. Particularly you two PS3 haters.


I own a PS3 friend, and my facts are straight. I never stated anything in detriment to the system, and I never staked any claims about what all the games do, get your stuff together. Considering you actually appear to know something about networking, particularily in regard to servers not fixing anything (thank you for proving my point to the other guy), you know just as well as I do that games of that size are impractical and "gimmicky".

Don't throw around condescension needlessly.

  • 06.23.2009 3:21 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: Dream053
Mag has sub-par aesthetics, which probably plays a huge role in why 256-player warfare is even possible. I'm sorry, but I'd rather not have a dumbed down Halo engine just for the sake of larger multiplayer. At least... not in a headlining Halo title.


Another great point that seems to get glossed over in these discussion, and I mentioned as much in my post higher up the page. Rendering stuff in that huge a scale requries the objects to be of lower quality. Even the "high and mighty" hardware of the PS3 can only do so much. 256 is a tall order for any console/medium if were talking hi-res.

  • 06.23.2009 3:24 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I say having around a hundred people at most would be far more than enough. It would matter on gameplay and maps, which would of course work fine for bungie.

  • 06.23.2009 3:34 PM PDT
  • gamertag: MibZ x
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Sp4rt4n119
Thank you sir, that was an epic rendition of this topic.


Posted by: Xx KNOX xX
and how!

Fail.

It turns into a huge scale FFA match with no teamwork or cooperation at all. Newer players have no fun as they get mauled continuously by the skilled players zooming through the sky in aircraft dropping bombs with pinpoint accuracy.

On top of that, if you have a game that can handle such a large scale fail without much lag, you have no graphical beauty left. Everything either looks like crap or you don't care that it looks amazing because you can't play the game.

  • 06.23.2009 3:37 PM PDT

PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME GROUP INVITATIONS

The Halo REACH Script (post thoughts in thread)

Writing Lead of Whisper Studios. Check out Heron!

Look... I'm on bungiepedia!

That would suck in Halo.

  • 06.23.2009 4:04 PM PDT

Chief- its on!
Grunt- no, its not on
Chief- Ho yea! its on!!
Grunt- NOOO it iiiis nooot on!
Blam!
Chief- Now your on
-"98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you're one of the 2% who hasn't, copy & paste this into your signature." Thanks to SLD

halo should be 18 players MAX,

COD6 could handle better that 256 count

  • 06.23.2009 4:09 PM PDT

im Just trying to get more xp on my lone wolves 50 before reach comes out,Thats really the only time I put effort in. Other then that I mess around in social with friends... I use to play pretty seriously, that time has passed....

you people are too worried about unfairness and cheapness. What about the chance that 256 players would be really fun? u friggin kids have changed so much these days.. it use to be all about fun, now its just about cheapness and balance...give it a break..

  • 06.23.2009 4:28 PM PDT

PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME GROUP INVITATIONS

The Halo REACH Script (post thoughts in thread)

Writing Lead of Whisper Studios. Check out Heron!

Look... I'm on bungiepedia!

Posted by: JamezIsABEAST
you people are too worried about unfairness and cheapness. What about the chance that 256 players would be really fun? u friggin kids have changed so much these days.. it use to be all about fun, now its just about cheapness and balance...give it a break..
I think it would be boring (and frustrating) as hell. Not fun. Don't be an elitist; people have different views on what's fun.

[Edited on 06.23.2009 4:41 PM PDT]

  • 06.23.2009 4:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I have no idea where this would fit in a halo game especially since there were never 256 Spartans in the same place at the same time EVER! and this seems like a fan reaction to the Sony PS3 Exclusive massive game that involves action, which runs beautifully if what they were showing at E3 was real.

I just can't see it happening in Halo game it takes like 5 minutes on a slow night just to get 16 people now imagine trying to get 240 more just so you can play an "epic" game

[Edited on 06.23.2009 5:01 PM PDT]

  • 06.23.2009 4:55 PM PDT

it would be fun to think about especially imagining a whole team working seamlessly together. if you think of it that way i think most people would agree it would be probably the most amazing experience ever.

obviously it would never work in reality to many complications as mentioned more then a few times above. but still a fun idea to think about :D

  • 06.23.2009 5:07 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: ManU4tw
a whole team working seamlessly together.


Fantasy and reality are two different things it would turn out more like this

10% don't want to listen and are camping out in sniping spots or in the base to protect the flag
15% are getting pissed at some one else and trying to "accidentally" team kill
70% doing their own thing
5% actually working together in a unit coherently

[Edited on 06.23.2009 5:22 PM PDT]

  • 06.23.2009 5:21 PM PDT