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.
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

PIE!!

  • 06.23.2009 5:25 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Your friendly and eccentric Sangheili forum-poster. :)

I'd be content with 32. Either way I think they should make a small upgrade from the usual 16 players.

  • 06.23.2009 5:49 PM PDT

Welcome to Thunderdome!!!!!!!

It would be epic but the lag. Curse you lag!!!!

  • 06.23.2009 5:51 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Honor. Respect. Loyalty.

Secondary Protocol

Even 'Sandtrap' would feel more like 'Guardian'.

  • 06.23.2009 5:56 PM PDT

I would rather have Bungie work on making 8v8 seemless without any lag first. Once that is achieved and I don't get killed by invisable lasers and seeing my Warthog explode a whole minute later, Bungie can work on having 10v10 or more players.

  • 06.23.2009 6:44 PM PDT

One of the few and the proud, a Mythic Conqueror, I am.

Posted by: jdirodo
I agree with precursors, 90 percent of all people are incompetent, imagine that on 256 players
Wow....want to pull any more stats out of the air? The average person tells 3 lies per ten minutes of conversation. You just told one, my friend. That is a fact by the way.

Let me try this stat thingy to try and make people believe me! Um....oh I've got it! 95% of people think everyone else is incompetent, while only the remaining 5% is truly superior.

  • 06.23.2009 6:59 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

It'll be cool...for the first 5 minutes.

  • 06.23.2009 7:10 PM PDT

The Risk Is Worth The Reward.
Cry Havoc And Let Slip The Dogs Of War.

It sounds cool yes. Just say it was possible without lag....I don't think it would be such a good idea. Unless you where split into divisions and each division had its own area to capture and or defend. The outcome of the match would be decided on what team had more if its divisions succeed in capturing its objective.

[Edited on 06.23.2009 7:38 PM PDT]

  • 06.23.2009 7:38 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: Fox201
But MAG is on the PS3. Better hardware. Not possible on 360.


I agree the hardware has more potential, but that won't solve network related issues that could, and most likely would, accompany games of that size.

  • 06.23.2009 8:23 PM PDT

...

Strange, I can't see page 2 in this thread... it gives me a site error

  • 06.23.2009 8:26 PM PDT

Mythical Group

There is no greater catharsis than arguing on the Flood.

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

MAG micromanages the battle, it wouldn't be like what you think.

I think that 256 players is too many for it to feel like Halo. But 32 would kick ass!

  • 06.23.2009 8:27 PM PDT

...

32 players does sound like the most realistic option. It'd be twice as big as Big Team Battle.

  • 06.23.2009 8:29 PM PDT

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Posted by: Johnny Badfinger
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.

Agreed, I feel bad when we make players from other countries lag, handicapping their playing ability, but I also get mad when the same thing happens to me.

  • 06.23.2009 8:35 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.

Posted by: SweetTRIX
Posted by: Fox201
But MAG is on the PS3. Better hardware. Not possible on 360.


I agree the hardware has more potential, but that won't solve network related issues that could, and most likely would, accompany games of that size.

In truth I think they are developing a new data transfer standard that is more efficient, otherwise I doubt it would be practical. Assuming a new data transfer method is good (and real), high-end strategically placed servers, and good network structure I can see a large lag reduction. However, maintaining the servers and structure is a large cost. I hesitate to think how costs will be covered.

Wishful thinking anyway.

  • 06.23.2009 8:49 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

think about it, in a typical halo match, about half your team acts like idiots....

now you have 255 idiots and you....

it just seems frustrating to me.

  • 06.23.2009 8:55 PM PDT

Break the rules,
Stand apart,
Ignore your head,
And follow your heart

-Unknown

maybe bungie should do the average PC game limit, 32 players

  • 06.23.2009 8:56 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.

Posted by: SweetTRIX
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.


Well then, accept my apology.

I agree fully that servers fix nothing and any massive multi-player is impractical. Sorry for my condescension. I get carried away sometimes. Stupid pride.

  • 06.23.2009 9:11 PM PDT

Warning: You may find that my, or someone else's opinion does not comply with yours. Side effects of disagreement may include (but are not limited to): flaming, irrational behavior, broken keyboards, and/or nervous sweats. If you experience any of these symptoms refrain from communicating with others until the symptoms have subsided.

Are you talking about Reach...?

Anyways, it would be awesome if they could have more people online, you know, without the lag.

  • 06.23.2009 9:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Even if it worked 100% with no flaws I still would say no. Halo does not need that many people. The most I would ever accept is 32 but I would rather keep it at 16. The way the maps are set up there would be too many people trying to go for each thing. One thing I like about Halo is the even in big team battle their are a lot of 1v1 scenarios and that would be gone.

  • 06.23.2009 9:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Even if it worked 100% with no flaws I still would say no. Halo does not need that many people. The most I would ever accept is 32 but I would rather keep it at 16. The way the maps are set up there would be too many people trying to go for each thing. One thing I like about Halo is the even in big team battle their are a lot of 1v1 scenarios and that would be gone.

  • 06.23.2009 9:22 PM PDT

Warning: You may find that my, or someone else's opinion does not comply with yours. Side effects of disagreement may include (but are not limited to): flaming, irrational behavior, broken keyboards, and/or nervous sweats. If you experience any of these symptoms refrain from communicating with others until the symptoms have subsided.

Are you talking about Reach...?

Anyways, it would be awesome if they could have more people online, you know, without the lag.

  • 06.23.2009 9:22 PM PDT

Posted by: Duardo
I'd love to be a 10 year old and tell my mom I'm going on an adventure out into the world catching Pokemon, with her full support. Never mind the fact that there are rapists, criminals, and murders out there, or the fact that I may get killed by a Pokemon.

Luckily I have Pikachu.

No, I want 16 players maximum, but this time with an actual decent netcode, not the piece of crap netcode that can't even handle 8 players in Halo 3.

  • 06.23.2009 9:34 PM PDT

...

It's just a what If? thing. I'm not trying to get that many people into a match at once

  • 06.23.2009 9:39 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member

____________(˜˜˜||˜˜˜˜||˜˜˜˜˜)_∏______
l | --------____.`=====.-.~:________\___|================[oo]
|_|||___/___/_/~```|_|_|_|``(o)----------<)

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.

Actually, with those kind of numbers it's just as likely to lag, if not more.

Server's are stationary, so if someone lives in the middle of nowhere, they'll drag the WHOLE server down.

But yeah, the developers of MAG are working on specialized network technology, you can expect that others are currently checking into it and we'll get a few "similar" items not far behind the game, and then a million clones once the game is public.

  • 06.23.2009 9:40 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Member
  • gamertag: mak8
  • user homepage:

"Let The World Be My Witness"

i smell fail

  • 06.23.2009 10:38 PM PDT