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.

-L3PR3CH4UN003-

I disagree, not 'thousands' of players would be needed, maybe just one thousand or so, if the players were determined and have free time. AKA no life :P

  • 06.23.2009 11:17 PM PDT

-L3PR3CH4UN003-

I agree, 256 is a bit much. maybe 30 or 40 at max ?
and I dont think anyone wants Lag? Right?

  • 06.23.2009 11:19 PM PDT

-L3PR3CH4UN003-

AGREED, I too wish to have more people in a single game, the servers are horrible, unless most players switch to Mediacom, or something better ( I prefer Mediacom though)

  • 06.23.2009 11:25 PM PDT

...

Well, the current net code would work with a party size of 32, with improved logic, of course.

  • 06.23.2009 11:56 PM PDT

Maybe this bit of info from a few weeks back may be associated with the upcoming game if it turns out that this is for Halo: Reach then there maybe really HUGE battles going on it almost seems like M$ would do something big to combat MAG but I doubt there'd ever be a 300,000 Halo match(that'd be insane) but it's possible that maybe M$ will finally provide dedicated servers and bungie will up the player count a little bit. Resistance 2 has a max of 60 players online and doesn't lag.

INFO

[Edited on 06.24.2009 1:47 AM PDT]

  • 06.24.2009 1:39 AM PDT

...

Posted by: ENiGMATiC FiEND
Maybe this bit of info from a few weeks back may be associated with the upcoming game if it turns out that this is for Halo: Reach then there maybe really HUGE battles going on it almost seems like M$ would do something big to combat MAG but I doubt there'd ever be a 300,000 Halo match(that'd be insane) but it's possible that maybe M$ will finally provide dedicated servers and bungie will up the player count a little bit. Resistance 2 has a max of 60 players online and doesn't lag.

INFO


wow. but that type of system seems more suited for an MMO. rather than a FPS..

  • 06.24.2009 1:55 AM PDT

It would be fun but unbalanced and mindless shooting no real team work. I think getting cheap kills would be the only way to come out on top

  • 06.24.2009 2:28 AM PDT

"You got 2 years of cl1t deepening you mean?"
"Uh. Wut?"
"..."
"Do you know what a cl1t is, dear?"
"LAWL SO SIGGING THIS -blam!-!"

Posted by: Chupanebre627
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.

=)


Hell I love working in a squad - Vehicle squad would be ballistic.


.:haloscout:.

=P

  • 06.24.2009 2:39 AM PDT

[As of October 2012]
2013 ADFA Officer Cadet of the RAAF (Aerospace Engineer Electronics Officer).

It wouldn't work:

Halo 3 in particular has a lot more gameplay props flying around on screen, from weapons to people to vehicles to just random stuff around maps.

MAG for example most likely won't have that many objects on their maps, probably just vehicles.

MAG has a high potential for failure in the fact that due to the higher player requirements for a full enough game, it'll have to be a lot looser with its matchmaking service - if it has one of course, if it doesn't <quite likely> then this could allow anyone to kill a good server.

  • 06.24.2009 3:47 AM PDT

LW45 TS40 TO40 TSW35 TSN35 TT30 SB30 MLG25

It's not the lag I would have a problem with.

It's the complete and utter insignificance one would feel. There would be zero teamwork, and individual skill would make absolutely no difference to the outcome of a match.

I mean, most people prefer 4v4 to 8v8 anyway. I think that shows people are happy playing with relatively small teams.

  • 06.24.2009 4:00 AM PDT

I'm i right in thinking that it's not been confirmed that in Reach you will be controlling a Spartan? So people stating that there's never been 256 Spartans in one place need not worry about the canon of it. It might be 256 ODST's or the previously ignored Brutes

in pure fantasy and ignoring the technical aspect 256 players online in the same battle will be chaotic, lunacy and great fun (imagine the skill/luck needed to get perfection or extermination medals) but ignore the team battles lastman standing on free for all.

  • 06.24.2009 5:02 AM 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: Tanar Cadarn
in pure fantasy and ignoring the technical aspect 256 players online in the same battle will be chaotic, lunacy and great fun (imagine the skill/luck needed to get perfection or extermination medals) but ignore the team battles lastman standing on free for all.


Not to pick on you, but how can anyone ignore the technical issues? It currently can take up to 10 minutes or more to get a match in Team Slayer, the playlist with the highest population, depending on the part of the world you live. How in the world would something like this work practically? Personally, if it could be done well, I would love to see some 16v16, but anything higher than that is affecting gameplay. Chaos is only fun until the "wow" factor wears off, then it's just frustrating.

  • 06.24.2009 10:53 AM PDT

i want only a 100 or at least 32 thats how many spartens went to battle

  • 06.24.2009 11:03 AM 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: ENiGMATiC FiEND
Maybe this bit of info from a few weeks back may be associated with the upcoming game if it turns out that this is for Halo: Reach then there maybe really HUGE battles going on it almost seems like M$ would do something big to combat MAG but I doubt there'd ever be a 300,000 Halo match(that'd be insane) but it's possible that maybe M$ will finally provide dedicated servers and bungie will up the player count a little bit. Resistance 2 has a max of 60 players online and doesn't lag.

INFO


Wait? You don't know yet?

lol

  • 06.24.2009 12:49 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

it would feel more like a battlefield game than Halo

  • 06.24.2009 12:54 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

People keep telling me to get a life... I am getting an education, I have a lovely girlfriend and alot of friends... I thought this was having a life? Gues I was wrong...

MAG is a Sony game, and with all of Sony's online game, they will fail because as soon as they are done with the game itself, they will fire or relocate the team to another project, leaving 2-3 people behind to take care of support and new content... So I would suggest not having 256 players, as it takes up to much server space and it would lag... No one have an internet connection to host 256 people anyway with the matchmaking system Halo is running on.

  • 06.24.2009 12:58 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Iam enjoying Halo Reach and revisiting some past Bungie games, iam a big fan of Bungie and their online community.

Apart from the huge ammounts of lag with large groups of people and huge veochles e.g scarabs and also troop veichles e.g pelicans.

  • 06.24.2009 1:10 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Heroic Member

Halo 3 is for noobs. Gg NoRe.

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.


Unfortunately, my xbox has already red ringed. Talk about a faulty system?

  • 06.24.2009 6:34 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
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.


Unfortunately, my xbox has already red ringed. Talk about a faulty system?


I'm on my fourth, buddy of mine's on his seventh. At least it doesn't cost anything to replace, but it is pretty damn inconvinient.

  • 06.24.2009 6:37 PM PDT

Check out my youtube channel. http://www.youtube.com/user/ultratog1028

lets see.
no.
team killers, squeekers, Mike-Jockeys, guy who is just an ass, spawn killers, "MLG" person who isn't, whiny-mc-cry--blam!-, guy who wants snipes because he thinks hes good with it, egomaniacs, quitters (for fear of losing thier social or action sack rank!), guy with -blam!- connection, etc..

all of these would be over 100 times worse.

and lag would be terrible. like a slideshow.

16 is fine.

  • 06.24.2009 6:48 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

64 Player servers on CoD5 are just silly when it comes to how much is going on. You die in what seems like a matter of seconds at most. Even if you are being careful. 256 players (unless the maps are just ridiculously big) will cause an even bigger problem.

And even if the maps are large, most people won't listen to one person giving out orders so it will just be mindless wandering and gunning.

  • 06.24.2009 6:55 PM PDT

I think they would need servers for that.

  • 06.24.2009 8:12 PM PDT

Happiness is a warm gun

Prefer a fiest of friends to the Giant Family

  • 06.24.2009 8:16 PM PDT

I wouldn't want this for Halo. Halo's MP is fine the way it is player wise, and should stay that way.

  • 06.24.2009 8:18 PM PDT

Dude that would be crazy awesome...If they could make it without lag

if you dont like it than dont play it. pretty simple

  • 06.24.2009 10:43 PM PDT