Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: can xbl handle 32 players?
  • Subject: can xbl handle 32 players?
Subject: can xbl handle 32 players?

And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.
Posted by: tacomaster13
-Thanks to Rocket Turtle for pointing out my typing follies.

One thing I would love to see in halo: reach is 16 vs 16 multiplayer, but can xbox live, in its current format, handle this? im not much of a techhead, so i dont know the answer, but battlefield 1943 is 12 v 12 and that works fine. If it can be lag-free, i think 32 player multiplayer is a must. I would love a large scale battle mode.
thoughts?

  • 07.25.2009 2:28 AM PDT

Loading signature ... 1% complete

Buy Frontlines: Fuel of War. It's a 360 exclusive with 25 vs 25 multiplayer and it rarely lags.

  • 07.25.2009 2:33 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Legends never die.

I just wasted three clicks and thirteen words on this thread. Epic Fail.

  • 07.25.2009 2:55 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member
  • gamertag: lex255
  • user homepage:

I need a dropshield dropshield

no team work and will lag a lot
I think for halo game the players should be max 10vs10
Posted by: Rocket Turtle95
One thing I would love to see in halo: reach is 16 vs 16 multiplayer, but can xbox live, in its current format, handle this? im not much of a techhead, so i dont know the answer, but battlefield 1943 is 12 v 12 and that works fine. If it can be lag-free, i think 32 player multiplayer is a must. I would love a large scale battle mode.
thoughts?

  • 07.25.2009 3:40 AM PDT

Every time I read something that I think is the stupidest thing ever and something can't replace it, something manages to replace it.

Frontlines is awsome but only manages such big games as it has its own private servers. ie. none of the players are hosting the game which means lag free playthrough but also much more expensive for KAOS studioes(SP).

the size of map for 16v16 on halo would be massive and given how ranked big team had to be retired due to lack of players i doubt it would be very popular.

  • 07.25.2009 3:56 AM PDT

Posted by: Rocket Turtle95
One thing I would love to see in halo: reach is 16 vs 16 multiplayer, but can xbox live, in its current format, handle this? im not much of a techhead, so i dont know the answer, but battlefield 1943 is 12 v 12 and that works fine. If it can be lag-free, i think 32 player multiplayer is a must. I would love a large scale battle mode.
thoughts?

Its not Xbox Live that hosts the game, so it all depends on who is hosting the game. Battlefield 1943 has dedicated servers set up by EA.

  • 07.25.2009 3:59 AM PDT

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

It can but:

Halo 3 could have had more players but Bungie kept it down because things were too hectic, kill steals were too often, etc it was a mess, the maps aren't designed to handle 24 players, etc.

If they make the maps larger than perhaps but Halo has been about arena type gameplay, quick reflexes, sharp aim, etc.

The other thing is that with Halo, there are a lot of physics objects flying around, that's why it generally lags worse than other games. There are crates, vehicles, bodies, explosives, map items, weapons, pickups, etc, all of which move under gravity and must be cross-referenced on each console to ensure even gameplay.

In other games i.e. COD4 there's just simply each player, their line of fire, grenades and cars.

Now some people may be asking "wait, isn't ping the main cause of lag, not download / upload speed?", well when data is sent, it's sent in packets, usually sending mutliple copies of data in order to prevent corruption. When you have a lot of data being sent, more of it gets lost and so more of it get's sent, this means that the host or client on the recieving end is having to wait for bits of missing information to come through before the action can be carried out.

e.g.
low data amount:
"player-" 1st second
"player moves" 2nd second

high data amount:
"player-" 1st second
"player picks up-" 2nd second
"player picks up weapon and-" 3rd second
"player picks up weapon and fires" 4th second

*note that that was an exaggerated and simplified version*

  • 07.25.2009 7:43 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

If Reach can support that many players without the framerate going crazy and the maps are made for it then sure. I doubt we'll get anymore than 24 players though.

  • 07.25.2009 8:06 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

why are u reading this this is private go back to your house!!

drink beer!
drink ale
all hail to the ale

well if ps3 can hold 256 without lagin we can steal their hardware and covert it

  • 07.25.2009 8:19 AM PDT

slow framerate is EXTREME, so im all for it!

  • 07.25.2009 8:45 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: IM A MORON
well if ps3 can hold 256 without lagin we can steal their hardware and covert it


Your Gamertag says it all...

  • 07.25.2009 8:49 AM PDT