Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: 256 vs 256 Online Multiplayer Squad Based.
  • Subject: 256 vs 256 Online Multiplayer Squad Based.
Subject: 256 vs 256 Online Multiplayer Squad Based.

I agree that the 360 can't handle a game this size. If they wait until a next-gen console came out they could definitely do it, but it can't handle it currently.

  • 07.27.2009 5:28 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Heroic Member

www.eevince.com
www.polark.deviantart.com

____________________________

They thought they were funny; however, they didn't know they were talking to a peanut farmer from Georgia who knows the value of a peanut.

no would be awful. its gets laggy alot with just 16 people.

  • 07.27.2009 5:32 PM PDT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlSEbo-7U_U

Posted by: Darth Pman
That would be amazing, but I think it would rather be 117 vs. 117. Xbox needs a game like MAG.


Yes.

To those guys complaining. Give me the technical and theoretical reasons on why is it impossible.

Maybe the only barrier would be dedicated servers.
WHO CARES. I'd pay a monthly fee to play an MMOFPS.

  • 07.27.2009 5:48 PM PDT

Posted by: MLG Armor King
no offense 'stosh', but I don't think you're funny
Posted by: stosh
No offense, but I don't think you're the armor 'king'.
Map Spotlight - Hydra XXIII
Best. Thread. Ever.
Staff Member of Mythical Group

Lagapalooza. Lagfest. Xbox asplodes into nothing. Xbox LIVE disitigrates. Hell Freezes over. The world ends.


It has been researched that that kind of idea can cause such worldly symptoms.

[Edited on 07.27.2009 6:22 PM PDT]

  • 07.27.2009 6:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I dont thick the 360 can do that maby 100vs100?

  • 07.27.2009 6:30 PM PDT

Signatures are for squares.

NO.

Freaking BTB is laggy as is, I refuse to play more than 10v10 MAX. It'd be too laggy, and I LOVE BTB.

  • 07.27.2009 6:45 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: wolfhunter9154
Posted by: ApocalypeX
512 players is impossible.


People said going to the moon was impossible too


You're comparing space travel to game programming? Interesting comparison....

  • 07.27.2009 6:54 PM PDT

UEM Brig/leader of the 42nd drop pod group
ODST QUOTE:You know the music, time to dance!
ODST MOTO:Feet First Into Hell

Posted by: ApocalypeX
512 players is impossible.
not really xboxlive just needs to upgrade their servers,like halo 1 pc i think can now play 16vs16 because the upgraded servers but i think its a great idea!

[Edited on 07.27.2009 7:04 PM PDT]

  • 07.27.2009 7:04 PM PDT

Nope.

Posted by: Calvin07
halo 1 pc i think can now play 16vs16 because the upgraded servers


Not true.

The 360 needs to be upgraded in terms of hardware in order to run that amount of players efficiently. Not only that, but the server infrastructure would probably take more time to perfect than the actual game itself. ARMA 2 has 2000 player AI matches (not online, people) and its tough to even push out efficient 30 FPS without lagging your pants off.

  • 07.27.2009 7:06 PM PDT

UEM Brig/leader of the 42nd drop pod group
ODST QUOTE:You know the music, time to dance!
ODST MOTO:Feet First Into Hell

Posted by: NewbAmoeba
Posted by: Calvin07
halo 1 pc i think can now play 16vs16 because the upgraded servers


Not true.

The 360 needs to be upgraded in terms of hardware in order to run that amount of players efficiently. Not only that, but the server infrastructure would probably take more time to perfect than the actual game itself. ARMA 2 has 2000 player AI matches (not online, people) and its tough to even push out efficient 30 FPS without lagging your pants off.
ohhh...ok i though it was the server,well now i now, thanks

  • 07.27.2009 7:09 PM PDT

You are lame...

facepalm

  • 07.27.2009 7:30 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

The ps3 cant handle it either, mag is 8vs8 pretty much, you're in squads of 8 the whole time participating in a part of a battle
and xbox 360 actually has a better graphics card than the ps3 so its graphics are better

  • 07.27.2009 7:34 PM PDT

It is my latest cultural research project! By randomly saying LOLWIN to semi-funny replies on the Halo 3 forum, I hypothesize that a temperary self-esteem boost will be present.

And once they read this, they will be a little worse off than before.

Think of it the way they would if they were forced to put that many players in.

*Designated Servers
*Maps that only have about 1/4 of the area visible at any given time
*Load only 1000 meters more than you can see
*Air Vehicle Visibility loads 2x halo wars level graphics until a given distance is reached
*Explosions are drawn on a transparent plane at over 500m
*Do regional voices or have a radio channel system

Anyway, by changing the graphics depending on distance, the quality could be maintained while still allowing MMOFPS'ness.

Don't hold me accountable on the numbers, they are random.

  • 07.27.2009 7:42 PM PDT

Snakie Purple.

"Hamdog, Hamdog, Hamdog, Hamdog"-Hamdog.

Twatter

No. Just no. Imagine the lag, for a second.

  • 07.27.2009 7:44 PM PDT

The xbox 360 can not handle that amount of players at once. The servers can take only so many players in 1 match. The maps would be too big. Matches lag terribly in 16 vs 16 matches, imagine matches of 512. Finding that many players would take an hour. The graphics would have to be horrible. And imagine that many people trying to talk at once. There are even more reasons why not but these are the main ones. Maybe 50 vs 50 matches. And big ones in the campaign would be good.


[Edited on 07.27.2009 7:58 PM PDT]

  • 07.27.2009 7:56 PM PDT

Posted by: T1B3R7uMB0YXVI
Chief vs the scarab? I find that hard to believe to roundhouse boot the scarab's figurative emotion out of the gaming zone.

All previous issues aside, what the hell would you even end up doing in such a huge game? How long and to how many kills would a Slayer game with 256 people per side need to run to let even half of those people accomplish anything of worth? How about objectives? One flag per side of 256 people would just be nonsense, so how many would need to be on each side for the game to work?

I just don't see this as fun at all.

  • 07.27.2009 8:27 PM PDT

It can be accomplished if the map had different loading areas that locked up after a certain amount of people were in it.

  • 07.27.2009 8:31 PM PDT

Why are we Called Humans? Shouldnt we be the ones who are called "Animals" scince we are the ones Acting like "animals", making war agianst any and everything that is "Unfair". Well i got news for you, Life is Unfair so deal with it. so lets stop acting like "Animals" because they are more Human than any of us...
So put down ur WOMD(weapons of mass destruction).

What about 50v 50 or 100 v 100 sumthing smaller but still big

  • 07.27.2009 8:35 PM PDT

"If buttered toast lands buttered side down, and cats always land on their feet, then what happens when you attach buttered toast to the back of a cat?

Posted by: Blaster73
The ps3 cant handle it either, mag is 8vs8 pretty much, you're in squads of 8 the whole time participating in a part of a battle
and xbox 360 actually has a better graphics card than the ps3 so its graphics are better
Graphics has a lot more to it than just graphics cards...

If you want 256 v. 256, both software and hardware will have to be MAJORLY upgraded. The Xbox 360 is already very outdated in terms of hardware. A regular DVD would not have enough space to hold all the info necessary to make every map compatible with over 500 players, servers would have to be majorly overhauled, even the Xbox 360 itself would be pulling it's own hairs out of it's head trying to process all the information going on.

  • 07.27.2009 8:47 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Intrepid Member
  • gamertag: nuchey
  • user homepage:

RAWR!

it would -blam!- lag!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 07.27.2009 8:51 PM PDT

***it’s not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you***

Is this a real thread or is it a complete joke?

  • 07.27.2009 8:54 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

So what your saying is have a fog, sandstorm or whatever type of storm, based on the terrain should block out the rest of the map? And if you move the fog moves farther away until the end of the map and it shows the other parts of the map without lagging up the game?

Interesting.....

  • 07.27.2009 9:05 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I think the player count should reach OVER 9000!!!!!

  • 07.27.2009 9:28 PM PDT