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.

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

Posted by: Gdude
if there was 256 v 256 in grifball.........wow


LOL

  • 07.28.2009 3:34 PM PDT

The Ban Hammer is all that was and all that will be! The Ban Hammer is time and space, life and death! The Ban Hammer can see into your mind! The Ban Hammer can see into your soouull....

its possible and there would be no lag. but it would require that a Server would have to be host. That's all.

  • 07.28.2009 4:08 PM PDT

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

Posted by: Billy Vandergaw
its possible and there would be no lag. but it would require that a Server would have to be host. That's all.


He owned you all.

  • 07.28.2009 5:06 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.

Posted by: BaWithBr
There are at least 3 problems with this theory.

1) Graphical limitations of the Xbox 360. The sheer size of the maps required to handle 256 vs. 256 matches is MIND BOGGLING. I highly doubt that all too many people on Earth have the hardware needed to do that in anything higher then Quake 3/Quake Live-esque graphics. That being said is completely unlikely that the 360 will be able to handle it unless the graphics are 2d and/or 8bit.

That being said a current generation graphics at that scale wouldn't be handled by the 360.

2) Network limitations of the internet/people. I'm extremely sure that the sub-LAN quality of this will be utter -blam!-. This is mainly due to how overpriced the internet is in America. I'm excluding other countries because a majority of 360 gamers live in a America.

That being said a chunk of people won't be able to play this unless they like things like over 50% packet loss (one of the first Rainbow Six games needed a dial up connection with at most 5% packet loss and that was utter -Blam!-, constantly timing out and people lunging across the map. The people lost are obviously a big crowd of gamers. A group that Bungie can't afford to lose.

The other chunk of people with connections that can play it will get to play it though. That's not too many people as those are the people with high quality connections. The same connections that large corporations and even Bungie themselves use to power their network.

An example of the connection required to possibly do something like this is OC#.

Besides, who here spends tens of thousands on an internet connection and then uses it too play a video game? NO ONE. These people own companies, businesses, etc... They do things like host websites with their connection.

3) How much fun will this really be? More doesn't mean better and Bungie isn't going to go out of there way to do something balls out nuts like this just too satisfy a couple -blam!-s who don't know what they really want. Those -blam!-s mostly being kids who really haven't learned the lesson more isn't better.


I have problems with your three problems that were already explained,

1. Limited draw distance, maps would have to be made so that you cannot see too far.
2. Limited care about those people distance, a DNS would handle the big stuff.
3. IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY AWESOME! In other words, you could use the big vehicles, weapons, and map features. Anyway, it is a worthwhile experiment in my opinion.
4. I wonder if it is possible to have a network pool that would assign part of a map to each player in the match.

  • 07.28.2009 5:09 PM PDT

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

Posted by: bamman62
Posted by: BaWithBr
There are at least 3 problems with this theory.

1) Graphical limitations of the Xbox 360. The sheer size of the maps required to handle 256 vs. 256 matches is MIND BOGGLING. I highly doubt that all too many people on Earth have the hardware needed to do that in anything higher then Quake 3/Quake Live-esque graphics. That being said is completely unlikely that the 360 will be able to handle it unless the graphics are 2d and/or 8bit.

That being said a current generation graphics at that scale wouldn't be handled by the 360.

2) Network limitations of the internet/people. I'm extremely sure that the sub-LAN quality of this will be utter -blam!-. This is mainly due to how overpriced the internet is in America. I'm excluding other countries because a majority of 360 gamers live in a America.

That being said a chunk of people won't be able to play this unless they like things like over 50% packet loss (one of the first Rainbow Six games needed a dial up connection with at most 5% packet loss and that was utter -Blam!-, constantly timing out and people lunging across the map. The people lost are obviously a big crowd of gamers. A group that Bungie can't afford to lose.

The other chunk of people with connections that can play it will get to play it though. That's not too many people as those are the people with high quality connections. The same connections that large corporations and even Bungie themselves use to power their network.

An example of the connection required to possibly do something like this is OC#.

Besides, who here spends tens of thousands on an internet connection and then uses it too play a video game? NO ONE. These people own companies, businesses, etc... They do things like host websites with their connection.

3) How much fun will this really be? More doesn't mean better and Bungie isn't going to go out of there way to do something balls out nuts like this just too satisfy a couple -blam!-s who don't know what they really want. Those -blam!-s mostly being kids who really haven't learned the lesson more isn't better.


I have problems with your three problems that were already explained,

1. Limited draw distance, maps would have to be made so that you cannot see too far.
2. Limited care about those people distance, a DNS would handle the big stuff.
3. IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY AWESOME! In other words, you could use the big vehicles, weapons, and map features. Anyway, it is a worthwhile experiment in my opinion.
4. I wonder if it is possible to have a network pool that would assign part of a map to each player in the match.


It would indeed be awesome

  • 07.28.2009 7:00 PM PDT

let's be realistic, 256v256 is... too large, and won't have the halo feel. A simple 4v4 would just be lucky to find 1 guy.

I think they could bump it up to 9v9 or 10v10

  • 07.28.2009 7:06 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

30 vs 30 - 75 vs 75

That would work,especially if it was like covenant vs UNSC and you get to choose any covenant species or different types of UNSC soldiers (Depends on your class)
Thats right,i support the whole class idea because it can start a whole new halo multiplayer expereiance.

  • 07.28.2009 7:14 PM PDT

Why so many people? I think that a 30 vs. 30 or 40 vs. 40 or 50 vs. 50 would be good.

  • 07.28.2009 7:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I think 256 people total is possible now because Mag is a ps3 game coming out soon that will be able to have that many people and it has some pretty good sized maps and good graphics

  • 07.28.2009 8:05 PM PDT

I can't believe this thread is still going. This will not happen with Halo: Reach, because of three main reasons.

1. This is flat out not possible on the Xbox 360. I don't care about MAG. MAG is for the PS3. The PS3 has superior hardware to the 360. Google it. For one, the map files would be gigantic - and if this game is released next year, there will be no DVD in the world capable of holding the data this game would require. While the PS3 has Blue Ray and MAG does not have any determined release date, Reach is releasing in 2010 and cannot wait for technology progression. In order for there to be enough space to hold the everything, there could not be a campaign of any decent length, the textures would be low-res, player models would be low-poly and very uncustomizable...you get the idea. And I haven't even touched on processing power - think of the noise the Xbox makes running Mass Effect, and then triple that.

2. Bungie would not release a game in such deplorable condition. They take pride in their games; with all the compromises that would be required to make this game run, it would look worse than Zelda Ocarina of Time.

3. Networking problems. The huge networking load would require top-of-the-line dedicated servers that would force Microsoft to charge a monthly subscription fee if they wanted to make any profit off of this game. This would hugely detrimental to the player base, and Microsoft would end up losing money - and we all know that is absolutely unacceptable.

Maybe a console generation or two down the road, Microsoft will launch a halo game like this with their new Xbox. But next year? Not happening. Sorry.

  • 07.28.2009 8:35 PM PDT

At least 36 vs 36.
Btw for those who say that the 360 is not capable of this check FinalFantasy XI It's an mmo available for the 360.

[Edited on 07.28.2009 8:38 PM PDT]

  • 07.28.2009 8:36 PM PDT

256 vs 256 does sound a little too crazy... But why not 50 vs 50? Or 75 vs 75 like someone else already stated. That's possible.

  • 07.28.2009 8:39 PM PDT

lol mag didnt even look that good at e3, a lot of people thought it would suck,
guess they were right

[Edited on 07.28.2009 8:44 PM PDT]

  • 07.28.2009 8:44 PM PDT

Too bad the 360 probably can't handle the 256 players.

  • 07.28.2009 8:48 PM PDT

LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!

  • 07.28.2009 8:49 PM PDT

Not changing this signature until I feel like it.

I'd rather them never come out with another Halo again than play this, sir.

  • 07.28.2009 9:06 PM PDT

Signatures are for squares.

Idiots seem to have no idea on how networking works...

  • 07.28.2009 9:21 PM PDT

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

Posted by: OMG LOL moments
Too bad the 360 probably can't handle the 256 players.


Yes, with dedicated server

  • 07.28.2009 9:24 PM PDT

"'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
-Abraham Lincoln

Posted by: privet caboose
Idiots seem to have no idea on how networking works...

Hey man they're not idiots they're just ignorant. Very, very ignorant.

  • 07.28.2009 9:29 PM PDT

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

Posted by: Sergaent Sevorg
Posted by: privet caboose
Idiots seem to have no idea on how networking works...

Hey man they're not idiots they're just ignorant. Very, very ignorant.


What do you mean by that. You're supporting the guys who say we can't or the guys who say we can

  • 07.28.2009 9:33 PM PDT

Were it so easy.

Not in a million years.

  • 07.28.2009 9:40 PM PDT

BOOM Headshot!

Posted by: a flying jar
Not to mention, consider how long it takes to find a match of 5v5 or 8v8.

Now try to find a match of 256v256.

agreed

  • 07.28.2009 9:49 PM PDT

BOOM Headshot!

not battlefield, halo

  • 07.28.2009 9:53 PM PDT

Posted by: privet caboose
Idiots seem to have no idea on how networking works...

GTFO
Stop grouping the ones who know what they're talking about in with the idiots.

  • 07.28.2009 9:58 PM PDT

I have some problems with this -blam!- theory.

1) Bungie isn't being run by crackheads.

2) Limited draw distance so what, your still going to have huge maps. Imagine taking The original Sidewinder and multiplying that by 8. Then you'll probably be looking at the bare minimum amount of space needed for a 256v256 game.

3) How old are you, 10? Bigger doesn't mean better and THIS IS NOT A WORTHWHILE EXPERIMENT. Doing something as stupid as that could quite possibly RUIN BUNGIE. The amount of time work and money to do something like that would have little impact on the industry and bankrupt Bungie

4) That still wouldn't work because you'll still need a host to sort it all out and there's no way in hell a 360 will be able to handle all of that data.

5) The MAG idea could work, but your still going to have problems with lag. Why? Some people aren't going to be able to output/input the data fast enough. In one hour of H3 you'll use ~100MB of bandwidth. That's assuming your doing 4v4s. Now imagine that your doing 256v256. That's one hell of a difference. Too be generic and stupid i'm going to just go about it the logical route. According to my calculations you'll transmit at a rate of 1.7MBPs. That 1,700 KiloBytes Per Second. Not too many people have a connection with a download speed above that so not too many people will be able to play.

6) Graphical limitations means NO -blam!- CHANCE IN HELL UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE LOOKING AT 8 BIT GRAPHICS.







At this present time this sort of thing won't be happening. Ten year olds and ass hats need to stop dreaming and face the facts.

IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON WITHOUT SOME MAJOR CHANGES.

  • 07.28.2009 10:00 PM PDT