Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Poll [7 votes]: Halo Reach multiplayer Hosting
  • Poll [7 votes]: Halo Reach multiplayer Hosting
Subject: Halo Reach multiplayer Hosting

I play the game to have fun. I'm not here to impress anyone.
I consider myself a average player. I have good days, and bad days.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ElectrricProductions This is my youtube account for Halo 3 video's. Its not much, but its fun for us to make.

Remember. . . . ITS JUST A GAME!!!!

Poll: Halo Reach multiplayer Hosting  [closed]
Have one person be host:  14%
(1 Votes)
Have a main server to host:  71%
(5 Votes)
Other, will state below:  14%
(1 Votes)
Total Votes: 7

*I am assuming that Halo Reach will be similar with a multiplayer like Halo 3*

Do you think that Halo Reach should change the Host system? If so, tell what you think it should be like.

  • 09.08.2009 4:25 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Having a main server to host the games would make it laggy for people who are a long distance from that server, unless bungie decides to have servers located all over the place, which would be obscenely expensive, I think the hosting system will stay the same.

  • 09.08.2009 4:29 PM PDT

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.

i think bungie/MS should seriously look into the possibility of halo reach servers. the current p2p system relies hugely on whether the host has a good internet connection. if there were servers, your connection would be as good as your actual internet connection, rather than your host's connection. a whole game wouldn't be ruined by one laggy player.
If halo reach has servers there's also a very real possibility of big 16v16 games (without lag). ultimately, servers would make the game fairer and more enjoyable over xbox live. Servers is the way to go.
edit to post above:
by the same token, if a player host lives far away in the current system, there is a lot of lag anyway. i live in australia, i should know. There wouldn't need to be a huge amount of servers; you'd just have to cater for the places where most people play.
so, you'd have servers in the US/canada region, a few for the UK, some more for the rest of europe, one or two for australia/new zealand, and one or two for asia. from here, microsoft can do what EA does and decide what's best by adding servers in places where the game is more popular than expected.

[Edited on 09.08.2009 4:35 PM PDT]

  • 09.08.2009 4:30 PM PDT

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
-whoever the heck made it up

i think the person with the best connection be host, the if they all have the same connection, the pick a random person

  • 09.08.2009 4:35 PM PDT