Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Should Halo Reach Have Dedicated Servers?
  • Subject: Should Halo Reach Have Dedicated Servers?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4
Subject: Should Halo Reach Have Dedicated Servers?

(>-^.^)> ( # )

Having dedicated server would destroy the host advantage, stand-bying, host booting, etc. that was presented in Halo 2 and weakened a bit in Halo 3. Sure, it would waste more money, but its well spent.

  • 09.28.2009 11:09 AM PDT

No. Dedicated servers aren't going to fix the problem of people having advantages. If you live close to the host server you're going to have a big advantage over those who are far away. Dedicated isn't all it's cracked up to be; unless they have a search feature to exclusively play games that are nearby, you might as well stick with finding the host with the best connection.

If you really want to improve Halo's multiplayer, make it a client-side hit detection so that bullets always leave the gun when you pull the trigger, grenades are always thrown when they're supposed to, etc. There's just a slight damage delay, but I'd take that over having an entire team warping around like Nightcrawler because they're close to the host and you aren't.

  • 09.28.2009 11:18 AM PDT

I just think make the game fairer I dont care about money bungie can afford it trusssssssst me.

  • 09.28.2009 12:17 PM PDT

I <3 Halo I <3 Bungie!

I want!!!!!! then my clan could join in on games! :DD

  • 09.28.2009 12:22 PM PDT

Tallahassee?
I spent two weeks in Tallahassee one night.

Posted by: SilentRunner2
I just think make the game fairer I dont care about money bungie can afford it trusssssssst me.

Servers wont make it fairer they will make less so. Like a game with 8 people 6 live in europe 1 in florida and one in portland. The one in portland would be closest and basically have host. The one on florida would experience a slight bit of lag and the 6 people in europe would all be at a disadvantage due to increased lag when they should have had host and the better connection.

  • 09.28.2009 12:22 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: Kalriq
  • user homepage:

Twitter.
WyIdfyre: 'lol, who the hell would even wear those?'
AuSam: 'lol, who the hell would even have sex with dogs?'

-K-

Ded servers are a good way of eliminating lag, however the way I see it is that ded servers can cost alot. Unless people are willing to pay that much then they would fall into ruin. Web clients like Kali make it far easier to play games like Descent 2 and Serious Sam (best games ever apart from Halo!) Thats eliminates lag totally but requires alot of NAT shuffling. Its played hell for me, I have it working now, but I still haven't got my box open NAT =(
-K-

  • 09.28.2009 12:23 PM PDT

therepoman your wrong ive played alot of games that use dedicated servers and have never had a problem.

  • 09.28.2009 12:42 PM PDT

Tallahassee?
I spent two weeks in Tallahassee one night.

Posted by: SilentRunner2
therepoman your wrong ive played alot of games that use dedicated servers and have never had a problem.

Where are you? Where are the servers? and what game?

  • 09.28.2009 12:45 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

maybe you should really learn about the pros and cons. You're just making assumptions based on what you've heard, all of which is probably biased

but to stay on topic id like to see some for a change

  • 09.28.2009 12:47 PM PDT

Yes. Then if they set it up right it could:
1. Minimize lag.
2. Monitor cheating better.
3. have more multiplaye capacity like 32 players.

  • 09.28.2009 12:48 PM PDT

(\ (\
(=' :')
(,('')('').LONG RANG1011
the bunny must rule! My GT is ExBrother2 - Add me if you want to hook up for some ODST, H3, or any other game you've got in mind.

Dude they definately need to have them. One reason being what you said, and the second is the possiblity of less lag. ODST has killer lag whenever I play w/ my neighbors which is rediculous. Were down the street from each other and can barely play a game of Firefight even though our internet is beast. Dedicated servers for sure

  • 09.28.2009 12:53 PM PDT

But what i dont understand is there is more goods then bads for this idea so for me seems like a gd idea. im not just some mindless nub even though i come across that way ive been playing games for a long time on pc console whatever, game makers need to start improving lag in games.

  • 09.28.2009 12:57 PM PDT

The fact of the matter is servers are a good thing. Someone brought up about how servers go down and everyone goes down? If the game company is in any way professional they will have some redudancy so if the master server does die another server will take over. As for maintainence and server down time they could have a backup servers that poeple switch to while running maintainence on the orginal servers that kinda how it is done now. Speaking of lag and poeple living closest to the server yes it would be a problem with UK and Hong Kong but you only hope the matchmaking puts you together with players from your area so you can connect to a local server. Yes client side hit detection or as I like to call it prediction would be the best thing even though I assume they would have to rewrite alot of there netcode.

Oh and fyi a dedicated server for left 4 dead on the PC only cost 60 dollars a year to rent.

[Edited on 09.28.2009 1:01 PM PDT]

  • 09.28.2009 1:00 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member

READ:

Sending me a group invite or some kind of other pointless, time wasting advert gets you blocked. Don't bother wasting your time. kthnxbai

At the very least I think that Campaign and Firefight (Assuming Reach has a Firefight mode) should have dedicated servers. The lag that we get in ODST and Halo 3 with campaign is unbearable.

I dislike how I pay £40 a year for Live and Microsoft don't even make an effort to at least minimise lag. Either MS should put in dedicated servers, or they should stop charging me money to use my own Internet connection to host their games.

[Edited on 09.28.2009 1:02 PM PDT]

  • 09.28.2009 1:00 PM PDT

people say dedicated servers cost money and they can go down but alot of games use them all the BF games do and I never get lag in them games on pc and console.

  • 09.28.2009 1:02 PM PDT

Tallahassee?
I spent two weeks in Tallahassee one night.

In the end Bungie will decide how to maximize playability and minimize lag and cost. I trust they will do the best that they can weather Reach runs servers or host I dont care.

  • 09.28.2009 1:05 PM PDT

Don't get me wrong i play Halo 3 like everyday and it dosent use Dedicated servers and i still have fun but theres alot of times were lag and host ruin the games for me.

  • 09.28.2009 1:12 PM PDT

Tallahassee?
I spent two weeks in Tallahassee one night.

Posted by: SilentRunner2
Don't get me wrong i play Halo 3 like everyday and it dosent use Dedicated servers and i still have fun but theres alot of times were lag and host ruin the games for me.

I dont get much llag very rarely will I get a game it lags enough to turn the tide of the game. Bungie does need to fix spree resetting when changing host if they keep host for Reach.

  • 09.28.2009 1:16 PM PDT

Do you really care? you can't automatically see my signature anyway.

Posted by: destro235
yes servers=epic win!~!!!!!!
Why this idea is in truth, epic FAIL!

  • 09.28.2009 1:17 PM PDT

yaw canadian eh digg it

i am going to make my post bigger so people can see me

all right then how about this bungie establishes dedicated servers in high gaming concentrated countries (Canada US UK) then attach them to one another so that servers can communicate to other countries.

it would be like the dedicated servers create there own type of hosts















































7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 77

  • 09.28.2009 1:18 PM PDT

no spearmint you fail

  • 09.28.2009 1:19 PM PDT

Do you really care? you can't automatically see my signature anyway.

Posted by: SilentRunner2
no spearmint you fail

No, you wish i fail, but i don't because BUNGIE does NOT have the MONEY to support DEDICATED SERVERS! also, servers don't eliminate lag or any of the issues you do-do heads are gripping about.

  • 09.28.2009 1:22 PM PDT

yaw canadian eh digg it

has anyone heard of the game MAG it a game that use dedicated servers that hold 260 people if bungie could make reach like that i would be fine

  • 09.28.2009 1:32 PM PDT

yaw canadian eh digg it

Posted by: Spearmint
Posted by: SilentRunner2
no spearmint you fail

No, you wish i fail, but i don't because BUNGIE does NOT have the MONEY to support DEDICATED SERVERS! also, servers don't eliminate lag or any of the issues you do-do heads are gripping about.


no i pretty sure you do fail that post is 2 years old

  • 09.28.2009 1:34 PM PDT

Clearly because the desktop uses a 3 prong plug and a laptop uses a 2 prong plug, the microwave will fill your car with tostitos better

Posted by: keeno 111
Posted by: Xx Mr Bill xX
People need to educate themselves on the nature of servers. They really don't solve any problems.

1. A server is massively expensive. Let alone having multiple servers (to counteract that having one won't solve half of the problems P2P hosting has) would be ridiculous to support. Who is going to pay for this? Why would they throw money at servers when they don't solve many of the problems P2P hosting has that people -blam!- and moan about?

2. When servers crash, everybody goes offline. No one is playing or will be able to play until they get the servers back up. If one person lags out in Halo, even if they are hosting a game, only one person lags out and the game still goes on. Not to mention, that one person can usually get right back online. Many times if a server crashes people aren't going to be able to get back online for hours or perhaps days depending on the problem.

3. Server maintenance. I'm sure everyone will be oh so happy that we are playing on servers when they shut them down regularly to perform maintenance so crashes (that will happen anyways) won't happen.

4. Hosting games on a dedicated server doesn't even fix a lot of the problems people have with the current system. People who live far away from where the server is located are going to still be at a disadvantage compared to people who are closer to the server than them. The funny thing is, people who are closest to the host of games already receive that kind of advantage over people. Information still takes time to travel, the only thing servers really eliminate is one person getting a host advantage.

5. As time goes on, less and less people will play the game. It happens with every game. Why would they keep massively expensive servers up as the population goes down? What are they going to do, shut down a server to save money and then completely -blam!- over people who live far away from any other server.


You are by far wrong. Have you played battlefield 1943? Aussie servers are great? and your also contradicting yourself by saying they cost to much? isn't that why we pay for xbox live, for decent service?

No reason why every microsoft game with online campability shouldn't have servers. microsoft are just money hungry.


And what business do you run now? Good, keep it that way, it'd be sad to see yet another person filing for bankruptcy because they don't do the financially smart thing. If you dislike the service that MS is currently providing then don't pay for it, I'm happy with what I pay for. I hear the PSN is free, you might wanna look that up.

First off, Microsoft is not first and foremost a gaming company. Its become a large part of their entity, no doubt, but the majority of their income probably does not come from gaming.. Its not their responsibility to provide servers for their devs, they already have a working medium to play games on, why change it? Secondly, even if they do have a lot of money, its -blam!- stupid for them to spend money on server for any game that isn't absolutely massive. Halo and CoD are big, but providing multiple servers for them is unneeded cost when the current system works fine.

Do you know how rich EA is that they can provide one server for one game of theirs? You know whats funny, BF1943 reached server capacity over the summer, which means one person can't play until another person stops playing. Have fun waiting to play Halo because there are too many people on. I'm sure the aussie servers work so great, it doesn't change the fact that the people closer to the server still have an advantage over people who live farther away from the server. That's no different than the current system aside from one person doesn't have host advantage.

I like how you didn't even try to say anything about my other points aside from you opinionated claim that MS doesn't provide servers because they are greedy.

  • 09.28.2009 2:19 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4