Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: What's the maximum amount of players you can have in Reach?
  • Subject: What's the maximum amount of players you can have in Reach?
Subject: What's the maximum amount of players you can have in Reach?

Since this game is going to be about the hard struggle for humanity it'd make since to make the campaign and multiplayer large scale. I'm a scenario/speedball paintball player and I like the large combat. So why not for Reach bump up the multiplayer capacity. I heard in games like Frontlines Fuel of War you can have 32 players. Here's my reasons for wanting a bigger multiplayer experience:

1. Overall a better feeling of being in a WAR and not a skirmish.
2. Tired of the small 4v4 playlists. Also want something better than the standard 8v8.
3. Better clan support and other related topics.

So who wants a bigger Halo:Reach multiplayer expirience?

  • 11.15.2009 2:10 PM PDT

Posted by: Duardo
I'd love to be a 10 year old and tell my mom I'm going on an adventure out into the world catching Pokemon, with her full support. Never mind the fact that there are rapists, criminals, and murders out there, or the fact that I may get killed by a Pokemon.

Luckily I have Pikachu.

16 players is good enough, they just need the proper netcode to handle it this time.

[Edited on 11.15.2009 2:12 PM PST]

  • 11.15.2009 2:11 PM PDT

Posted by: The BS Police
16 players is good enough, they just need the proper netcode to handle it this time.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with 16 players, but its just with games like MAG and Resistance 2, new 360 games need to be able to stand up to those crazy multiplayer ones.

  • 11.15.2009 2:14 PM PDT

A real big team battle of 16 v 16 WOULD be really nice. The only problem is that it already lags when attempting 8 v 8. They would need to have a much better net code.

  • 11.15.2009 2:15 PM PDT

Posted by: in the Krutch
A real big team battle of 16 v 16 WOULD be really nice. The only problem is that it already lags when attempting 8 v 8. They would need to have a much better net code.

Couldn't they make their own servers from the ground up? I'm not learned in this so I need some background.

[Edited on 11.15.2009 2:19 PM PST]

  • 11.15.2009 2:18 PM PDT

Here’s what Luke had to say about the differences in treatment between the Spartans and Elites in Reach:

“Instead of piece-by-piece customization like the Spartans, Elite customization is a full model swap with models selected from the various Elite classes appearing throughout the Campaign. There are all kinds of reasons for this, not the least of which is our continued emphasis on the Spartan as your identity in Reach.”

Since there is still both system and network lag issues in Halo 3 big team, I would want Bungie to make 8v8 lag free first before adding in more players.

Call of Duty runs without lag, Halo should be able to as well.

  • 11.15.2009 2:21 PM PDT

Posted by: Uncle Kulikov
Since there is still both system and network lag issues in Halo 3 big team, I would want Bungie to make 8v8 lag free first before adding in more players.

Call of Duty runs without lag, Halo should be able to as well.


It will probably start to lag soon.

  • 11.15.2009 2:23 PM PDT

Posted by: diesel93
Posted by: in the Krutch
A real big team battle of 16 v 16 WOULD be really nice. The only problem is that it already lags when attempting 8 v 8. They would need to have a much better net code.

Couldn't they make their own servers from the ground up? I'm not learned in this so I need some background.
Probably. I really hope they do, I don't think it would be a monetary issue since they should have plenty of funding from Microsoft.

  • 11.15.2009 2:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Why are you reading my signature? Who actually opens these things and reads them!

And as always, SEND ME A PM. Please. Or really bad things will happen to you.

Posted by: Stacka30
Posted by: Uncle Kulikov
Since there is still both system and network lag issues in Halo 3 big team, I would want Bungie to make 8v8 lag free first before adding in more players.

Call of Duty runs without lag, Halo should be able to as well.


It will probably start to lag soon.

If they can get 8v8 to work lag-free they should try to add more players until they get lag. If I can play 8v8 lag free I will be a very happy person. I really hope Bungie finds a fix for the lag Halo has, I don't like it when I have to sit in the black screen for 3 minutes while playing a 4v4. It's just a little ridiculous.

  • 11.15.2009 2:27 PM PDT

Here’s what Luke had to say about the differences in treatment between the Spartans and Elites in Reach:

“Instead of piece-by-piece customization like the Spartans, Elite customization is a full model swap with models selected from the various Elite classes appearing throughout the Campaign. There are all kinds of reasons for this, not the least of which is our continued emphasis on the Spartan as your identity in Reach.”

Posted by: Cranium Crater
Posted by: Stacka30
Posted by: Uncle Kulikov
Since there is still both system and network lag issues in Halo 3 big team, I would want Bungie to make 8v8 lag free first before adding in more players.

Call of Duty runs without lag, Halo should be able to as well.


It will probably start to lag soon.

If they can get 8v8 to work lag-free they should try to add more players until they get lag. If I can play 8v8 lag free I will be a very happy person. I really hope Bungie finds a fix for the lag Halo has, I don't like it when I have to sit in the black screen for 3 minutes while playing a 4v4. It's just a little ridiculous.
I agree. And since other games have succeeded here, it only stands to reason that Bunge should be able to do it as well.

  • 11.15.2009 2:31 PM PDT

I want to see either 16 or 24 players. Anything lower or higher would be a bummer because of Lag or lack of people in a game.

  • 11.15.2009 2:34 PM PDT

.:. îXî - $ìgñ øf thé GøÐz .:.


My Profile - iXi Gaming


Î ũňķñ{ǾẄŃ} ū

Over 9000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 11.15.2009 2:36 PM PDT

Well if Bungie can't run 16v16 the next popular one would be 12v12. I mean Battlefield 1943 runs 12v12 ands its a marketplace game.

  • 11.15.2009 2:53 PM PDT

Gaming Rig Specs:
Coolermaster HAF X // XFX Pro 850W XXX PSU // Corsair 16GB Vengeance RAM (1600MHz) //
Corsair 120GB Force GT SSD // Western Digital Caviar Green 2TB HDD // Intel i7 3770k CPU //
MSI Z77A-GD65 Mainboard // MSI GTX 680 Twin Frozr III OC Edition Graphics Card -- Runs BF3 on ultra at anywhere from 60FPS to 130+FPS.

|| Average Joe ||

I'd like it if the maximum game size was 20 players, because 10 v 10 matches are great fun on medium and large maps. Even 9 v 9 matches are a blast, as Modern Warfare 2 has proven.

The only real problem is connection issues, map sizes, and the sheer capability of the 360 console to allow a large amount of gamers onto a single map. PCs manage it just fine, and they can also do a crap-load of other things. It makes sense that a games console, which specialises in gaming, could manage such tasks?

  • 11.15.2009 3:05 PM PDT

Well Frontlines Fuel of War did well with 32 multiplayer. Also Battelfied 1943 pulled off 24 multiplayer nicely. Its just a matter of designing and testing servers in multiple scenarios.

  • 11.15.2009 3:22 PM PDT

Join Lucid Orange a machinima/custom gaming group!

Join Lower The Guns they are a group that wants to get the guns lowered on halo 3.

If Battlefield 1943 a ten dollar game can do 24 people in a game I'm sure if the game is going to cost 60$ then it needs to be able to do that at the least.

  • 11.15.2009 3:32 PM PDT

Gaming Rig Specs:
Coolermaster HAF X // XFX Pro 850W XXX PSU // Corsair 16GB Vengeance RAM (1600MHz) //
Corsair 120GB Force GT SSD // Western Digital Caviar Green 2TB HDD // Intel i7 3770k CPU //
MSI Z77A-GD65 Mainboard // MSI GTX 680 Twin Frozr III OC Edition Graphics Card -- Runs BF3 on ultra at anywhere from 60FPS to 130+FPS.

|| Average Joe ||

Posted by: Carolina Fan 46
If Battlefield 1943 a ten dollar game can do 24 people in a game I'm sure if the game is going to cost 60$ then it needs to be able to do that at the least.
The problem is more server-related. EA are a huge company, so having extra servers deducts a tiny fraction of their budget. With smaller companies, such as Bungie, servers are a costly thing to run.

  • 11.15.2009 3:35 PM PDT

Join Lucid Orange a machinima/custom gaming group!

Join Lower The Guns they are a group that wants to get the guns lowered on halo 3.

They should be able to have enough if they want this game to work better than Halo 3 or ODST.

  • 11.15.2009 3:36 PM PDT

I'm thinking this. Yes Bungie will have a harder time with serevrs and all that stuff with their budget. But if Bungie pulls through and work with what they have and improve it, they can get at least 10v10. From there they can improve. Bungie can do this, its really a matter of what the public wants though.

  • 11.15.2009 3:56 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Halo 3 is 2 years old now, it will be 3 years old by the time reach comes out, hopefully they used a good amount of that time to improve the netcode and learn what didn't work in H3 and why. Halo 3 is still pretty good online most of the time, but it could definitely be a lot better.

  • 11.15.2009 3:58 PM PDT

Normally I'd be like, let's make a petition for a bigger Reach multiplayer experience but that goes against like 5 forum rules and makes me look like an idiot......

  • 11.15.2009 4:09 PM PDT