Halo 3 Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: The Future of Multiplayer - Servers needed?
  • Subject: The Future of Multiplayer - Servers needed?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: The Future of Multiplayer - Servers needed?
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, dedicated servers are obviously the best idea, but the only way to have it run cost effectively is to do it like how it is done in the pc world. Dedicated servers are all handled by the users, people like me. I’ve run several dedicated Counter-Strike and Halo PC servers a few years ago and how it is done is that I use my companys bandwidth (t-1 line) to host the games. I set up the dedicated server program on my comp here at work and run the server after hours. Now I have an agreement here that I will only use the company’s bandwidth for gaming after business hours. Typically business class broadband connection have unlimited monthly bandwidth so there was no extra cost to the company. Most people that host a dedicated server will also set it up at work (although most will do it with out asking) and there are a lot of game hosting companys that clans will all pool their money togeater to pay for the monthly cost.

I would think that with the release of “Live anywhere” for windows vista and the push by M$ to bring all gamers together with cross platform gaiming with the 360 and windows vista on live I would think that with the addition of pc gaming on live adding a pc dedicated server would be an obvious next step.

Now the last hurdle to overcome is how would user controlled dedicated servers fit in with the matchmaking system. Well the simplest solution is to drop the current matchmaking system for a traditional server list. I guess there are pros and cons to this idea but I’m kind of partial to how easy it is to jump into a good game with the current matchmaking system.

So one way to handle it is the owner or admin of the server can set up a user list for the server of friends and clan mates. Now how the system would work is if none of the gamer tags that the admin set up are currently online playing then xbox live would take full control of the server to use for matchmaking, (no lag BTB!) but once one of the gamers tags on the list logs on then he gets logged on to the server, now he has full control of the server (depending on his user rights set up by the admin) he can set up and play custom games or if he wants he can jump into matchmaking. If he does jump into matchmaking he is giving control back over to xbox live, (as in matching him up and picking the games) but the difference is all of the games he plays will be hosted by his dedicated server, so he will never have a laggy game and never run into someone having host advantage and never getting hit with standby. The other good thing is that everybody that he plays against will also get the same benefit (no lag, host, or standby)

Another good thing is that if he is only playing a 4v4 game, and the server is set up on a t-1 line there would be a ton of bandwidth leftover that matchmaking could use to host other games at the same time that he is playing his 4v4. Or even if he is playing an 8v8 game, as long as the netcode is set up efficiently a t-1 line could handle 2 BTB games simultaneously with no lag!


[Edited on 5/16/2006]

  • 05.16.2006 10:26 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

if you have played call of duty 2 on the EA servers you better pray to god that bungie doesnt fail like that.

servers arent needed...

  • 05.16.2006 10:31 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

all i have to say is wow. well articulated thought!
Achronos once said if you ever think about a good idea, plan to post it with possible solutions and consequenses. your post has exceeded those expectations.
Nezzy, im assuming that you copy & pasted all that text. good stuff.

  • 05.16.2006 10:35 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Green Haze
if you have played call of duty 2 on the EA servers you better pray to god that bungie doesnt fail like that.

servers arent needed...


This has been posted before, but people don't seem to care. Kudos to you for having the balls to bring it up again though.

  • 05.16.2006 11:18 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I like to Rollick

Nezzy why must you be so oblivious? That shishka comment is true, and he said that servers are a bad idea. Now that they can detect bridging, there is no need for servers.

Who would pay $200 for halo 2?

And I skipped the entire post, when you did something about circle boosting i.e not cheating because no one is getting cheated. Which was a very stupid idea.

  • 05.16.2006 11:26 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

[quote]Posted by: wortwortwort87
Jesus, do you know any game that allows 128 players, or even 64?

I just don't think that the 360 could support that many people without cutting down on some features.



[quote]

Don't be a total tube. The 360 can handle the calculations etc for a huge number of characters, (even the original xbox could handle way more than 16 players) - the limiting factors here are bandwidth and practicality. The former is lessened by using servers with high speed connections, the latter by intelligent game design (which Bungie have shown a bit of a gift for).

  • 05.16.2006 11:54 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: huezoslb
all i have to say is wow. well articulated thought!
Achronos once said if you ever think about a good idea, plan to post it with possible solutions and consequenses. your post has exceeded those expectations.
Nezzy, im assuming that you copy & pasted all that text. good stuff.


Why thank you!

Yes, a little bit of copy and paste went on. I had to search my IE History Cache for the file though now that Zanzibar is behind the Iron Curtain!

  • 05.16.2006 2:56 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Sketto
Nezzy why must you be so oblivious? That shishka comment is true, and he said that servers are a bad idea. Now that they can detect bridging, there is no need for servers.

Who would pay $200 for halo 2?

And I skipped the entire post, when you did something about circle boosting i.e not cheating because no one is getting cheated. Which was a very stupid idea.


Sketto, you really must stop making a t1t of yourself like this. EVERY single time you try and make yourself look clever, you end up with not just egg but my sputum all over your face.

So, here goes.

When you circle boost to attain a very high level, you cheat the ENTIRE COMMUNITY.

You really are a forkwit!

  • 05.16.2006 2:59 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: wortwortwort87
Jesus, do you know any game that allows 128 players, or even 64?

You're all talking about something world of warcraft esque. Let's say that the Xbox 360 is similarly powerful to a good computer. I don't remember the exact specs, but it's nothing that can support 64 players.

Take the game now: you have 8 players. Each player has a specific location in the game. Everything the player does has specific locations in memory. The xbox doesn't have enough memory to hold 8x the current memory usage. I don't believe that the memory usage increase is linear. There are too many things going on, too many collision detections, too many calculations of grenade/bullet paths, to have the xbox 360 keep track of it all. You know how you can shoot a wall and the bullets leave holes? Well if you shoot the wall enough, the bullets stop leaving holes, because it reached some unknown number and quit making bullet holes. Eventually the holes disappear and you can create new ones, but with all the bullets fired, and all the blackened grenade explosion areas that would come from 8x the number of players, I have a hard time believing 64 people could play. It wouldn't be the server's fault, I don't think that the 360 could keep up.

The maximum I could see playing is 32. I don't know how much memory it would take and what the display would be like, because I can't remember the exact specs. Think about it, playing 32 people on Lockout would be INSANE, not fun because by the time you spawned, you'd spawn with other people fighting around you, spawn on a grenade, etc.. So that means that new maps would have to be developed. Maps at least as big as Waterworks, and some even bigger. That's another chunk of memory that would have to be devoted to displaying the map as well as the chars in it. I just don't think that the 360 could support that many people without cutting down on some features.



As to the money issue, whatever. Find a good host and play customs. Stop worrying about what "rank" you are. Play people that are good and you'll see how you'd do. And you wouldn't have to worry about being cheated.

EDIT: And SW: Battlefront was crap. As far as graphics go, the game was NOWHERE near Halo 2. Hell, I think Halo CE was better graphically than SW: Battlefront. The polygon count was too low in Battlefront. It's not hard to make an almost completely flat Hoth and put a couple of AT-ATs down on it and say 'PRESTO! The Battle of Hoth!'. There was nothing that stood out in the game. It was flat. It was simple. It sucked.


Your technical knowledge astounds me. Oh, no it doesn't! Perhaps you should do some research before posting GARBAGE like that.

Here are the specifications for the Xbox and the Xbox360. When you consider that a PC has to run Windows and it's Services, AV software, Messenger, Firewall Software and any other applications the user has, you can see that the Xbox 360 is a ROLLS ROYCE in PC terms, with EVERY piece of hardware designed and dedicated to gaming!

Old Xbox/New Xbox360
CPU 733MHz to THREE 3.2GHz
Memory 64MB to 512MB

The old xbox can EASILY handle 16 players. EASILY.

Based on this, your "comments" above are garbage. Pure, utter RUBBISH. It took me 20 seconds to find the hardware specs. You are an idiot.

  • 05.17.2006 12:39 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Shiska posted in the Halo 2 Multiplayer forums awhile back on this very topic. I don't feel like digging it up right now; it would take a long time to find it, especially since my Internet is running slow right now.

Essentially, he broke down the costs. Every player would have to pay $5 a month for enough servers to host 200 games simultaneously. Multiply that by the average number of players per game (let's say eight... probably pretty close). That's 1600 gamers at once. Imagine how long one would have to wait to get a game? Now consider that tens of thousands, and at times hundreds of thousands, or gamers are playing Halo 2 on live simultaneously. Consider how many more servers you would need and how much higher the costs would be.

Remember, these numbers come from Bungie. You've already read my economics argument against servers. Realistically, it isn't going to happen. Time to drop it. If Bungie wants to allow players to leave their 360s on as dedicated servers, fine, but that still leaves plenty of room for cheating. I've read and responded (logically and with sounds facts) to each of your arguments too many times in the past to do it again.

  • 05.17.2006 12:49 AM PDT

Okay, this is plain and simple. To prevent anyone from exploiting network connections, servers are a MUST. Without servers, standbying, bridging, and overall "host" advantage will always be an issue.

  • 05.17.2006 12:57 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

It's plain and simple to state it; and I agree that it would, to a great (but not total) degree work, but despite Nezzy's greatest dreams and wishes IT'S NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE FOR HALO 3. Do you want to pay hundreds of dollars for the game, or shell out considerable amounts of cash per month to support massive server farms?

  • 05.17.2006 1:16 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I understand where bungie is coming from with its statement, but seriously. It might take alot of servers, but how do you think PC games work? It isnt that big a deal, and i bet you do have enough money (especially from halo 2) to at least get some dedicated servers up and running. Maybe even a server system that runs side by side with the host gaming. So you can balance out the wait time to whenever a server is available.

  • 05.17.2006 1:17 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

MMOGs like World of Warcraft operate differently than Halo. There is a single (or at most, a couple dozen) large world(s) supported by servers. One's individual character takes up minimal space and processing power, as actions, interactions, etc. are very simplistic. Halo 3 could use servers if there was one massive world that we all signed into; however, we have thousands of unique matches operating simultaneously with extremely detailed graphics, sounds, interactions, effects, etc. It requires many more (and more sophisticate) servers to operate efficiently, thus the considerably steeper cost.

While I will admit that I do not have operating specs on the most current servers available, I am actually pretty sure that Bungie would need a server for each game running at a given time; a single server could not host ten games, or whatever amount. Again, consider thirty-thousand games running simultaneously, and you begin to see why this won't work for Halo.

  • 05.17.2006 1:58 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I can't believe anyone is actually reading something posted by this ass (Nezzy). It's not like he's going to let you criticize him.

  • 05.17.2006 2:12 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: icantfindaname
Shiska posted in the Halo 2 Multiplayer forums awhile back on this very topic. I don't feel like digging it up right now; it would take a long time to find it, especially since my Internet is running slow right now.

Essentially, he broke down the costs. Every player would have to pay $5 a month for enough servers to host 200 games simultaneously. Multiply that by the average number of players per game (let's say eight... probably pretty close). That's 1600 gamers at once. Imagine how long one would have to wait to get a game? Now consider that tens of thousands, and at times hundreds of thousands, or gamers are playing Halo 2 on live simultaneously. Consider how many more servers you would need and how much higher the costs would be.

Remember, these numbers come from Bungie. You've already read my economics argument against servers. Realistically, it isn't going to happen. Time to drop it. If Bungie wants to allow players to leave their 360s on as dedicated servers, fine, but that still leaves plenty of room for cheating. I've read and responded (logically and with sounds facts) to each of your arguments too many times in the past to do it again.


Dig out the post, prove the link.

If you are correct about Shishka's post existing these numbers from it are accurate, then Shishka is an idiot and I'll prove it to you right now.

200 games = 1600 gamers (@ $5/month) = $8000/month = $96000/year. If Bungie housed 200 Xbox 360's to act as drone hosts, that would be $480/Xbox360. Gamestop are currently retailing an Xbox 360 system including Controller, Remote control and Additional Fascia plate for $389. How much do you therefore think a simple xbox+HD would cost Bungie? For the sake of an Argument, let's say $200 which I believe is WAY over the top. You've then got $280 PER XBOX ($56000) spare to pay for comms etc...

Now, as I've already stated, an Xbox 360 is WAY more powerful than a normal xbox and could, by itself, host many more players than 16. Also, any dedicated server would not be handling Graphics, Sound, Input Devices.

All of the maths I have put forward have been EXAGGERATED in YOUR favour and it STILL looks VERY viable.

Your previous economics arguments have addressed SOME of these ideas. We can agree to disagree on your conclusions BUT, you have not addressed ALL of these ideas to fund servers and some of them that you have NOT addressed can fund servers OUTRIGHT without the Public/Consumer paying a cent/penny.

  • 05.17.2006 2:42 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: CONAN9845
I can't believe anyone is actually reading something posted by this ass (Nezzy). It's not like he's going to let you criticize him.


Of course I let people criticise me.

If, however, the "comment" does not have fact/substance behind it, I will challenge it as I have been doing. Can you find a flaw in any of my arguments that you can substantiate with researched fact or links to comments from Official sources?

You should understand that my "views" are based on research, fact and experience. I will demonstrate this with my next post.

  • 05.17.2006 2:49 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Nezzy you're original post is well-thought and you're argumentations in defending your views are great. But please, don't use unccessary words as this not only scares people off from posting their thoughts here, but is kinda against the rules and might get a good topic such as this one locked.

  • 05.17.2006 2:57 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: icantfindaname
MMOGs like World of Warcraft operate differently than Halo. There is a single (or at most, a couple dozen) large world(s) supported by servers. One's individual character takes up minimal space and processing power, as actions, interactions, etc. are very simplistic. Halo 3 could use servers if there was one massive world that we all signed into; however, we have thousands of unique matches operating simultaneously with extremely detailed graphics, sounds, interactions, effects, etc. It requires many more (and more sophisticate) servers to operate efficiently, thus the considerably steeper cost.

While I will admit that I do not have operating specs on the most current servers available, I am actually pretty sure that Bungie would need a server for each game running at a given time; a single server could not host ten games, or whatever amount. Again, consider thirty-thousand games running simultaneously, and you begin to see why this won't work for Halo.


Where on earth do you get this sh1te from? One server per game????? Your understanding of IT is very poor indeed. ONE Xbox 360 can host a game. Do you understand that? Your Xbox at home which cost less than $100 to make can host a 16 player game. How many games can a $100,000 server host? ONE?????? You are a focking idiot!

Do you know what Citrix is? Do you know what Microsoft Terminal Services are????

  • 05.17.2006 3:37 AM PDT

It's bandwidth not hardware which is the consideration.

  • 05.17.2006 3:38 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Frozen
Nezzy you're original post is well-thought and you're argumentations in defending your views are great. But please, don't use unccessary words as this not only scares people off from posting their thoughts here, but is kinda against the rules and might get a good topic such as this one locked.


I wouldn't have to use un-neccessary words if these guys didn't keep posting such drivel!

A server can only host ONE game!!! That's a VERY stupid comment which clearly demonstrates that this guy has NO understanding of what he's talking about at all yet he keeps posting!

  • 05.17.2006 3:41 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I've addressed the bandwidth issue. If there's an issue with my numbers, I've already invited everyone to "correct" them.

Also, I keep telling these guys that my point IS NOT to suggest that EVERY SINGLE GAME ON HALO 3 MUST BE SERVER HOSTED!

I have already stated that, at the very least, provide a "Premium" playlist which DOES carry an additional charge to play. Anyone who wants to play without cheaters can do so on their own, paid for, servers. Nobody seems interested in contributing ideas or coming up with reasonable objections.

If only the ranked playlists were on servers and the unranked/Customs using the current host system, the requirements for servers would be HUGELY reduced. I can't find the pie chart from the Weekly Update which broke down the playlists by usage but a large proportion of the games were not ranked.

Does ANYONE have anything to say about that?

[Edited on 5/17/2006]

  • 05.17.2006 3:46 AM PDT


I gave up playing Halo2 to play Battlefield2 on my 360. Why? Because it runs on servers. Because I dont get standbyed, I dont get spawn modded, I dont get terrible lag and I dont get shot by some idiot with a autoaim/autoload BR.

Sure, its not perfect. The servers sometimes kick you out at random, and they go down at least once a week for maintenance. There are physics glitches and geometry flaws that allow you to see through walls and other crazy stuff.

But you know what?

I can forgive all that. Because its not infested with lag and cheating. And to me that is more important than anything else.

Vote servers.

  • 05.17.2006 4:06 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: TVI Mr Smith

I gave up playing Halo2 to play Battlefield2 on my 360. Why? Because it runs on servers. Because I dont get standbyed, I dont get spawn modded, I dont get terrible lag and I dont get shot by some idiot with a autoaim/autoload BR.

Sure, its not perfect. The servers sometimes kick you out at random, and they go down at least once a week for maintenance. There are physics glitches and geometry flaws that allow you to see through walls and other crazy stuff.

But you know what?

I can forgive all that. Because its not infested with lag and cheating. And to me that is more important than anything else.

Vote servers.


I think the important word on that is "infested"! Halo 3 will be a disaster if the host system is allowed to remain intact. There's not been a single person who has come up with a way to stop host abuse and there's not a single person who has given me a comprehensive argument as to why Servers are not feasible.

  • 05.17.2006 6:29 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Heroic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

http://www.bungie.net/Stats/Reach/FileSets.aspx?player=diesel RD

all i know is that mooders and standbyers have completely ruined the online experience for me, i had a blast playing Halo2 when it first came out, BUT then the modders arrived

  • 05.17.2006 6:37 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3