Halo 3 Forum
This topic has moved here: Poll [20 votes]: Should Halo 3 run off of Servers and not Hosts?
  • Poll [20 votes]: Should Halo 3 run off of Servers and not Hosts?
Subject: Servers or Host?
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Booom Heashot!!!

Poll: Should Halo 3 run off of Servers and not Hosts?  [closed]
Yes:  60%
(12 Votes)
No:  40%
(8 Votes)
Total Votes: 20

Who here thinks that halo 3 multiplayer should run off of server rather then a player host? It would be very expensive to pull off but it would also be the same as the money wasted finding cheaters. *feedback*

  • 06.01.2006 2:59 PM PDT

Sandswept Studios Design Director

Visit us and check out our games at Sandswept.net!

~~Pardon Our Dust.~~

If you want to supply the thousands of servers and terabytes of bandwidth... Go ahead.

  • 06.01.2006 3:00 PM PDT

Posted by: SS_Zag1
If you want to supply the thousands of servers and terabytes of bandwidth... Go ahead.


Or....

Bungie could let players create their own dedicated servers... :)

  • 06.01.2006 3:00 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Servers like you see in Ghost Recond would remove from the game even if you had what would show up in halo 2 as a "yellow" connection. So no, Host is the lesser evil.

[Edited on 6/1/2006]

  • 06.01.2006 3:02 PM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"

host sucks, i will agree, and servers will only be a solution if there is enough support and if everyone has a good connection. while the 360 will be able to better handle the hosting of the game, it all comes down to the internet connection of both the host and those playing in his game.

  • 06.01.2006 3:19 PM PDT

Sandswept Studios Design Director

Visit us and check out our games at Sandswept.net!

~~Pardon Our Dust.~~

.. You all have a very distorted view of how online matches work.

The host serves the game to everyone else.
A server would host the game to everyone.

Saying "host sucks" doesn't make any sense. .. At all..

Yeah, screw host. We'll just uh.. Run off nothing.

Now, you could say "Host advantage sucks", which would make sense.. But still, you can't really get rid of host advantage. It's just part of online gaming, and host really doesn't determine matches more than 90% of the time.

[Edited on 6/1/2006]

  • 06.01.2006 3:24 PM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"

Posted by: SS_Zag1
.. You all have a very distorted view of how online matches work.

The host serves the game to everyone else.
A server would host the game to everyone.

Saying "host sucks" doesn't make any sense. .. At all..

Yeah, screw host. We'll just uh.. Run off nothing.

Now, you could say "Host advantage sucks", which would make sense.. But still, you can't really get rid of host advantage. It's just part of online gaming, and host really doesn't determine matches more than 90% of the time.


i don't think you understand my friend. the reason people hate the host idea is because in "serving" the game to everyone in the party you get the best response from the system. have you ever been playing a game online when you shoot someone in the head with the sniper rifle and their shield blinks, but they keep running? that is typical of a host situation. simply because on the hosts system, which is the "server" of the game, he has already moved past that spot, depending on your connection and the host's connection you may see what happens as quickly as it resolves on the host system.

which is why so many hated people who bridged host. if they had a weak connection it would kill everyone elses.

  • 06.01.2006 3:32 PM PDT

I'm in the US Air Force stationed in Alaska. I've been chillin on bnet for nearly 5 years now.

Guys....while the host advantage sucks sometimes...servers would be even worse...providing lag for everyone.

  • 06.01.2006 3:33 PM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"

Posted by: smis7
Guys....while the host advantage sucks sometimes...servers would be even worse...providing lag for everyone.


again, that all depends on the equipment used and making sure that you have enough bandwidth to support the traffic. yes it costs money, yes it may help, no it's not the perfect idea.

  • 06.01.2006 3:45 PM PDT