Halo 3 Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: 24 players on Live~~
  • Subject: 24 players on Live~~
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: 24 players on Live~~
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I think Halo should be up to 24 players, BattleField 2 MC has it and doesnt LAg at all, Well For Me. 16 players is getting old we want something better and bigger for the Next gen Halo!

Of Course up to 3 Guests, Whats Halo without Guests.

1-16 is Played Out!

1-24 Just About right!

1-32- Laggy!

1-64 Massive Lag!

Bungie I realllly Hope you do This!!!!!

[Edited on 7/21/2006]

  • 07.21.2006 4:10 PM PDT

Sandswept Studios Design Director

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

~~Pardon Our Dust.~~

Posted by: x L MoNeY x
I think Halo should be up to 24 players, BattleField 2 MC has it and doesnt LAg at all, Well For Me. 16 players is getting old we want something better and bigger for the Next gen Halo!

1-16 is Played Out!

1-24 Just About right!


I disagree. Each number here represents a return line.

1) Battlefield 2: MC does not have the detail or quick-paced action as Halo does. It is longer range, and everything is determined completely by a client-based system. (If the client shoots someone, they're shot. No questions asked.)

2) 16 players does actually get quite laggy, for the most part. Anymore is over-kill.

3) Again, quicker paced, closer range, more detail. Laggy.

  • 07.21.2006 4:20 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: SS_Zag1
Posted by: x L MoNeY x
I think Halo should be up to 24 players, BattleField 2 MC has it and doesnt LAg at all, Well For Me. 16 players is getting old we want something better and bigger for the Next gen Halo!

1-16 is Played Out!

1-24 Just About right!


I disagree. Each number here represents a return line.

1) Battlefield 2: MC does not have the detail or quick-paced action as Halo does. It is longer range, and everything is determined completely by a client-based system. (If the client shoots someone, they're shot. No questions asked.)

2) 16 players does actually get quite laggy, for the most part. Anymore is over-kill.

3) Again, quicker paced, closer range, more detail. Laggy.

I agree.

Besides, EA hosts the BF2:MC servers... Individual players hosting these large 24 player servers would be insane...

  • 07.21.2006 4:22 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Isnt this next gen? PDZ did it,BF2MC did it?


Why cant Bungie do it?

  • 07.21.2006 4:23 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

i think they should add more tops would be 24 but if it makes it laggy f no

  • 07.21.2006 4:25 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Make the maps Bigger and Just have the Small maps up to 8-10 people atleast Like how it is in Halo 2. Bungie is Still using Matchmaking.

  • 07.21.2006 4:27 PM PDT

Sandswept Studios Design Director

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

~~Pardon Our Dust.~~

Posted by: SquallLeonE
Posted by: SS_Zag1
Posted by: x L MoNeY x
I think Halo should be up to 24 players, BattleField 2 MC has it and doesnt LAg at all, Well For Me. 16 players is getting old we want something better and bigger for the Next gen Halo!

1-16 is Played Out!

1-24 Just About right!


I disagree. Each number here represents a return line.

1) Battlefield 2: MC does not have the detail or quick-paced action as Halo does. It is longer range, and everything is determined completely by a client-based system. (If the client shoots someone, they're shot. No questions asked.)

2) 16 players does actually get quite laggy, for the most part. Anymore is over-kill.

3) Again, quicker paced, closer range, more detail. Laggy.



Besides, EA hosts the BF2:MC servers... Individual players hosting these large 24 player servers would be insane...


And that's the main reason as well... BF2:MC doesn't even allow LAN or Custom Games.. Terrible. That's what Halo is all about.

  • 07.21.2006 4:29 PM PDT

â–ºPopular Fusionâ—„
â–ºAn Army Of Oneâ—„
â–ºAnything Haloâ—„

][=][ //-\\ ][_ [[ ]]

GT: Little playa157

Knowing bungie I think they're capable of doing at least 32.

-BH-

  • 07.21.2006 4:31 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

PDZ is up to 32 players,Has Lan and doesnt lag for me at all, Why cant Bungie atleast make up to 24 players or how about 20 Players?18 Players?


Im getting tired of Having 8 people on a team, This is next gen, Bungie should show it!

[Edited on 7/21/2006]

  • 07.21.2006 4:32 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I would want massive battles like 20 v 20. That would be cool, but laggy

  • 07.21.2006 4:33 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Thats why it should aleast be 12 v 12(24) Players, it wouldnt be so laggy im guessing.

[Edited on 7/21/2006]

  • 07.21.2006 4:34 PM PDT

"I pledge to punch all switches, to never shoot where I could use grenades, to admit the existence of no level except Total Carnage, to never use caps lock as my "run" key, and to never, ever, leave a single BoB alive."

2B || !2B - Why don't you look Inside the Machine?

You have to look at it like this:

Bungie is a close niche company...with a very tight community. That sounds obvious...but you can apply it to Halo(2) because everything is based on close niche fighting on really big maps.

I just think that 24 or even 32 people in a game wouldn't work mainly because:

* Lag
* Doesn't fit the feel of the previous games/gameplays etc...
* It isn't logical because of the above purposes...


You obviously have never played BTB Slayer...it isn't really laggy, but there is enough lag to make the difference between a headshot and your death.

[Edited on 7/21/2006]

  • 07.21.2006 4:35 PM PDT

that which is not dead can eternal lie, but with strange aeons even death may die.

If they can make servivle mode, with like a 100 grunts all coming at you at once, I think they can make 24 players at a time, Plus they could get the license to use Webzens servers.
which are made for 100 people at once, in one battle.

  • 07.21.2006 4:36 PM PDT

Sandswept Studios Design Director

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

~~Pardon Our Dust.~~

Posted by: Blitz2o MKII
If they can make servivle mode, with like a 100 grunts all coming at you at once, I think they can make 24 players at a time, Plus they could get the license to use Webzens servers.
which are made for 100 people at once, in one battle.


My god! A networking expert!

  • 07.21.2006 4:38 PM PDT

"I pledge to punch all switches, to never shoot where I could use grenades, to admit the existence of no level except Total Carnage, to never use caps lock as my "run" key, and to never, ever, leave a single BoB alive."

2B || !2B - Why don't you look Inside the Machine?

*cough*net traffic overload*cough*

I don't think Bungie is going to re-vamp Halo 3 by conforming the game to someone elses servers, when the game has already been in progress and designed for XBL. And the fact that they are owned by Microsoft probably dictates that usage of networking anyways.

Dedicated servers...not a good idea. Cost a-lot of money, takes money to repair and maintain...people complain either way about minor problems, like lag...even if you have millions of dollars worth of servers...there is no such thing as the "Lagless Connection or Network"...

  • 07.21.2006 4:42 PM PDT

Sandswept Studios Design Director

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

~~Pardon Our Dust.~~

Posted by: Zee JollyRoger
*cough*net traffic overload*cough*

I don't think Bungie is going to re-vamp Halo 3 by conforming the game to someone elses servers, when the game has already been in progress and designed for XBL. And the fact that they are owned by Microsoft probably dictates that usage of networking anyways.

Dedicated servers...not a good idea. Cost a-lot of money, takes money to repair and maintain...people complain either way about minor problems, like lag...even if you have millions of dollars worth of servers...there is no such thing as the "Lagless Connection or Network"...


And that's the truth. No ifs/ands or buts.

If you want to start paying 65+ bucks a year for Live, or start paying a monthly fee to play Halo 3 online, then sure, let's have dedicated servers.

  • 07.21.2006 4:45 PM PDT

"I pledge to punch all switches, to never shoot where I could use grenades, to admit the existence of no level except Total Carnage, to never use caps lock as my "run" key, and to never, ever, leave a single BoB alive."

2B || !2B - Why don't you look Inside the Machine?

Zag is right...

You have 6 million+ XBL users

Then you would have to spend the millions of dollars to pay for the servers, and other facets that come with the servers like maintenance, etc.

So lets say that you spend about 3 million dollars on all of this...half the amount of users on XBL approx. You already pay an 50 dollar fee to use XBL...but with the cost of the new servers and stuff plus the ability to make a profit of it...the price could easily soar to 100 dollars. They would have to double the fee to at least make back enough money to actually make the servers worth while.

  • 07.21.2006 4:49 PM PDT

Let grunts Sleep!!!

All they need is a huge map. More than 2X Waterworks. Then you can have 64 people. That would be an awesome 32vs32. Total war.

  • 07.21.2006 4:50 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

And totally fun when playing objective games. Because trying to coordinate 8 people on a team is already like herding cats; 32 would be like putting one's family jewels in a vice.

And citing PDZ for anything in a positive light hampers your arguement severely.

[Edited on 7/21/2006]

  • 07.21.2006 4:53 PM PDT

"I pledge to punch all switches, to never shoot where I could use grenades, to admit the existence of no level except Total Carnage, to never use caps lock as my "run" key, and to never, ever, leave a single BoB alive."

2B || !2B - Why don't you look Inside the Machine?

Posted by: BadGrunt
All they need is a huge map. More than 2X Waterworks. Then you can have 64 people. That would be an awesome 32vs32. Total war.


You have no idea do you? Honestly...I don't think most people understand the logistics behind something so vast? I am no expert...but the shear scale of such an undertaking would require too many resources in my opinion to make that plausible.

  • 07.21.2006 4:53 PM PDT

Sandswept Studios Design Director

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

~~Pardon Our Dust.~~

Posted by: BadGrunt
All they need is a huge map. More than 2X Waterworks. Then you can have 64 people. That would be an awesome 32vs32. Total war.


Did you just jump in and comment? Try not to do that. We've already proven why 24 players, 32 players, and 64+ players do not work.

  • 07.21.2006 4:54 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Zee JollyRoger
You have to look at it like this:

Bungie is a close niche company...with a very tight community. That sounds obvious...but you can apply it to Halo(2) because everything is based on close niche fighting on really big maps.

I just think that 24 or even 32 people in a game wouldn't work mainly because:

* Lag
* Doesn't fit the feel of the previous games/gameplays etc...
* It isn't logical because of the above purposes...


You obviously have never played BTB Slayer...it isn't really laggy, but there is enough lag to make the difference between a headshot and your death.
what do u mean halo 2 doesnt feel like halo 1 at all

  • 07.21.2006 4:57 PM PDT

"I pledge to punch all switches, to never shoot where I could use grenades, to admit the existence of no level except Total Carnage, to never use caps lock as my "run" key, and to never, ever, leave a single BoB alive."

2B || !2B - Why don't you look Inside the Machine?

I am not saying that...maybe if you read a little more in depth and wouldn't skim through my posts...

I am saying that to change the Multiplayer aspect of People per Map ratio or people allowed in a map period from 16 to some ludicrous amount, in my opinion, would upset the balance and feel to Multiplayer. Halo 1/2 Multiplayer was awesome because it wasn't too big, nor too small.

  • 07.21.2006 4:58 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: halox43
Posted by: Zee JollyRoger
You have to look at it like this:

Bungie is a close niche company...with a very tight community. That sounds obvious...but you can apply it to Halo(2) because everything is based on close niche fighting on really big maps.

I just think that 24 or even 32 people in a game wouldn't work mainly because:

* Lag
* Doesn't fit the feel of the previous games/gameplays etc...
* It isn't logical because of the above purposes...


You obviously have never played BTB Slayer...it isn't really laggy, but there is enough lag to make the difference between a headshot and your death.
what do u mean halo 2 doesnt feel like halo 1 at all


Hehehehehe....thanks for the laugh. Hehehehe...

  • 07.21.2006 4:58 PM PDT

Sandswept Studios Design Director

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

~~Pardon Our Dust.~~

Posted by: Ad_Hominum
Posted by: halox43
Posted by: Zee JollyRoger
You have to look at it like this:

Bungie is a close niche company...with a very tight community. That sounds obvious...but you can apply it to Halo(2) because everything is based on close niche fighting on really big maps.

I just think that 24 or even 32 people in a game wouldn't work mainly because:

* Lag
* Doesn't fit the feel of the previous games/gameplays etc...
* It isn't logical because of the above purposes...


You obviously have never played BTB Slayer...it isn't really laggy, but there is enough lag to make the difference between a headshot and your death.
what do u mean halo 2 doesnt feel like halo 1 at all


Hehehehehe....thanks for the laugh. Hehehehe...


Wait, when did Zee say that!?

  • 07.21.2006 5:09 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2