{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/28/2009 6:06:45 PM
56
Halo Reach: 32 Players Max?
Im wondering if you guys think that halo reach should support 32 player max. I think bungie was originally going to do that, but changed it. I think if they made a playlist for battlefield type games, war slayer or something just for 32 player games, it would work out. I remember that they said something about games being best at 16 players, so most of the games you play would be 16 p max. It would be for 1 playlist, and for CG. Imagine playing infection, 6 humans, 26 zombies on instant respawn. It would be epic.
Now im not sure how to fix the whole lag thing, but if they were going to originally put it in H3, they must of had some kind of backup plan. All they would have to do is open servers, like MAG. Thoughts?
[Edited on 11.28.2009 3:11 PM PST]
-
That would be tight!!
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] keeno 111 Who wouldn't want to have 16 v 16? i can't beleive some people say no due to lag? servers could fix that. The goal is to improve the game, More people = more fun. That's my opinion anyway, I mean your not forced to play 16 v 16 just play diffrent playlist. [/quote] I wouldnt... Halo is not about big teams...
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] GenerateX3 Im wondering if you guys think that halo reach should support 32 player max. I think bungie was originally going to do that, but changed it. I think if they made a playlist for battlefield type games, war slayer or something just for 32 player games, it would work out. I remember that they said something about games being best at 16 players, so most of the games you play would be 16 p max. It would be for 1 playlist, and for CG. Imagine playing infection, 6 humans, 26 zombies on instant respawn. It would be epic. Now im not sure how to fix the whole lag thing, but if they were going to originally put it in H3, they must of had some kind of backup plan. All they would have to do is open servers, like MAG. Thoughts?[/quote] No. [Edited on 11.29.2009 11:04 PM PST]
-
Who wouldn't want to have 16 v 16? i can't beleive some people say no due to lag? servers could fix that. The goal is to improve the game, More people = more fun. That's my opinion anyway, I mean your not forced to play 16 v 16 just play diffrent playlist.
-
Whoa, 32 players? 16 is enough as it is. Wow, dude, think of the lag and the talking. The team couldn't communicate with eachother. Horrible idea.
-
i say possibly at like 16-20 players more is way too much
-
Well, since combat on the surface of Reach wouldve have been large battles, I think it would be great to see such a large battle to play in. I found battlefield 1943's 24 person battles to be very enjoyable and they never really had lag either. Lag may be a problem, but i dunno.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wolverfrog There is a huge difference between a MOH game allowing 32 players and Halo. Go into any MOH map and try to find one piece of scenery that moves. You won't find one. Now compare that to Halo, where every object in the map that isn't bolted down will move and react with real-time dynamic physics. Every crate, pylon, or fusion core places a drain on the system. By contrast, MOH maps are completely static. They are painted to look very nice, but there is nothing dynamic in them, so it leaves much more processor power left over to deal with extra players.[/quote] You forgot the fact that the Xbox 360 is hugely more powerful than a Wii. In a game I played (I forgot which one), there were 24 players on map and it worked perfectly. PS I remember. I was Bad Company. Play it and you will find it lag-free, even though you can destroy almost anything in the enviroment. [Edited on 11.28.2009 4:03 PM PST]
-
More players would definitely benefit Halo. Look at Killzone 2 for christ sake ( 32 players ).. even look at Bad company 2. All the physics and environmental interactions , vehicles with 24 players. Its not in the realm of impossible guys.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Screecherz [Bungie has always stuck to 16 people, and that's the way it's going to stay.[/quote] They once stuck to 2D graphics and small projects but that didn't stop them from naturally expanding their craft to something more substantial. In this case, though, I don't have any reason to believe that we will higher player counts, but as far as the future is concerned, it would be foolish to rule anything out (apart from well balanced creativity.) [Edited on 11.28.2009 3:50 PM PST]
-
I think that 20 people is a good compremise :)
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] HC Thug Nasty First off lets think of this. 32 players too many for a game to contain? Not exactly Bungie doesn't have to make an official playlist to for it to work. Custom games could benifit from this greatly. Servers are too expensive for Bungie to support? This is a rediculous statement. Microsoft makes 50$ per Xbox live gold membership a year. 10,000,000 million xbox live gold memberships means Microsoft makes 500,000,000 million a year. Halo is the biggest game they got, and every Halo game has sold incredibly well. Saying Bungie can't support the servers is a rediculous statement. Plus Bungie makes money off Bungie Pro, Map Packs, Render Minutes, and the Bungie Store. They can afford it. The game won't lag if they have servers. That'll be a huge plus when it comes to multiplayer. No more Host advantage to top that off. New playlists and Old could be cattered around this new amount of players. Killzone 2 30 vs 30 they didn't have to give up anything on Graphics.[/quote]
-
Easy NO ever hear of lag
-
what about unlimeted
-
It wouldn't work. Halo CE worked best in FFA games, and usually with a max player count of 8 (FFA or 4v4) even on large maps. Halo 2 had the formula down where some of the best gameplay was in fact 8v8 BTB games and the lesser numbers weren't lacking in enjoyment either. Halo 3 on the other hand has a much more odd optimal player count for team gameplay: 6v6. 8v8 turns into a pretty hectic match in Halo 3 and usually falls apart in terms of team coordination where as in Halo 2 for some reason this wasn't the case (perhaps it is Push to Talk driving everyone to parties). But as you can see, only one game performed even the normal max player count well out of the four Halo games bungie has given us. I doubt they will try to experiment with larger numbers nor do I think they should. If they do go larger the MAX they should ever have is 10v10 games. [Edited on 11.28.2009 1:00 PM PST]
-
First off lets think of this. 32 players too many for a game to contain? Not exactly Bungie doesn't have to make an official playlist to for it to work. Custom games could benifit from this greatly. Servers are too expensive for Bungie to support? This is a rediculous statement. Microsoft makes 50$ per Xbox live gold membership a year. 10,000,000 million xbox live gold memberships means Microsoft makes 500,000,000 million a year. Halo is the biggest game they got, and every Halo game has sold incredibly well. Saying Bungie can't support the servers is a rediculous statement. Plus Bungie makes money off Bungie Pro, Map Packs, Render Minutes, and the Bungie Store. They can afford it. The game won't lag if they have servers. That'll be a huge plus when it comes to multiplayer. No more Host advantage to top that off. New playlists and Old could be cattered around this new amount of players. Killzone 2 30 vs 30 they didn't have to give up anything on Graphics. [Edited on 11.28.2009 12:59 PM PST]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TOXC1TY [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dither100 Halo: Reach is going to be released 3 years after Halo 3 so after 3 years technology probably would have improve enough to allow 32 player games.[/quote] Its not really the game, its more of its servers, companies like DICE and MAG's Developer custom built their servers so they be lag free. We can definately see 32 player games if Bungie makes their own servers. [/quote] How much can dedicated servers cost? Can Bungie afford them after selling one blockbuster game after another? I surely think so.
-
Is it me or Halo is meant to be the biggest war in human kind, with massive invasions and massive battles...it rather feels abit small don't you think? They need to potray the real war, not some small skirmishs, now its time for 32 players. with drivable Pelicans. Which can hold 8 passengers to do drive-by LOL then spartan laser.
-
[url=http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=39148188]I have made a thread explaining why halo will NEVER be this kind of game.[/url] get over it, you'll never have more than 20 players.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] firecrakcer [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] xXFinal JewelXx [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dither100 There's a PS3 game that can have a total of something like 250 players per game called MAG so I don't see how a Halo game wouldn't be able to have 32.[/quote] exactly[/quote] a little known game known as battlefront 2 can hold 16 players per team (online or off)and it has multiple classes and some of the objects move i think halo can hold 32 players if this can hold up to 16 players living or not[/quote] Yeah, walking under a huge AT-AT is epic! Halo should have also scarabs and all classes to play as like Brute hunters drones, Elites, jackals , Spartans would be way to awesome.
-
It's more likely another game on the 360 works this out first then others will follow suit.. I doubt it will be Bungie though.
-
Battlefield and Battlefront are undefeated in large scaled battles, these games make you feel like your in a epic battle, The closest has to be Battlefront Land Sea And Air battles way to epic, Halo needs to do it.
-
You guys go on about 32 players. And it comes down to this: Are you willing to sacrifice graphics for gameplay? We could probably have 100v100 while running the original Halo on a powerful unit like the 360. But with all the detail that will go into Reach's graphics engine.... 16v16 will be remarkable. And I hope all of you here would rather have gameplay over graphics. If you chose otherwise.... You don't know what gaming is about. [Edited on 11.28.2009 12:06 PM PST]
-
16-24 player could be cool,it could add a better battlefield feeling,not just a playground like in halo 3.
-
Seriously, Halo games are best played 4v4. If this was only 8 player, I'd buy it.
-
The game qwould not get laggy alot. I've been blaying Battlefield Bad Company lately and the max players is 24 And it never lags AT ALL. 32 sounds a bit much, but a 12 v 12 can fit
