Yea lag is always going to be dictated by our connection, however let me offer some food for thought. As a college student i have 2 places to live, 1 being my house at school and the other being at home. Now at home my internet is meager at best and unuseable at worst. Consequently i drastically play less pvp as such. But when i do i only play 3v3 or 2v2. Why you might ask? Well because in the 4 years of destiny i can reliably tell you that yea i red bar at home ALL the time in 6v6 but rarely in 3v3. It is easier for my internet to keep up with less peers to connect to and thus my connection is typically green. At school its all peachy keen with no issues XD So in retrospect lowering to 4v4 globally does stand a fighting chance to improve latency and disconnects but its not like a superb change since i and alot of other do enjoy 6v6 [u]when i can play it.[/u]

[quote]THE GAME LAGS IN 3V3 & DOUBLES![/quote] You can't tell these fanboys shit. They'll just keep making excuse for bungies bad choices....sucking that spit of the Bungie D. Bungie knows best? No, the -blam!- they dont apparently. Destiny is shit with some ok pvp game modes, 6v6 game modes, Its will be complete shit with only 4v4. "Try it before you judge it" Biiiiiiiiiiiitch!...I don't like 3v3 adding two players wont change that shit bitch. Stop being guard dogs and let bungie talk. Hope these bitches hype themselves into -blam!-ing disappointment. "We wont be disappointed" yeah?! maybe because you're that ugly girl with low self-esteem.

D2 is moving to datacenter and cloud service portal hosting... In other words server based hosting. Yes, it still has the P2P component for players to share data directly with each other... presumably to increase accuracy of player actions between the server synch cycles. All the hosting duties are moving server side--no console will have authority over another in this model, only the server and the local client itself in absence of the server's control. The problem is that Bungie doesn't have datacenters spread out across the globe. They are in Bellevue, WA. Basically across Lake Washington from Seattle. A well known hotspot for congestion when it comes to the internet. Big peering issues getting across and into that area from multiple vectors--not just from within the U.S., but also from Canada and the Pacific undersea transits as well. Enter cloud servicing to set up VM's in the more remote areas. A lot of potential to link hosts and clients on tighter latency profiles, but there is a potential cost there as well--smaller pools to select from in the more remote regions. So, they basically may be facing two potential issues. Routing issues getting to their datacenter that may pose some stability issues for large groups in their Seattle area data center. Potential matchmaking forming larger parties in the potentially smaller pools that may be generated if the cloud servicing model does lead to more confined regional selections. They may have simply opted to err on the side of caution at launch so they stand a better chance of getting a handle on possible stability issues that could present themselves when they go live. You can't very well predict how these things pan out until after actually go live. There are way too many variables across the internet that can spin out of control with no warning. You quite literally have to plan for the worst and hope for the best. Once everything goes live and they get a firmer grip on the potential that more realistically exists within this framework, they may be able to open things up with bigger parties. It is simply too early to tell at this point in time... we haven't even hit the Beta stage for real world testing yet. Let us see how the system holds up against the unstable nature of the web's infrastructure in general. THEN perhaps we can better gauge whether larger groups may be viable. Who knows, we may find the smaller framework actually works better than expected, or perhaps the model is quite robust and they feel confident in introducing larger scale modes. Until this model is actually "battle tested" though... we simply do not know.

4v4 in all gamemodes is lame. Too few people on a map is boring. Wither you have a group and stay together and wipe out the other guys or you are on with strangers that split up and they get killed like crazy trying to find someone. We need a 12v12 mode. Lag will still happen and losers with lag switches will still ruin crucible.

4 v 4 only sucks.

While you are most likely right about the tournaments and competitive, they DID say in the reveal WHY they wanted to make things 4V4. They wanted to streamline things and make the gamemodes less hectic. That's part of why we've got the ally/enemy information at the top of our HUDs, and Power ammo pickup and super activation appears in the log. They said they wanted it to be easy to get into, but hard to master. 4v4 should certainly be easier to get into, and will certainly focus more on mastering control and clash instead of just... running through them. The place where lag should be lessened in Destiny 2 is by the hybrid Peer to Peer/server system, as the (not exactly dedicated) servers will be taking on more of the brunt of the work for running the game. Thankfully we're not losing Peer to peer completely, because I agree with Bungie that when you take that away you end up with personal lag, and that seems far more frustrating in video games than environment/opponent lag. Being unable to run your character correctly takes away all interactivity after all. All that being said, Overwatch does 6v6, and that one works fine too. But it is still pretty hectic, and if that's what Bungie is trying to cut down on, 4v4 is a good idea.

Whoever thought this was a cool idea, and the chump who signed off on it, should be slapped. Hard.

I play Battlefield 4 and now 1 SOLELY for their 64 player pvp. Its epic and fun. Countless little mini battles on the map happening at all times. Ya sure it lags sometimes. But hey, its quite the difference between what ya can do with P2P vs DEDICATED SERVERS. I think they are too money hungry to put customer satisfaction behind profits. Theyre an entertainment company for gamers, suits have no place in that world. Ive heard of 0 requests for 4v4. I wouldnt mind having the option to play the 4 on 4 but not all the time. Thats all I needed was less reasons to play their pvp.

Bungie has Dedicated servers for Destiny 2 In addition, 4v4 will improve skill, strategy and overall gameplay

D2 will have slower TTK, less potent abilities and less OHK weapon availability. All game modes will be 4v4. If you add these two together you get a Fireteam dominated Crucible where Team Shot and power ammo control will reign supreme. You will also get a Crucible that will not be any fun for solo q players. Hopefully they keep Rumble so that we solo Qs have something to play in a game that cost me $100 (and where I kind of regret my pre order already).

It won't make a difference in lag. I too have seen plenty of lag in 3v3 games. The 4v4 is all part of our Bataan Death March toward Halo. That and it makes it easier for Bungie to nerf....er.....uh....make changes to gear down the road. If everything is 4v4 then, theoretically, their changes will affect every game mode evenly. I don't know about you, but when a company give me less than what I had before, I'm not going to be all that happy about it.

This is at all angles a "soft reboot", shotguns and Snipers, let's just give 1 person that chance, Icebreaker and Sidearms are the meta, let's make sure to delete one and nerf the other without saying we are, can't seem to figure out the lag problem and what the core players like to play, so let's go back to Halo, make it 4v4 and hope the lag work itself out! This is just them using us to test something else out, when all they have to do is make a casual 3v3/6v6 playlist and add a competitive skill tree mode with set weapons and perks (no exotics and no bonus grenade/damage perks)!

I find it hilarious how fanboys are crawling out of the woodwork now saying "We always asked for this" and "all the best shooters are 4v4". I come on these forums nearly everyday and never once have I a seen a post asking for 4v4. As for the best shooters doing it, Overwatch is the best on the market right now, not 4v4. Battlefield is one of the best out now, not 4v4. COD, for all the shit talk is still one of the best, not 4v4. So...

Well put. Sadly it seems most of the fan boys are like cattle. They just stand there eating what ever bungie throws down. It will be just as bad as it is now in 3v3 or even worse. So sad. I really like this game. Hate to see it go.

Trials of Osiris are the best proof that latency and lag are not reduced in 3vs3. Even in Doubles there are players lagging and killing you, before you see them appear on your screen.

4v4 change is not to improve performance. It's a method to have all Crucible players get experience in the format, that can then be carried across all game modes and even into the Trials type experience without the jarring effect. I don't mind the 6v6 formats too much, but the complete difference between that and the 3v3 modes is painful and keeps me from enjoying them at all.