Thoughts
For what do you want a raised player count?
For a completely new and separate playlist/gametype or do you want to raise the player count in playlists such as BTB in general?
I would like and prefer some information before I vote for something. 
Honestly, if 343i were to create massive team battle maps, 32vs32 maps, that have all combat situations (close quarters combat, medium range and long distance) on a single map for 32vs32, with lots of vehicles including the pelican, could be huge for Halo. Halo could become the next battlefield.
I really don’t think Halo Xbox one is going to have anything larger than 16 max players, if anything they might be able to pump it up to 20, but I say that’s as far as they go with Halo main titles. Not a lot of Halo’s population like big maps. If there was a spin off Halo game like Halo Wars, that had very large maps, and was Battlefieldish, I could see this happening.
I believe 16 vs 16 is good enough. Unless 343 make really big maps for Halo 5 or 343 and Dice make Halo-Battlefield Crossover, I don’t think a 32 vs 32 is really necessary for a Halo Game.
Yes pls, i would like a 16 v 16 mode. With pelicans, locusts, scarabs, etc. Its been a long time coming and halo needs it. Its not like they have to only make these large scale maps. They can have small maps too. Why limit your game to only one thing?
343i wants new fans? This is the way to do it.
IMO 12 vs 12 is optimal. Why would you want any more than that? It will no doubt affect map design and take away the small team games (4v4) that made Halo what it was as an arena shooter.
While this is obviously a very polarized topic, there’s no reason not to pick sides.
I would enjoy having 16 v 16 engagements, but we would need some hefty map sizes. With most Halo Games, we’ve had an equal number of small, medium, and large map sizes. Perhaps we could add another size to that list, and have gigantic map sizes, maps the size of Forge World should be something to aim towards.
These massive maps should be fully Forgeable, and they should not be filled with pointless clutter that we see in most maps in Halo 4.
> IMO 12 vs 12 is optimal. Why would you want any more than that? It will no doubt affect map design and take away the small team games (4v4) that made Halo what it was as an arena shooter.
Would it really pull Halo away from 4 v 4 though? Are you expecting there not to be 4 v 4 gametypes just because we have 16 v 16 or 12 v 12?
And of course it will affect map design, but it won’t effect the designs of smaller, normal maps… It will just add a whole new layer of map size, not take away the ones below it.
Also, 12 v 12 isn’t as efficient as 16 v 16 because the number 12 doesn’t divide up to cubic symmetry like how 16 is. That is also my OCD talking there, every number I use in something has to be a power of 2.
now that what you call war games.
whats the deal with having the player count a multiple of 4 or 8? surely it only needs to be an even number say 20v20 or 21v21? 
I personally am all in favour of a raised player count. The highest player count I’ve played is BF3 on the console (12v12) so 24 players. This doesn’t seem excessive when on larger maps (which for BTB needs to happen). In fact I’m looking forward to BF4 for a raised player count, but I’ve never played a 32v32 so I cannot say whether it is excessive, but I’ve heard that it is freakin awesome 
I would be happy with 20v20ish. 32v32 would be more than enough for me I’m not to bothered about for halo but BTB needs to be BIG, not meh.
> whats the deal with having the player count a multiple of 4 or 8? surely it only needs to be an even number say 20v20 or 21v21?
It has to do with how numbers like 16 or 32 can be factored completely into 2, allowing for maps that are designed for that many players to have perfect symmetry at the same time.
It’s also much more efficient for the Netcode since the machine code follows powers of 2. The game would actually run slower if it had to calculate numbers like 21 or 20 because these numbers are decimal (number scales that follow a linear progression of 1) rather than binary (number scales that follow an exponential progression of 2) The machine code uses binary as a bases, and it has to translate decimal numbers into binary numbers before it can use them - which ultimately slows the game down.
> > whats the deal with having the player count a multiple of 4 or 8? surely it only needs to be an even number say 20v20 or 21v21?
>
> It has to do with how numbers like 16 or 32 can be factored completely into 2, allowing for maps that are designed for that many players to have perfect symmetry at the same time.
>
> It’s also much more efficient for the Netcode since the machine code follows powers of 2. The game would actually run slower if it had to calculate numbers like 21 or 20 because these numbers are decimal (number scales that follow a linear progression of 1) rather than binary (number scales that follow an exponential progression of 2) The machine code uses binary as a bases, and it has to translate decimal numbers into binary numbers before it can use them - which ultimately slows the game down.
bu… but… BF3 had 12v12 = 24? Whats the deal with that?
> > IMO 12 vs 12 is optimal. Why would you want any more than that? It will no doubt affect map design and take away the small team games (4v4) that made Halo what it was as an arena shooter.
>
> Would it really pull Halo away from 4 v 4 though? Are you expecting there not to be 4 v 4 gametypes just because we have 16 v 16 or 12 v 12?
>
> And of course it will affect map design, but it won’t effect the designs of smaller, normal maps… It will just add a whole new layer of map size, not take away the ones below it.
>
> Also, 12 v 12 isn’t as efficient as 16 v 16 because the number 12 doesn’t divide up to cubic symmetry like how 16 is. That is also my OCD talking there, every number I use in something has to be a power of 2.
How many maps do you expect to see at launch? I expect to see 10, like we’ve seen in the most recent Halo games. Now, show me how you can divide ten maps into all the different size categories (small- 2v2, medium- 4v4, medium-large- 6v6, large- 8v8 and extra large 16v16). There is no way to split this up without either eliminating one aspect or having very small variety in each category (1-2 maps). That’s not good.
On top of that, I just can’t fathom the attraction people see in huge games. Isn’t 8v8 big enough already? Would you really care if it bumped to 32v32? I mean, yeah, at this point the max player count needs a boost (it’s been 16 since Halo 2 IIRC) but I think anything above 12v12 would not only negatively affect the map variety but would be completely unnecessary.
That’s just my opinion, though.
> > > whats the deal with having the player count a multiple of 4 or 8? surely it only needs to be an even number say 20v20 or 21v21?
> >
> > It has to do with how numbers like 16 or 32 can be factored completely into 2, allowing for maps that are designed for that many players to have perfect symmetry at the same time.
> >
> > It’s also much more efficient for the Netcode since the machine code follows powers of 2. The game would actually run slower if it had to calculate numbers like 21 or 20 because these numbers are decimal (number scales that follow a linear progression of 1) rather than binary (number scales that follow an exponential progression of 2) The machine code uses binary as a bases, and it has to translate decimal numbers into binary numbers before it can use them - which ultimately slows the game down.
>
> bu… but… BF3 had 12v12 = 24? Whats the deal with that?
Powers of 2 are superior in performance then ones that aren’t, it doesn’t matter what we’re counting… 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024…
Binary, my friend, Binary…
> > > > whats the deal with having the player count a multiple of 4 or 8? surely it only needs to be an even number say 20v20 or 21v21?
> > >
> > > It has to do with how numbers like 16 or 32 can be factored completely into 2, allowing for maps that are designed for that many players to have perfect symmetry at the same time.
> > >
> > > It’s also much more efficient for the Netcode since the machine code follows powers of 2. The game would actually run slower if it had to calculate numbers like 21 or 20 because these numbers are decimal (number scales that follow a linear progression of 1) rather than binary (number scales that follow an exponential progression of 2) The machine code uses binary as a bases, and it has to translate decimal numbers into binary numbers before it can use them - which ultimately slows the game down.
> >
> > bu… but… BF3 had 12v12 = 24? Whats the deal with that?
>
> Powers of 2 are superior in performance then ones that aren’t, it doesn’t matter what we’re counting… 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024…
>
> Binary, my friend, Binary…
so basically DICE chose and inferior player count for the console for BF3 then?
> > > > > whats the deal with having the player count a multiple of 4 or 8? surely it only needs to be an even number say 20v20 or 21v21?
> > > >
> > > > It has to do with how numbers like 16 or 32 can be factored completely into 2, allowing for maps that are designed for that many players to have perfect symmetry at the same time.
> > > >
> > > > It’s also much more efficient for the Netcode since the machine code follows powers of 2. The game would actually run slower if it had to calculate numbers like 21 or 20 because these numbers are decimal (number scales that follow a linear progression of 1) rather than binary (number scales that follow an exponential progression of 2) The machine code uses binary as a bases, and it has to translate decimal numbers into binary numbers before it can use them - which ultimately slows the game down.
> > >
> > > bu… but… BF3 had 12v12 = 24? Whats the deal with that?
> >
> > Powers of 2 are superior in performance then ones that aren’t, it doesn’t matter what we’re counting… 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024…
> >
> > Binary, my friend, Binary…
>
> so basically DICE chose and inferior player count for the console for BF3 then?
Precisely, they have chosen an inferior player count.
Im down for 32 vs 32 and lets get some Halo Wars vehicles in there!!
Never really cared all that much for a ridiculous amount of players in a game, 8 on 8 is plenty, for me, but as long as it opens up more possibilities, I’d opt for as many players as possible in one game.
Just not simply a slayer variant though, I think this is where invasion would come in perfectly. Instead of just dropping the core off, why not bring the core to the pelican and your team has to fly the pelican to a designated area. The possibilities are endless. Maybe switch it around have you have to take a scarab, or a mammoth.
Or the next extreme you successfully escort the pelican to orbit and suddenly it turns into a space battle. That’s a bit of a stretch but you get the point.