Halo 4 should have 16v16, and maybe 32v32

I think halo 4 should have bigger battles because it would be much funner.
I don’t see a reason why not to have bigger battles because battlefield 3 for example has 32v32 with no lag in the games.

No, since Halo is a completely different genre of FPS from Battlefield 3. Halo has always worked well with 16 players, no need to break the balance with more than that.

Imagine for a second that Reach had 16vs16. Vehicles would be quite useless in that case. You jump into a Warthog or Banshee, and instantly have 10 people shooting at you, killing you almost instantly. Of course, Halo 4 most likely won’t have vehicles that can die as easily from weak weapons like a DMR, but it’ll just ruin the flow completely…

Not to mention that the design idea of maps being able to be played in both Big Team Battle and regular sized matches would also be killed with there being 16 vs 16 or 32 vs 32.

16v16 I would love to see that . Maybe 8v8 big team battle and 16v16 insane big team playlist . 32v32 It would be very interesting but i just dont see that happening [Yet]. Wow imagine 32v32 on a small map like Asylum complete Madness lol .

simple solution to your problem.
bigger maps so that people would be more spread out and it would be hard for everyone to shoot at the same time a vehicle.

> simple solution to your problem.
> bigger maps so that people would be more spread out and it would be hard for everyone to shoot at the same time a vehicle.

But then you couldn’t use those maps in smaller 4v4 games, leading to people complaining about a lack of maps, or “crappy maps” in the same way as they complain about those in Halo Reach that are designed for Invasion (and therefore don’t work well in regular Slayer).

If you have 2-3 maps per gametype rather than maps that work well in almost everything, people get tired of maps very quickly since they don’t get as much variety without having to switch playlists. If Halo 4 were to support 32 or 64 players, the game would have to be exclusive to those game sizes, almost (if not completely) removing the small team aspect of the game that makes it so great.

Not to mention that weapon balance would also need to be adjusted. Close ranged weapons like the shotgun, SMG, assault rifle, etc… would be nearly useless, having them needing to be removed or completely retooled. Keeping such close ranged weapons would either make the game too slow, give the people with medium-long ranged weapons even more of an advantage, or just have them never be used.

> No, since Halo is a completely different genre of FPS from Battlefield 3. Halo has always worked well with 16 players, no need to break the balance with more than that.
>
> Imagine for a second that Reach had 16vs16. Vehicles would be quite useless in that case. You jump into a Warthog or Banshee, and instantly have 10 people shooting at you, killing you almost instantly. Of course, Halo 4 most likely won’t have vehicles that can die as easily from weak weapons like a DMR, but it’ll just ruin the flow completely…
>
> Not to mention that the design idea of maps being able to be played in both Big Team Battle and regular sized matches would also be killed with there being 16 vs 16 or 32 vs 32.

This

> > simple solution to your problem.
> > bigger maps so that people would be more spread out and it would be hard for everyone to shoot at the same time a vehicle.
>
> But then you couldn’t use those maps in smaller 4v4 games, leading to people complaining about a lack of maps, or “crappy maps” in the same way as they complain about those in Halo Reach that are designed for Invasion (and therefore don’t work well in regular Slayer).
>
> If you have 2-3 maps per gametype rather than maps that work well in almost everything, people get tired of maps very quickly since they don’t get as much variety without having to switch playlists. If Halo 4 were to support 32 or 64 players, the game would have to be exclusive to those game sizes, almost (if not completely) removing the small team aspect of the game that makes it so great.
>
> Not to mention that weapon balance would also need to be adjusted. Close ranged weapons like the shotgun, SMG, assault rifle, etc… would be nearly useless, having them needing to be removed or completely retooled. Keeping such close ranged weapons would either make the game too slow, give the people with medium-long ranged weapons even more of an advantage, or just have them never be used.

how hard is it to make a map already?
you just look at the negative side witch doesn’t even make sense to me.
look at it this way.
16v16 on a huge map!!!

8v8 fits Halo perfectly. We don’t need anything over 8v8. Halo doesn’t have dedi servers and never will so stop with these crazy player count numbers. If you start going over 8v8 the maps have to start being built to account for tooo many varied player counts. So that means each playlist will maybe offer 4 maps. If 343 listens to the fans about 16v16 I’ll quit playing Halo.

> > > simple solution to your problem.
> > > bigger maps so that people would be more spread out and it would be hard for everyone to shoot at the same time a vehicle.
> >
> > But then you couldn’t use those maps in smaller 4v4 games, leading to people complaining about a lack of maps, or “crappy maps” in the same way as they complain about those in Halo Reach that are designed for Invasion (and therefore don’t work well in regular Slayer).
> >
> > If you have 2-3 maps per gametype rather than maps that work well in almost everything, people get tired of maps very quickly since they don’t get as much variety without having to switch playlists. If Halo 4 were to support 32 or 64 players, the game would have to be exclusive to those game sizes, almost (if not completely) removing the small team aspect of the game that makes it so great.
> >
> > Not to mention that weapon balance would also need to be adjusted. Close ranged weapons like the shotgun, SMG, assault rifle, etc… would be nearly useless, having them needing to be removed or completely retooled. Keeping such close ranged weapons would either make the game too slow, give the people with medium-long ranged weapons even more of an advantage, or just have them never be used.
>
> how hard is it to make a map already?
> you just look at the negative side witch doesn’t even make sense to me.
> look at it this way.
> 16v16 on a huge map!!!

It’s important to look at the negative side, since if there’s a problem then it won’t work well. In plus, it’s not my problem if you can’t understand what I’m saying. I’ll try to put it simply for you.

You say “161v16 on a huge map!!!”. Yes, that map would be TOO huge for Halo. Most weapons in the game are closer ranged weapons, and having a map that big would make those weapons useless. So, if you want huge battles like that, you need to either change the balance of the whole game to work with those sizes of battles (and therefore ruining the balance on smaller maps), or have those big battles be all about 2-3 guns (BR, sniper and Anti-vehicle weapon), creating a map that’s just no fun.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that those sized maps would be too dependent on vehicles. The thing with the current Big Team Battle maps in Halo is that you’re not forced to use a vehicle to go around. If the maps are too big, the people stranded on foot would spend most of their time walking with nothing to shoot at, which is no fun.

Also, please stop bumping your thread, it’s against the rules.

> 8v8 fits Halo perfectly. We don’t need anything over 8v8. Halo doesn’t have dedi servers and never will so stop with these crazy player count numbers. If you start going over 8v8 the maps have to start being built to account for tooo many varied player counts. So that means each playlist will maybe offer 4 maps. If 343 listens to the fans about 16v16 I’ll quit playing Halo.

This guy understands ^

I think that would be a blast! Complete chaos with a side of sticky nades and wathogs. Welcome to Waypoint and that is an awesome idea =)

I would love if Halo was 16 VS 16. It would be epic. I hate how in Reach Bungie gave us this large map called Forge World. You can make these large scale battle maps on it. Which you spend hours on making. But do to the player count they don’t work right at all.

The only thing they have to do is design maps that are would work, and are large enough, to handle 16 VS 16.
For Big Team they can have 2 separate play-list for it:
Classic Big Team: 8 VS 8.
Big Team: 16 VS 16.

sorry new member in forum don’t know how it works.
anyways you don’t have to give up your close range weapon because you can hold 2 weapons at once in halo.and if you get in a tunnel you can use your shotgun in their.there is definitely a way to make 16v16 play lists, and look at it this way,it can’t hurt the game because you can still play 8v8 and all other play lists.

> I think halo 4 should have bigger battles because it would be much funner.
> I don’t see a reason why not to have bigger battles because battlefield 3 for example has 32v32 with no lag in the games.

32V32 will be EPIC!

While I think the idea is great, and I’d love to have the option, I have never had a Big Team Battle Game where I think to myself: you know what would make this so much better? 16 more people.
Although the issue has received a lot of talk lately and I somewhat support it, it’s just not on my list of top priorities for Halo 4.

I don’t see Halo’s maps growing enough to support that many players. Especially since Halo’s gameplay relies so much on small arena maps for competitive value.

I definitely side with Hotrod on this one. The core of Halo multiplayer isn’t really about huge matches with big open enviroments, but about small 4v4 gameplay on carefully designed arena maps. Anything over 20 players is too far from the gameplay style of Halo to fit in any way. Even the style and size of the Invasion maps caused problems with other gametypes.

Simply put, higher player counts aren’t really needed. All they would help is the “awesome” factor when a player hears about the game. But that factor is a very unreal and brief feeling that quickly vanishes after you have played the game. In other words, bigger player amounts hold no gameplay value in Halo.

Maybe you could be able to increase the player cap to 16v16 or 32v32 in Customs.

> No, since Halo is a completely different genre of FPS from Battlefield 3. Halo has always worked well with 16 players, no need to break the balance with more than that.
>
> Imagine for a second that Reach had 16vs16. Vehicles would be quite useless in that case. You jump into a Warthog or Banshee, and instantly have 10 people shooting at you, killing you almost instantly. Of course, Halo 4 most likely won’t have vehicles that can die as easily from weak weapons like a DMR, but it’ll just ruin the flow completely…
>
> Not to mention that the design idea of maps being able to be played in both Big Team Battle and regular sized matches would also be killed with there being 16 vs 16 or 32 vs 32.

QFT. i dont like the idea of the perfect balance we have being broken and the maps being broken. MAYBE 10v10 just for chaotic fun but no. No 16v16 thats just too much.

I would not work, the Xbox cannot handle 32 players. BF3 only has 24, so Halo would be roughly about the same at max.

> Maybe you could be able to increase the player cap to 16v16 or 32v32 in Customs.

The only way that would even start to make the slightest bit of sense is if they also added bots. How many times have you ever assembled an 8v8 in Halo customs? I may have pulled it off once in Halo 2 because a modder gave me party rights and once the people realized I wasn’t doing modded maps everyone left. Can you even being to think of how hard it would be to fill a custom with 32+ players. You would have to either be an MLG pro or work for 343 to be able to pull a party of that magnitude off.

Basically anything over 16 is pointless. Let’s stop talking about it because it just doesn’t make sense no matter which way you cut it. BTB works and thats all that matters we don’t need epic scale battles. Those belong in campaign anyway. And since were barly seeing epic battles in campaign what would make anyone think that it would work at all in multiplayer. This is a topic that needs to stop resurfacing. It would just take away too much from the core Halo gameplay. Much like Invasion took the potential away from Launch maps in Reach. Even Reach to this day doesn’t really give you map variety. The time it had to take to create the 2 Invasion maps could have been used to build at the very least 3-4 solid small,medium maps or even another map or 2 for btb.