So apparently Halo 4 is only 16 players accorsding to this site. Quite dissapointed since BF has been doing 24 player fine for 3 games now. Halo 1 had 16 player ffs.
Halo used to innovate but now its fallen behind. Halo 4 needs servers.
People don’t understand how much it costs to keep Dedicated Server running, especially when the game is going to be a huge hit.
Activision confirmed Call of Duty will never have Dedicated Servers because of the price it would cost to keep them all running, same goes for Halo, it will cost WAY to much, and after playing Reach with netcode improving, peer to peer is working fine for me.
Severs cost way to much to run, on top of that Reach’s new Per to Per net code works just fine. Otherwise yes 24 players would be nice, hectic and stressful on the net code, but nice.
> Severs cost way to much to run, on top of that Reach’s new Per to Per net code works just fine. Otherwise yes 24 players would be nice, hectic and stressful on the net code, but nice.
BF3 has more people playing it than Reach and has servers.
Im so sick of getting -Yoink- host’s, host change, host quit etc and bad lag. BF3 servers run great with almost no lag ever and none of that crap.
A 16 player maximum has worked great for 10 years. I don’t see a reason to change it now. 343 has bigger problems to deal with.
> > Severs cost way to much to run, on top of that Reach’s new Per to Per net code works just fine. Otherwise yes 24 players would be nice, hectic and stressful on the net code, but nice.
>
> BF3 has more people playing it than Reach and has servers.
>
> Im so sick of getting Yoink! host’s, host change, host quit etc and bad lag. BF3 servers run great with almost no lag ever and none of that crap.
Halo is not Battlefield, nor the other way around.
Still, I do believe MS should be capable of putting up dedicated servers since Halo is their flag title for the XBOX and MS isn’t poor at all.
Big team games are only secondary in Halo. What would be the point in upping the player count when 4v4 and lower are Halo’s main gametypes.
> A 16 player maximum has worked great for 10 years. I don’t see a reason to change it now. 343 has bigger problems to deal with.
^ This.
I’d love bigger MP, believe me. I would much rather have them focus on keeping the core gameplay tight and creating a great campaign. 8v8 has worked just fine for Halo. BF3 is based on large-scale, vehicular combat. Halo isn’t quite the same situation.
> > Severs cost way to much to run, on top of that Reach’s new Per to Per net code works just fine. Otherwise yes 24 players would be nice, hectic and stressful on the net code, but nice.
>
> BF3 has more people playing it than Reach and has servers.
>
> Im so sick of getting Yoink! host’s, host change, host quit etc and bad lag. BF3 servers run great with almost no lag ever and none of that crap.
Yeah and battlefield 3 servers are down half he time
> > A 16 player maximum has worked great for 10 years. I don’t see a reason to change it now. 343 has bigger problems to deal with.
>
> ^ This.
>
> I’d love bigger MP, believe me. I would much rather have them focus on keeping the core gameplay tight and creating a great campaign. 8v8 has worked just fine for Halo. BF3 is based on large-scale, vehicular combat. Halo isn’t quite the same situation.
I mean when you think about it, Halo also has some pretty large maps that consist of a wide arrange of vehicles such as banshees, tanks, warthogs, mongooses, etc… Though BF3 has always felt so large in scale that I guess you can’t really compare it to Halo (it has always felt like you’re in a real battle. Hence “Battlefield” lol). It would be nice to have an increase in player cap, but 8v8 is just fine for me. Never really had a problem with it.
> > > A 16 player maximum has worked great for 10 years. I don’t see a reason to change it now. 343 has bigger problems to deal with.
> >
> > ^ This.
> >
> > I’d love bigger MP, believe me. I would much rather have them focus on keeping the core gameplay tight and creating a great campaign. 8v8 has worked just fine for Halo. BF3 is based on large-scale, vehicular combat. Halo isn’t quite the same situation.
>
> I mean when you think about it, Halo also has some pretty large maps that consist of a wide arrange of vehicles such as banshees, tanks, warthogs, mongooses, etc… Though BF3 has always felt so large in scale that I guess you can’t really compare it to Halo (it has always felt like you’re in a real battle. Hence “Battlefield” lol). It would be nice to have an increase in player cap, but 8v8 is just fine for me. Never really had a problem with it.
Yeah. Halo’s vehicles tend to function a little differently than BF’s vehicles. They’re designed to operate at much smaller ranges. I don’t think Halo would be bad with larger server populations, I just think 16 is plenty suitable. I think it’s a little outrageous that Halo could be described as “falling behind the curve” simply because it hosts smaller games. Kind of a silly accusation. 
Aside from the “dedicated server” debate, one has to understand that the more users in a game, the more problems it causes. It’s not as simple as saying “Hey! Let’s press this big button and allow 24 people in a game together! Woooooooo!”
For example,
-
More players in a game provides more opportunities for people to quit, which forever increases the frustrating quitting problems we see abundantly in Reach. A quick rotation system, like CoD, could fix this problem, theoretically.
-
Increasing the maximum population would mean altering maps to allow for that many amount of users. Increasing the maximum in-game population from 16 to 24 would call for a slew of new maps to compliment the increase of players. More weapons, vehicles, equipment, etc. would need to be placed on a map to allow a larger population to feel adequate. To summarize, we’d need specific maps for larger player amounts.
-
“Dedicated servers” aren’t necessarily out of the question. It’s common knowledge that Gears of War 3 takes advantage of this, as well as Battlefield 3 and other popular modern games. It doesn’t make sense for the Call of Duty franchise to invest in dedicated servers, when a new game is introduced and released a few months apart from each other. The Halo franchise, on the other hand, which releases main titles years apart from each other, would arguably make a claim for a sound investment. It isn’t out of the question, however I would alter the netcode to be more stable, as well as slightly altering some matchmaking aspects, if possible, and that should correct the problem instead of jumping to the “Halo needs dedicated servers!” argument.
> Big team games are only secondary in Halo. What would be the point in upping the player count when 4v4 and lower are Halo’s main gametypes.
Since BTB, BTB anniversary and living dead all have a great part of the population, I can only conclude that you hate big scale combat possibly due to vehicles or the amount of pws. You are clearly not respecting other peoples povs and tend to stick to the “mine is the only right one”, there are people who think 4v4 is to small and not exiting or big enough, these prefer BTB or invasion and there are other who only play 4v4 or even 2v2 rather then 5v5+.
Stop thinking only 1 thing overrules all.
It is very annoying.
Please no dedicated servers. They work fine if you live in america, but the rest of the world gets really screwed over. GOW3 is almost unplayable because for all of Europe there are just two servers one in Italy and one in Ireland. If you do not live close to one of these then you are permanently playing on terrible connections. One only needs to look at the GOW forums to see lots of people complaining about this very issue.
I fear Halo 4 would have a very similar server setup, limiting the game to virtually US only.
No need for Dedi’s, In canada, the network is FINE!!!
There are many good reasons than simply having more players. Such as, testing maps! A place to advertise and a place to show off new gameplay.
> People don’t understand how much it costs to keep Dedicated Server running, especially when the game is going to be a huge hit.
>
> Activision confirmed Call of Duty will never have Dedicated Servers because of the price it would cost to keep them all running, same goes for Halo, it will cost WAY to much, and after playing Reach with netcode improving, peer to peer is working fine for me.
BF3 doesnt have dedicated servers yet it runs just fine. try my filter search to see how you can get even less lag.
Honestly, I see no reason for Halo 4 to go over 16 players. It wouldn’t bring much enhancement gameplay-wise and would add more lag and unfair teams after player drops. You thought 2 vs 8 was bad? Imagine 2 vs 12…
> Honestly, I see no reason for Halo 4 to go over 16 players. It wouldn’t bring much enhancement gameplay-wise and would add more lag and unfair teams after player drops. You thought 2 vs 8 was bad? Imagine 2 vs 12…
BF3 never had this problem due to lag, just quitters
Think logicaly.
If you went from 16 to 24 players, the maps would have to be bigger. Otherewise it would be like playing BTB on Guardian.
But a lot fo Halo fans like to play Team Slayer (4v4), and you can’t play that on a map designed for 24 players can you.
This would either mean there would be less maps of each size shipping with the disc (not good) or 343 would have to put more time in to making more maps, increasing the release date and probably upping the price (not good).