Halo 4. More player capactiy please.

[gollum385]

Halo has always been since it has been onlone 8v8. Whilst this is a pretty god figure, I can't help but feel it falls short in many gametypes, and the larger maps available. Invasion for example, an epic battle between to armies, is 6v6!? I feel a larger player capacity would be great to refresh the halo games. Not only could it lead to larger battles, but also unique gametypes.

 

Please fill in the poll as to what sizes people think should be aimed for in halo 4. Obviously the game also has to run as smoothly if not more so than previous halo's so maybe some of the larger sizes are less achieveable.

 

I'd also like to know people's views on other gametypes and the number of people in those gametypes. Would people like to see 6 or even 8 player campaign (if possible), or 6-16 people in firefight. I know that verses was a cool idea for firefight in reach, but when it's only 2v2 there aren't enough people to make it successful.

[oOoYourMOMoOo]

It would be really nice to hav more poeple and some crazy big maps.

[gollum385]

Yea it would be great. I feel even the current generation of maps are a bit bigger than the amount of players they can cope with. For example each iteration of blood gulch just gets bigger and bigger, and boneyard was huge, especially for a 6v6 invasion. I think 12v12 should be the minimum they try to achieve with 4. I think 16v16 would be awesome though. It would make big team and invasion gametypes very interesting, and i think any more would be difficult to achieve in terms of networking. The epicness of larger battles and how it would work in terms of how a team/inividuals perform would be very interesting and a whole new aspect to the halo game.

[Jlewis12]

Didn't see this one up there but probaly 20 is the best. It's not to small to not have fun. And it's not to big to ba laggy all the time.

[Kyle K]

12 vs 12 would be great but if a maps big enough i wouldn't mind 16 vs 16 but nothing more then that because it would just lag too much like how homefront turned out so even 16 vs 16 might be pushing it

[gollum385]

Yea i think the thing that everyone would be worried about would be if it was too laggy, and i wouldn't like that. It's also the case that for bigger battles there are usually more bandwidth hungry aspects aswell, such as using vehicles, mass explosions, or the maps themselves.

 

I would love 16v16. It would mean large battles would be awesome, but it's a size which wouldn't mean maps have to be made at a much greater size. I think anymore would be too hard to do in terms of lag.

If that wasn't possible I think 12v12 would be the next best option. In fact many of the larger sized maps (avalanche, sandtrap, boneyard) could probably easily handle 12v12 anyway. It's gametypes such as invasion that would most benefit from the ability to handle more players, aswell as games like griffball (maybe) and zombies and customs.

 

Also allowing firefight to have more players, even if it just 8, or more campaign players would also be desireable.

 

I apologise for not having a 20 person option. I didn't want to have too many options.

 

I think the main point here is that everyone is for an increase in the size, even if it just small, but also make sure performance isn't affected. Something like this would be a good way of revolutionising halo multiplayer, without changing many of the core mechanics.

[Spectral Jester]

16 vs 16 would be awesome for invasion.

I think a lot of the game modes would be miles better with bigger lobbies.

Would need to put dedicated servers in though as lag would/could /will be an issue

[gollum385]

Yea definately lag is a big issue.

 

I actually had an idea that i thought would be good, and was going to make a thread about it, but i will put it here. Not sure if it is technically possible, or would actually help much, but here it is:

 

Rather than one host, that everyone communicates with, there is a host for each team (for a 4v4). I the event of more people, or for 16v16 if it was around, there would be more of these hosts. Basically if one of these hosts quits, then someone else from that group of say 4 people will become host. During that time however, host migration is not needed, as everyone will act of off the other/another host.

 

Again i'm nt sure if this would benefit the network, as the lines of communication could potentially be longer. But especially in the event that these groups of 4 were based on people closest together globally, or make it so each team has the first and second, fourth and third, fifth and sixth, eigth and seventh best connections respectively (or a combination of this/other ideas), then at least people will be connected to a good host, or have good connection to some of the players, and then use this host to communicate with the others, eliminating some of the problems with poor connections.

 

Again ideas on this concept (anyone who has a good understanding of networks input is welcome) and how it is good bad or how it could be utilised in a way that would improve matchmaking would be welcome. One of the main advantages i can see from this is that more hosts would help spread the load for networking especially in larger matches like 16v16, and host migration would be slightly improved.

 

I'd like to point out that while many would want dedicated servers, i don't think this would be an option for halo 4 (although it would be good) as they are expensive to run and maintain.

[Baykem]

Halo has always been since it has been onlone 8v8. Whilst this is a pretty god figure, I can't help but feel it falls short in many gametypes, and the larger maps available. Invasion for example, an epic battle between to armies, is 6v6!? I feel a larger player capacity would be great to refresh the halo games. Not only could it lead to larger battles, but also unique gametypes.

 

Please fill in the poll as to what sizes people think should be aimed for in halo 4. Obviously the game also has to run as smoothly if not more so than previous halo's so maybe some of the larger sizes are less achieveable.

 

I'd also like to know people's views on other gametypes and the number of people in those gametypes. Would people like to see 6 or even 8 player campaign (if possible), or 6-16 people in firefight. I know that verses was a cool idea for firefight in reach, but when it's only 2v2 there aren't enough people to make it successful.

I posted this a long time ago, check the threads

[gollum385]

Apologies Baykem if I have copied a thread you posted, I haven't done this intentionally, i have merely been creating threads off a list i have of things i'd like to see in halo 4. What was the general consensus from your thread? I'd be interested to see if people are saying the same things, as if everyone agrees on this, it would be wise for 343i to look into it.

[gollum385]

Good to see that the general consensus is for some sort of increase, whther it be just a few more players or double the player count.

[gollum385]

Interested to see someone voted for 64 players. Why do you think 64 would be the best capacity to raise it too. I am definately up for an increase in player count, but do you think that 64 might change how halo plays if the were 32v32 battles. A person's input, even if great may not have the same impact as now, or if the player count was only raised to 24/32. Obviously in this case there could also definately be networking issues i feel, But thanks for your honest opinion.

[gollum385]

Is there anyone who thinks there should be a different number to the one's suggested. I know one of the people who commented wanted 20 player capacity, would be interested to see if there are other figures that people would like to see.

[Spectral Jester]

If it was server based a TRUE big team battle with loads of vehicles could be fun.

Maybe in this gametype lets call it warzone, its first to eliminate the other team.

Mass vehicle combat, mayhem on foot.

Could be fun

[Baykem]

Apologies Baykem if I have copied a thread you posted, I haven't done this intentionally, i have merely been creating threads off a list i have of things i'd like to see in halo 4. What was the general consensus from your thread? I'd be interested to see if people are saying the same things, as if everyone agrees on this, it would be wise for 343i to look into it.

Its fine man

[gollum385]

Thanks spectral Jester. I do like the idea of big battles, with vehicles, or objective gametpyes could be fun too.

There was a gametype called eliminatio in halo 3, which i found quite fun, although it wasn't really in the system for too long. Maybe with much larger teams it could be fun.

 

If there was say 24/people, i would love gametpyes to be broken down into categories such as the ones belows

 

singles (lone wolves, maybe 2 types for smaller and larger games (ie 8-10 and 16-20 people capacity)

doubles (2v2) and multi team version (4/5 teams and 8-10 teams)

triples (3v3) and multi team version (4 and 8 teams)

teams (5v5) and multi team version (4)

squad battle (8v8) and 3 way version

big team (12v12)

 

obviously would be great for other gametypes too like invasion, and interesting for objective games.

also if there were 32 players the sizes might be different, and maybe an edition of a warzone for even larger groups, like you suggested.

[Itz JoshE]

64 but only on 5x forge world maps

[gollum385]

Could you explain what you mean by only on 5x forge world maps? Do you mean maps 5x the size of forge world? Because i'm sure that would be far too big for a single map. I'm pretty sure haemorrhage could easily support 24 maybe even 32 players, so just a map twice/ three times that size would probably be able to support 64 players, and that definately isn't a third of the current forge world.

 

I personally think 24/32 would be the best size as 48 or 64 would probably be too much for the system.

[Phantomlord No1]

12-12 would be very fun, lots of enemies and no quiet seconds, also lots of heads for me to snipe

[gollum385]

Yea i think 12v12, or possibly 16v16 is what people would want to see generally. Obviously this wouldnt be for every gametype, but would be good for larger maps and things like invasion, which currently there just aren't enough people to make it an epic battle.

[gollum385]

I think the most interesting thing here is nobody thinks it should stay at 8v8. I think that the evolution in technology should mean that a higher player count is achieveable, even if it is just 12v12

[gollum385]

What gametypes to people think will most benefit from this (apart from obvious ones like big team)? I personally don't think rumble pit or something like that would, but definately games like invasion, multi team and custom games would. Games like griffball and other sport like games like revball would definately benefit from more players.

[CsDarKnight]

No thank you, too much lag as it is anyways.

[SilentCO1]

32 vs 32... Lagtacular. 16 vs 16 would be fun though, Homefront is doing that currently with one of their gametypes. But, We would definately need dedicated servers. And for Invasion, they should add AI's to each side. That way it would really feel like an "Invasion"

[Spectral Jester]

32 vs 32... Lagtacular. 16 vs 16 would be fun though, Homefront is doing that currently with one of their gametypes. But, We would definately need dedicated servers. And for Invasion, they should add AI's to each side. That way it would really feel like an "Invasion"

 

loving the idea of AI in Invasion

I do like invasion but it seriously needs more players on each side to make it match the title invasion