Support NeoGAF

[Demoncarnotaur]

Earlier in the project there were discussions and some playtests done around supporting slightly larger player counts for some specific gametypes that were being prototyped. At the time it was believed that would carry over into something that shipped in the final game but ultimately it didn't work out as planned (for far too many reasons to get into). Reach will continue to support a maximum total of 16 players.

Ah well, everything else is looking fantastic so I guess we were due for a little sad news.

 

[wwm0nkey]

Earlier in the project there were discussions and some playtests done around supporting slightly larger player counts for some specific gametypes that were being prototyped. At the time it was believed that would carry over into something that shipped in the final game but ultimately it didn't work out as planned (for far too many reasons to get into). Reach will continue to support a maximum total of 16 players.

Well you just killed a few peoples dreams right there lol. Im guessing in the beta though we will see some improvement to the net code though.

 

[Chinner]

bungie should just steal pdz's netcode. 32 player and smooth as shit. oh well, babby console 16 lives on.

shouldn't be bad as long as the maps arnt stupidly huge like they were in halo 3.

 

[rar]

I don't really know what you guys are talking about exactly, but what a massive amount of bullshit in that quote from that Achronos guy.

pretty much

bungie is just way too lazy to try and implement a pc game-style server system, even though it is superior to what they have and could easily coexist with matchmaking if they put any thought into it

 

[squidhands]

Nice to have a definite player count. Works for me.

pretty much

bungie is just way too lazy to try and implement a pc game-style server system

Yeah, that's what it is; laziness. Your mamma must be proud to have raised such intelligence.

 

[ManCannon]

That's cool. Does the netcode in Reach handles 16 players better than Halo 3 does?

In a nut shell, most definitely. Froman and his team have put a ton of work into optimizing and adding to the networking code. Luke suggested we have Froman back on the April podcast to talk shop, sounds like a great idea. (and better than me trying to pretend I know how any of this stuff works)

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

In a nut shell, most definitely. Froman and his team have put a ton of work into optimizing and adding to the networking code. Luke suggested we have Froman back on the April podcast to talk shop, sounds like a great idea. (and better than me trying to pretend I know how any of this stuff works)

Cool, I always loved BTB but lag was often such a annoying factor.

If you dont mind saying, how many players were experimented with before going back to 16?

 

[bobs...onGaf]

pretty much

bungie is just way too lazy to try and implement a pc game-style server system, even though it is superior to what they have and could easily coexist with matchmaking if they put any thought into it

Yep Bungie are the laziest dev ive seen when it comes to dealing with putting people into multiplayer matches. They were so lazy that, because they couldnt be bothered to impliment a pc server style system, they instead pretty much invented and implimented a matchmaking system which has become pretty much the norm for console gaming and now have created things like active roster etc to suppliment this. Fucking lazy bastards :lol

Seriusly though Achronos hit it on the head why matchmaking is better than game browsing systems.

 

[Genesis Knight]

Does MAG use dedicated servers?

 

[ManCannon]

If you dont mind saying, how many players were experimented with before going back to 16?

Urk has to have some stuff to write post-mortems about. I can't steall ALL of his sizzle.

 

[The Librarian]

Earlier in the project there were discussions and some playtests done around supporting slightly larger player counts for some specific gametypes that were being prototyped. At the time it was believed that would carry over into something that shipped in the final game but ultimately it didn't work out as planned (for far too many reasons to get into). Reach will continue to support a maximum total of 16 players.

Well, better to find this out now than to be disappointed later when you find out the game doesn't support more than 16 players. Thanks for telling us!

 

[strikeselect]

pretty much

bungie is just way too lazy to try and implement a pc game-style server system, even though it is superior to what they have and could easily coexist with matchmaking if they put any thought into it

Uh no.

PC style server system doesn't work the same on consoles.

 

[feel]

bungie is just way too lazy to try and implement a pc game-style server system

huh? I could bet making the matchmaking work how it does on Halo, creating somewhat fair and balanced games, takes about a thousand times more effort than just letting people see a list what games are going on at any given time like on most PC games.
They only care about having a good matchmaking system (which I'm glad they do), so having both systems in place would reduce player count in MM, making it slower, so they're not doing it.

 

[GhaleonEB]

pretty much

bungie is just way too lazy to try and implement a pc game-style server system, even though it is superior to what they have and could easily coexist with matchmaking if they put any thought into it

Lazy is absolutely the last word that should be associated with Bungie. Other developers still haven't cleared half the bars Bungie set with Halo 3's feature suite, and they're about to raise them even further. Agree or disagree with the approach, but they've clearly thought it through.

Thanks for clearing up the player count, Mancannon. Weird that Marcus clip was posted on Monday, I'm assuming it must be older than that.

 

[godhandiscen]

In a nut shell, most definitely. Froman and his team have put a ton of work into optimizing and adding to the networking code. Luke suggested we have Froman back on the April podcast to talk shop, sounds like a great idea. (and better than me trying to pretend I know how any of this stuff works)

Awesome. Anything beyond 12 players is not playable to me due to my slow connection, so a better netcode is indeed an increase in player count for me. Thank you so much.

pretty much

bungie is just way too lazy to try and implement a pc game-style server system, even though it is superior to what they have and could easily coexist with matchmaking if they put any thought into it

Ohh GTFO, has it ever occurred to you that people who stick to Halo also enjoy the matchmaking system? There are other games with server list, go play those if matchmaking isn't your thing.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

pretty much

bungie is just way too lazy to try and implement a pc game-style server system, even though it is superior to what they have and could easily coexist with matchmaking if they put any thought into it

massively annoying post.

I have zero invested in bungie, but who the fuck are you? :lol

haven't kept up with the development but is 'regional' style option going to be in? Hope so.

 

[Shake Appeal]

Count me in the crowd who are thankful that the player count is not increasing. It's hard enough playing this game from Yoorup as it is.

 

[Mad Max]

Uh no.

PC style server system doesn't work the same on consoles.

It would work exactly the same on consoles as on a PC.

But what bungie should do imo, is have a matchmaking system like they're making for reach, but instead of using P2P have dedicated servers to host games. This would greatly reduce lag and searchtimes, the only downside is that it would cost bungie/ms money.

Besides that they could make a server browser which could combine both matchmaking servers and custom servers in one list, and let people sort/search them using specific criteria, so players would easily be able to find the exact game they want to play.

 

[Kuroyume]

nvm

 

[Gui_PT]

pretty much

bungie is just way too lazy to try and implement a pc game-style server system, even though it is superior to what they have and could easily coexist with matchmaking if they put any thought into it

 

[Blueblur1]

pretty much

bungie is just way too lazy to try and implement a pc game-style server system, even though it is superior to what they have and could easily coexist with matchmaking if they put any thought into it

In this case, ignorance is not bliss.

 

[Spasm]

Count me in the crowd who are thankful that the player count is not increasing. It's hard enough playing this game from Yoorup as it is.

Not only that, but you can't just slap more people in a game without serious consideration to map size. It might turn into the cluster fuck that is MW2's Ground War.

 

[strikeselect]

It would work exactly the same on consoles as on a PC.

No it wouldn't. The appeal of dedicated servers on PC is not just the latency factor but the communities that form around a server. These server communities have their own map rotations, rules, admins, regulars, etc. etc.

That doesn't happen on consoles and likely never will as long as these games are geared towards the mainstream.

Joe Gamer doesn't want to load up a server browser and have to search through different servers until he finds one he likes. He just wants to click a button and start playing.

 

[PedroLumpy]

Seriusly though Achronos hit it on the head why matchmaking is better than game browsing systems.

I'm not saying Bungie is lazy, they clearly prefer matchmaking for their game. But what Achronos said is not true. I use Server lists in the past, and games now, and it does not result in what he spews in that quote.

Joe Gamer doesn't want to load up a server browser and have to search through different servers until he finds one he likes. He just wants to click a button and start playing.

This implies that the two couldn't coexist in one game. I don't think that's true.

 

[godhandiscen]

Some still captures from the ViDoc...

http://i42.tinypic.com/14jw7si.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/51wnc9.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/ws9oyd.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/2mi16b6.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/hx829w.jpg
http://i40.tinypic.com/2agoqvq.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/15dswuu.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/2hyzzva.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/n47hvk.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/a2o9v.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/kao3yv.jpg
http://i41.tinypic.com/298wlc.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/33k3a7o.jpg

My concerns about the image quality are almost gone. It's obvious that Bungie has circunvented the need for AA with a really badass motion blur.

 

[Spasm]

I'm not saying Bungie is lazy, they clearly prefer matchmaking for their game. But what Achronos said is not true. I use Server lists in the past, and games now, and it does not result in what he spews in that quote.

I guess you weren't around for the WarHawk launch.

Edit: Even after things died down, the server browser is still seriously clunky on a console. I haven't met a single one I liked.

 

[PedroLumpy]

I guess you weren't around for the WarHawk launch.

Well no, I have no idea what you're talking about, but I hardly think that one game proves your point, or me wrong.

 

[big ander]

One of the first results for GIS. Made me laugh.

Sketch, use this please :lol

I'm fine with 16 player max for Vanilla Halo, but I was kind of hoping for 10v10 or more Invasion. Still, not the worst news ever.

Late EDIT:
As for the discussion on server browsing: it seems a lot of people are offering their anecdotal evidence as to why it does/doesn't work. I, for one, wouldn't mind it, but the reasoning Achronos provided makes sense to me. I'm not going to complain.

 

[dslgunstar]

I had three main problems with Halo 3 Objective play upon release:

• AR starts only.
• Bland maps compared to previous games.
• Shitty map/gametype pairing.

Issue 1 has been fixed with loadouts.
Issue 2 I hope won't be an issue this time around. Quality has improved with each map pack IMO (Orbital can be forgotten), so there's hope :lol
Issue 3 better not be an issue. I do not want to have to put up with this in Reach again:

3v3 AR starts 1 Flag on Valhalla is NOT fun, I don't want to play the equivalent in Reach at launch. This type of gametype/map mismatch happened way too often in Halo 3.

Note: All the following comments are from someone that loves and is addicted to objective gametypes in Halo 3. I've sunk exponentially more time in the objective playlists than slayer playlists. IMO, Halo 3 (all Halo's actually) are at their best in objective game modes.

The only point I really agree with you on is the third point. 3v3 anything on a large map is a pain in the ass, and putting any objective on a map that's not suited to it is just stupid. Asymmetrical gametypes on asymmetrical maps, two-way modes on symmetrical maps.

I used to think the maps in Halo 3 were a big disappointment, but they've all grown on me over time. Setting aside the remakes of Bungie's best (Last Resort, Valhalla, Avalanche, Blackout....I wont include Guardian, cause I hate it), there are still lots of great maps here. I loved High Ground from the get go because I love asymmetrical maps that force each team to use different strategies, but I hated Narrows, The Pit, Sandtrap and Snowbound at first. Now I appreciate all the little nuances of their design. You're right that the map design has only been getting better, though. Standoff, Rat's Nest, Ghost Town and Longshore are all fantastic.

At launch, the AR start hurt on bigger maps like Valhalla because you were basically helpless against BRs at mid-range. That was corrected with BR starts on the huge maps. Smaller to mid-sized maps like Narrows and High Ground still work with AR start. There's enough cover (either through different elevation, or structures, or buildings) that fire-fights typically start at or just outside AR range, which means use of grenades and melees even the score between BRs and ARs. Hopefully Bungie acknowledges the changes they had to make in Halo 3, and offers DMR starts on the larger maps in Reach.

 

[Devin Olsen]

Pax Prime here I come!

Pre Registration went live today! Any other GAF'ers going?

 

[Hydranockz]

Urk has to have some stuff to write post-mortems about. I can't steall ALL of his sizzle.

Cheers for the info you did give us. I think the same amount of players playing a smoother game compared to ~20 players playing a laggy game sells it for me.

Dedicated servers are not the way to go.

 

[Draft]

Matchmaking is great. I love matchmaking when all I want to do is hop into some games and get dirty. As a ~*true blue*~ PC Gamer, I have no shame admitting much love for how easy COD4MW2 makes getting into a game, either by myself or with my buds.

Except when it lags out. Or the game crashes. Or the host leaves, or won't turn off his porno torrents.

P2P is atrocious garbage, and it's sad that console gaming has made it the standard. It's really too bad that the millions of dollars pouring into these developers doesn't get turned into some sort of dedicated server support, or at the bare minimu, the ability for users to host servers themselves.

 

[Not a Jellyfish]

In a nut shell, most definitely. Froman and his team have put a ton of work into optimizing and adding to the networking code. Luke suggested we have Froman back on the April podcast to talk shop, sounds like a great idea. (and better than me trying to pretend I know how any of this stuff works)

Sounds real good, would love to hear him talk shop a bit how drop outs and things of that nature are handled in Reaches netcode.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Not only that, but you can't just slap more people in a game without serious consideration to map size. It might turn into the cluster fuck that is MW2's Ground War.

And I don't think Halo's play really fits large groups well. I though perhaps they'd bump the count up to 20 or 24 for something like a few large-scale Invasion maps based on the hints they gave, but as you said the maps would have to be huge. Stuff like Valhalla, Avalanche and Sandtrap play pretty well with 16 as it is.

 

[Magni]

Note: All the following comments are from someone that loves and is addicted to objective gametypes in Halo 3. I've sunk exponentially more time in the objective playlists than slayer playlists. IMO, Halo 3 (all Halo's actually) are at their best in objective game modes.

The only point I really agree with you on is the third point. 3v3 anything on a large map is a pain in the ass, and putting any objective on a map that's not suited to it is just stupid. Asymmetrical gametypes on asymmetrical maps, two-way modes on symmetrical maps.

I used to think the maps in Halo 3 were a big disappointment, but they've all grown on me over time. Setting aside the remakes of Bungie's best (Last Resort, Valhalla, Avalanche, Blackout....I wont include Guardian, cause I hate it), there are still lots of great maps here. I loved High Ground from the get go because I love asymmetrical maps that force each team to use different strategies, but I hated Narrows, The Pit, Sandtrap and Snowbound at first. Now I appreciate all the little nuances of their design. You're right that the map design has only been getting better, though. Standoff, Rat's Nest, Ghost Town and Longshore are all fantastic.

At launch, the AR start hurt on bigger maps like Valhalla because you were basically helpless against BRs at mid-range. That was corrected with BR starts on the huge maps. Smaller to mid-sized maps like Narrows and High Ground still work with AR start. There's enough cover (either through different elevation, or structures, or buildings) that fire-fights typically start at or just outside AR range, which means use of grenades and melees even the score between BRs and ARs. Hopefully Bungie acknowledges the changes they had to make in Halo 3, and offers DMR starts on the larger maps in Reach.

I thought my post was gonna get forgotten after the "OMG 32 players in Reach!" craze :lol

Keep in mind my post was about the first five or six months of Halo 3, the situation has changed. The maps we'd get to play in Objective were Last Resort (way too big for 3v3 and borderline for 4v4 (except Snipes, where it isn't included!)), Isolation, Snowbound, ...

AR only kinda killed the fun, coupled with melee, it screwed all of H3 MM post launch until AU 1.1.

I still don't understand how something like 1 Bomb ARs on Valhalla made it into a playlist which could feature teams of three. How about a post mortem on Halo 3 playlist management?

 

[Kibbles]

Earlier in the project there were discussions and some playtests done around supporting slightly larger player counts for some specific gametypes that were being prototyped. At the time it was believed that would carry over into something that shipped in the final game but ultimately it didn't work out as planned (for far too many reasons to get into). Reach will continue to support a maximum total of 16 players.

[edit] Dealin with it.

Thanks for sharing though because people all over are going crazy about player counts, especially after the chess video, I see 32 player threads in a lot of forums I look at. I'll go try to break the news. At least I have time to recover now.

 

[Fun Factor]

Achronos addressed this on HBO a few years ago. (Custom searches was planned for Halo 3 but removed before release; I'm guessing this was the reason why.)


http://forums.bungie.org/halo/archive29.pl?read=858957

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I don't see the experience being enjoyable without significant restrictions on the kinds of games you jump into. I'd expect most games to be pretty unpleasant.

Well, that's fucking bullshit.
I been playing custom playlists in dozens of online FPS for years & never had that much problems with them like they describe.

The fact they didn't have matchmaking for co-op was even stupider in Halo 3.
Considering they didn't bother to include matchmaking for ODST horde mode either, I don't have high hopes for this game having it.

 

[feel]

Sketch, use this please :lol

I usually never notice his posts until they get quoted tons of times,
so it needs to be more eye catching than that

kidding, Spasm's is perfect.

 

[rar]

Lazy is absolutely the last word that should be associated with Bungie. Other developers still haven't cleared half the bars Bungie set with Halo 3's feature suite, and they're about to raise them even further. Agree or disagree with the approach, but they've clearly thought it through.

lazy relative to, say, blizzard

maybe 'philosophically wrong about most things' is a better way to describe bungie

 

[Domino Theory]

OT: Any HaloGAFfers in an Amazon Prime group with other GAFfers/people that aren't your family members? There's an option to add up to 4 household members to my Prime account, but a bunch of other GAFfers just get into Prime groups with each other so I'm wondering if they lie about being each other's nephews and uncles and brothers, etc.

Anyone know how it works?

 

[GM Bullfrog]

lazy relative to, say, blizzard

maybe 'philosophically opposed to what I believe about most things' is a better way to describe bungie

fyp

 

[Louis Wu]

lazy relative to, say, blizzard

maybe 'philosophically wrong about most things' is a better way to describe bungie

I'm not sure I understand attitudes like this.

Why even participate in a thread devoted to a game you clearly can't stand? Are you really THAT bored with your life?

I can completely understand disliking this or that choice that Bungie has made - even the most diehard supporters can find SOMETHING they're unhappy with. But if I felt a gaming company was "philosophically wrong about most things" - I'd move on to somewhere else. Why do you stay?

 

[Magni]

lazy relative to, say, blizzard

maybe 'philosophically wrong about most things' is a better way to describe bungie

:lol:lol:lol

Do you even know what "philosophically wrong" means? :lol

 

[GM Bullfrog]

Hey there Wu! Good games last night!

 

[Kapura]

lazy relative to, say, blizzard

maybe 'philosophically wrong about most things' is a better way to describe bungie

When was the lsdt time Blizzard released a new, full game? How many quality games did Bungie ship in this time period?

Bungie isn't philosophically wrong about very much. They do make mistakes, but you just disagree with their philosophy. You veiw them as unsuccessful with their philosophues; I disagree.

 

[Not a Jellyfish]

lazy relative to, say, blizzard

maybe 'philosophically wrong about most things' is a better way to describe bungie

^ This is all just a matter of opinion, there is no 1 right way to make good games. Nor is there 1 right way to make bad games but in the end developers just have different practices, it is what makes their games stand out.

 

[Gui_PT]

lazy relative to, say, blizzard

maybe 'philosophically wrong about most things' is a better way to describe bungie

Wait, I gotta find a gif for this

Edit:

As for a serious response, Wu replied perfectly.
If you hate it so much, why continue here?

 

[Louis Wu]

Hey there Wu! Good games last night!

Yah, wish I could have stayed longer!

BTB is DEFINITELY more fun with a real team. :lol

 

[GM Bullfrog]

Yah, wish I could have stayed longer!

BTB is DEFINITELY more fun with a real team. :lol

Indeed!

 

[Mad Max]

No it wouldn't. The appeal of dedicated servers on PC is not just the latency factor but the communities that form around a server. These server communities have their own map rotations, rules, admins, regulars, etc. etc.

That doesn't happen on consoles and likely never will as long as these games are geared towards the mainstream.

Joe Gamer doesn't want to load up a server browser and have to search through different servers until he finds one he likes. He just wants to click a button and start playing.

Serverbrowsers are no more hardcore then matchmaking. And unless you are completely retarded using a serverbrowser isn't hard by any stretch of the word. I mean most people who play PC games online are just as 'mainstream' as the people you meet in halo, and they manage to use serverbrowsers just fine.

But like I said in my post, which you so selectively quoted, the best way to handle this (in my opinion) is to have both and sort of merge them together. Because both systems have their own advantages and disadvantages.