Forums / Games / Halo: The Master Chief Collection (PC)

[Locked] Player Numbers: Down %89.75 Since Launch (Edit)

OP Fatal Error1337

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 10
  4. 11
  5. 12
  6. ...
  7. 13
I agree that's not a good argument, which is why I didn't make it.
The following is your argument, which prompted my post:

600k is only 25k per hour on average
This argument has nothing to back it up. No data supports this, you are just pulling numbers out of your butt. Actual analysis of population data in Halo, which I linked and discussed, would suggest that 600k daily UU would result in around 135-200k daily peak concurrent players.
What?

Dude, do you even math? It's basic division meant to establish an average. Do you understand what an average is?

I'm not talking about "peak" concurrent players. I'm talking about the numbers that you see when you log into the game. I even listed a bunch of ways in which the number at any given time can vary. READ. Comprehend. It's part of understanding.

You may indeed have a maximum concurrent number of 100k at one moment, but then average far less than that at other points throughout the day.
So you're talking about math, not halo or how popular any given game is or was. Interesting. Sounds like a waste of time on a halo forum.
JustBitsy wrote:
Ill play when other players dont get handicaps for playing with an objectively worse input method.
^this

How can anything be competitive and skill based with aim assist?

Absolute joke.
It can count as skill on the Xbox version because you are against other controller users, but yes, when you play against M&K users without aim assist its a huge advantage that takes out the skill
Reach was averaging like 15k players three months into its lifespan a decade ago. To be honest, I'm surprised the numbers are as high as they are on Steam.

Also, there ARE people playing it through the Windows store, specifically Xbox Game Pass. I'm one of them. I already have MCC on console... not super interested in buying it again. Especially when I can just download it and play it for "free" through a service I have and use anyway. Most of my friends are the same way, and did the same thing. Especially because of that weird thing where you could get like multiple years of Game Pass Ultimate for the price of so many years of just plain old XBL Gold...
This is not true at all.

Please stop spreading lies.

EDIT: Updated with a better source.
lol it's not a lie. I'm talking about the number you would see in the game's menus when you were flipping through playlists. Concurrent users... not overall number over a 24 hour period.

The fact you misunderstood what I was talking about doesn't make me a liar. Stop being defensive and beligerant.
You really expect us to believe that when the game was averaging 600,000 - 1,000,000 unique users per day for up to 10 months after release that there were times when just 15,000 were online at the same time? Do you have any sources or data to back this up?

Of course you dont, because this is complete and pure bullcrap and you know it. We get it, you didn't like Reach - good for you - but dont go around spreading lies thinking no one is gonna call you on your crap.
Yeah, I didn't like Reach. I only played it for 3 years. lol

I really don't give a damn what you believe. 600k is only 25k per hour on average, and there are peaks and valleys, and not everyone plays for the same length of time. Some people log on and sit in menus, others play one match and log off. Others still play for hours at a time. You can't learn anything from overall daily unique login numbers. It's a dumb metric to track, and an even dumber metric to use as evidence in an argument.

I don't need an image to back up this claim. It's common sense, mixed with watching the population decline as I played it on a daily basis. You can make whatever accusations you want, get all worked up and defensive about it as much as you want, but the facts are the facts. Reach didn't have the longevity and population numbers that previous titles had, and it declined rapidly after launch.

Go look at the metrics for it on SteamDB right now. While I would agree with those who have said that Steam doesn't paint the whole picture because of Game Pass and such, the peak for today is around 5000 people online at once. The current number is around 2000. If SteamDB had overall unique login numbers, the player count could be as high as 200-300k for the last 24 hours, but unfortunately, SteamDB doesn't provide that information. The point is that overall population numbers don't really mean anything. The number of people playing a game at any given moment do.
>"The facts are the facts" >Uses no facts to back up arguments.

Lol, ok bud. Literally giving you facts and your retort is made up of "I'm right because I say so".
I said the facts are the facts in relation to a comment about Reach not being as popular as previous Halo titles.

Care to give your own facts proving that wrong? Or do you just want to continue hypocritically cherry-picking data and calling people liars for sharing information you don't like?

You could see the number of people playing Halo Reach in real-time every single day when it was popular. You could WATCH the numbers go down. You don't need a graphic for that. You just need to have actually been there and played it at the time.

I'm sorry your feelings get hurt when somebody tells you Reach wasn't that popular and it makes you get all defensive and accusatory. Maybe spend some time outside.
My facts are in the source I posted. There is a link to the full study on top of the image. Read it for yourself and then hang your head in shame.

Also stop liking your own comments.
Your source is a graph that is completely irrelevant to the point I was making, and I even explained to you why that's the case, and you ignored it.

You want to argue because someone slandered your game. Go be a fanboy somewhere else.

Oh, and I don't like my own comments because I couldn't care less about likes. You seem to be pretty insecure about it though...
Your argument was the one that was flawed, I'm not the only one who pointed it out.

Throwing out insults like "fanboy" only prove that you have no arguments left to make, you're done here.

Funny how this is the only comment you've made without exactly 1 like, curious.
ANDROKIO wrote:
Halo has the potential to be a big PC esport,
Wake up samurai, You need reality check, halo will never be big on PC, Microsoft doesn't care that much about esports and You can see for the past 6 years that it was nothing but laugh. Also games themselves are not deep enough within gameplay sandbox to build high skill gap on PC, on xbox You first need to fight with controller limitations and adapt playstyle, with mouse and high fov You just play agressive because You can flick to enemy behind You if someone is chasing and You have no limitations about turns and fovs etc. None of the pros would like to be destroyed by total randoms in a tournament. Then You have input devices, Halo on mouse is way to easy, even with Reach bloom You can be almost 100% consistent with shots and headshots with proper settings and map knowledge.
Also Infinite will have crossplay esports so there goes Your dreams about tier 1 pc esports. It won't be as big as CS, LOL, OW or upcoming Project A even.
I'm just coming back after taking a month off. Holy hell, the population declined sharply since the release. This shouldn't be a surprise, though. Reach was never that great to begin with. What saved it was its modularity - the Custom Games and Forge. Once 343i decided to release Reach without Forge, and with DMR starts... it was only a matter of time.

Ah well, back to testing Combat Evolved.
i feel its going to be like this with all the games. New halo out on pc numbers rise, and fall over time. Remember these games are old people have played them to death. Any new players to halo playing 15 year old games will have a hard time getting use to it. I really feel numbers dont matter as long as you can find a game. Only time they should matter is on a release of a brand new halo.
una yp wrote:
Remember these games are old people have played them to death. Any new players to halo playing 15 year old games will have a hard time getting use to it
People have played games like counter-strike and team fortress 2 to death also (and many other 10+ year old games could be mentioned), and they maintain population because they are highly polished, regularly updated, top quality games. 343 doesn't know how to do any of that, and unpolished, infrequently updated, mediocre quality games don't tend to hold their population very well in the highly competitive PC gaming market.
Sure but those games are e sports thats why there updated. halo 2-3 were updated many times during the time they were e sports. those days are gone. Also games like CS are completely different than they were 15 years ago, just the same in name. Those games wouldn't have been updated for years without esports, games like quake arena, tribes ext died because there esports died.
So 343i and bungie just moved onto the nxt halo. Let not also forget halo is a story driven game with mp as well, so you cant just keep one mp though multiple halo games it wouldn't make much sense story wise and a big thing that ties sp and mp together is the story changing the weapons and abilities over time. OVerall its just a different situation.
I agree that's not a good argument, which is why I didn't make it.
The following is your argument, which prompted my post:

600k is only 25k per hour on average
This argument has nothing to back it up. No data supports this, you are just pulling numbers out of your butt. Actual analysis of population data in Halo, which I linked and discussed, would suggest that 600k daily UU would result in around 135-200k daily peak concurrent players.
What?

Dude, do you even math? It's basic division meant to establish an average. Do you understand what an average is?

I'm not talking about "peak" concurrent players. I'm talking about the numbers that you see when you log into the game. I even listed a bunch of ways in which the number at any given time can vary. READ. Comprehend. It's part of understanding.

You may indeed have a maximum concurrent number of 100k at one moment, but then average far less than that at other points throughout the day.
So you're talking about math, not halo or how popular any given game is or was. Interesting. Sounds like a waste of time on a halo forum.
Oh crap, you're right! I totally forgot that Halo numbers and math numbers were different! D'oh!

smh
Reach was averaging like 15k players three months into its lifespan a decade ago. To be honest, I'm surprised the numbers are as high as they are on Steam.

Also, there ARE people playing it through the Windows store, specifically Xbox Game Pass. I'm one of them. I already have MCC on console... not super interested in buying it again. Especially when I can just download it and play it for "free" through a service I have and use anyway. Most of my friends are the same way, and did the same thing. Especially because of that weird thing where you could get like multiple years of Game Pass Ultimate for the price of so many years of just plain old XBL Gold...
This is not true at all.

Please stop spreading lies.

EDIT: Updated with a better source.
lol it's not a lie. I'm talking about the number you would see in the game's menus when you were flipping through playlists. Concurrent users... not overall number over a 24 hour period.

The fact you misunderstood what I was talking about doesn't make me a liar. Stop being defensive and beligerant.
You really expect us to believe that when the game was averaging 600,000 - 1,000,000 unique users per day for up to 10 months after release that there were times when just 15,000 were online at the same time? Do you have any sources or data to back this up?

Of course you dont, because this is complete and pure bullcrap and you know it. We get it, you didn't like Reach - good for you - but dont go around spreading lies thinking no one is gonna call you on your crap.
Yeah, I didn't like Reach. I only played it for 3 years. lol

I really don't give a damn what you believe. 600k is only 25k per hour on average, and there are peaks and valleys, and not everyone plays for the same length of time. Some people log on and sit in menus, others play one match and log off. Others still play for hours at a time. You can't learn anything from overall daily unique login numbers. It's a dumb metric to track, and an even dumber metric to use as evidence in an argument.

I don't need an image to back up this claim. It's common sense, mixed with watching the population decline as I played it on a daily basis. You can make whatever accusations you want, get all worked up and defensive about it as much as you want, but the facts are the facts. Reach didn't have the longevity and population numbers that previous titles had, and it declined rapidly after launch.

Go look at the metrics for it on SteamDB right now. While I would agree with those who have said that Steam doesn't paint the whole picture because of Game Pass and such, the peak for today is around 5000 people online at once. The current number is around 2000. If SteamDB had overall unique login numbers, the player count could be as high as 200-300k for the last 24 hours, but unfortunately, SteamDB doesn't provide that information. The point is that overall population numbers don't really mean anything. The number of people playing a game at any given moment do.
>"The facts are the facts" >Uses no facts to back up arguments.

Lol, ok bud. Literally giving you facts and your retort is made up of "I'm right because I say so".
I said the facts are the facts in relation to a comment about Reach not being as popular as previous Halo titles.

Care to give your own facts proving that wrong? Or do you just want to continue hypocritically cherry-picking data and calling people liars for sharing information you don't like?

You could see the number of people playing Halo Reach in real-time every single day when it was popular. You could WATCH the numbers go down. You don't need a graphic for that. You just need to have actually been there and played it at the time.

I'm sorry your feelings get hurt when somebody tells you Reach wasn't that popular and it makes you get all defensive and accusatory. Maybe spend some time outside.
My facts are in the source I posted. There is a link to the full study on top of the image. Read it for yourself and then hang your head in shame.

Also stop liking your own comments.
Your source is a graph that is completely irrelevant to the point I was making, and I even explained to you why that's the case, and you ignored it.

You want to argue because someone slandered your game. Go be a fanboy somewhere else.

Oh, and I don't like my own comments because I couldn't care less about likes. You seem to be pretty insecure about it though...
Your argument was the one that was flawed, I'm not the only one who pointed it out.

Throwing out insults like "fanboy" only prove that you have no arguments left to make, you're done here.

Funny how this is the only comment you've made without exactly 1 like, curious.
Well I guess it's a good thing the determinant factor between who is right or wrong is not how many people agree...

It's only an insult if it's true.

Funny how you can be laughably, provably wrong about things, yet remain so smug. 1: plenty of my comments here have no likes, let alone 1. 2: I actually went back and liked one of my comments that had 1 like. Now it has 2 likes. Which I guess means I wasn't liking my own comments, yeah? And if I WAS liking my own comments, why wouldn't I like all of them? lol

You want to whine about me calling you a fanboy for acting like a fanboy, yet you resort to making stupid accusations of liking my own comments while simultaneously appealing to the perceived popularity of your own opinion because of how many likes you have, or because someone other than you tried and failed to refute my argument...

Clearly the only person here who gives a damn about likes is you, dude. That's not a winning argument. Get back to me when you actually have something relevant to say.
I agree that's not a good argument, which is why I didn't make it.
The following is your argument, which prompted my post:

600k is only 25k per hour on average
This argument has nothing to back it up. No data supports this, you are just pulling numbers out of your butt. Actual analysis of population data in Halo, which I linked and discussed, would suggest that 600k daily UU would result in around 135-200k daily peak concurrent players.
What?

Dude, do you even math? It's basic division meant to establish an average. Do you understand what an average is?

I'm not talking about "peak" concurrent players. I'm talking about the numbers that you see when you log into the game. I even listed a bunch of ways in which the number at any given time can vary. READ. Comprehend. It's part of understanding.

You may indeed have a maximum concurrent number of 100k at one moment, but then average far less than that at other points throughout the day.
So you're talking about math, not halo or how popular any given game is or was. Interesting. Sounds like a waste of time on a halo forum.
Oh crap, you're right! I totally forgot that Halo numbers and math numbers were different! D'oh!

smh
So, you think you *are* talking about halo? OK then... can you please show me what Halo game had 25k players in a given hour? Because there are only two games with data that match that hourly number - Halo 4, and briefly this PC MCC release on its decline down to sub-5k where it is now. And there is no data to suggest that when those games were hitting 25k players in an hour that their daily unique user count was anywhere near 600k. The data that is available strongly suggests that to be untrue.

I am very eager to hear how you think your statement "600k is only 25k per hour on average" has anything to do with the actual halo population, since no available data about player activity in any of the Halo games matches that statement at all. It's a fine enough math statement, but sadly it has absolutely nothing to do with actual Halo population behavior and numbers.
Thing is that 600k different players daily divided in 24 hours give 25k players per hour average.

The problem with that logic is that it ignores so many factors lowering the amount of people online (People playing the campaign, customs, forge, sitting on the menu, etc). As well as ignoring factors that increases people online (like people who play more than just 1 hour, split-screen matchmaking, people who had already played that day playing again, etc).

Some could say that those would cancel each other out, but thats jumping to conclusions without any valid data.

So yeah, 600/24=25,simple math, but it's so over simplified and ignores so many variables that it proves nothing.

On the other hand, steam player count ignores the people from game pass (which I personally think are nowhere close 50% of population), but does put in that number also people playing campaign, personalized, mods,etc. However this would be less as there is no forge/cinema, campaign coop lags for many people...

On the things that would add people to online we are not missing people who play more than one hour or that play several times a day, as that is already included. Also, we can't count extra people playing splitscreen matchmaking, etc.

What do I mean with all this? That the number game is pointless, what matters is that it takes ages to find a mstch and the population is almost dead. What we already knew.
Fry Hervas wrote:
Thing is that 600k different players daily divided in 24 hours give 25k players per hour average.
As you say, there are other factors. I already linked and discussed the best data analysis we have on Halo's actual population, done by tsassi, and it strongly suggests that the daily unique user count is below five times the daily peak concurrent player count. In other words, unless current Halo populations behave wildly differently than former Halo populations in terms of the relationship between concurrent and daily players (and we have no data about this, period), if you have a peak 24h concurrent of, 25k players, the daily unique user base is under 125k, and conversely if you have a daily unique user base of 600k, you would expect peak 24h concurrent numbers of at least 120k.

There is no world where the statement "600k gives 25k per hour on average" has anything at all to do with actual Halo population behavior. Absolutely no data supports it. It's just an arbitrary statement about math. The guy is literally pulling numbers out of his butt and then getting annoyed when he gets called out for his nonsense.
i think this thread has run its course for a while now lol it’s just bickering back and forth between pro 343 and anti 343
Fry Hervas wrote:
Thing is that 600k different players daily divided in 24 hours give 25k players per hour average.
As you say, there are other factors. I already linked and discussed the best data analysis we have on Halo's actual population, done by tsassi, and it strongly suggests that the daily unique user count is below five times the daily peak concurrent player count. In other words, unless current Halo populations behave wildly differently than former Halo populations in terms of the relationship between concurrent and daily players (and we have no data about this, period), if you have a peak 24h concurrent of, 25k players, the daily unique user base is under 125k, and conversely if you have a daily unique user base of 600k, you would expect peak 24h concurrent numbers of at least 120k.

There is no world where the statement "600k gives 25k per hour on average" has anything at all to do with actual Halo population behavior. Absolutely no data supports it. It's just an arbitrary statement about math. The guy is literally pulling numbers out of his butt and then getting annoyed when he gets called out for his nonsense.
I even listed many of those other factors, and I even said that it's a simplistic average.

lol

You people get so mad and defensive about everything and you don't even bother trying to comprehend the point.

Breaking down the 600k number to 25k per hour is useful to point out that if all of those people were only online for an hour at a time, the population would already be down to around 25k concurrent players.

*Concurrent*.

And as I said in the post where I pointed that out, the number fluctuates for a whole host of reasons. You agreed with that when you quoted the previous guy who restated what I stated, but with an argument against the usefulness of the statement of fact.

And to that, I circle back around and say that I saw concurrent players in MULTIPLAYER averaging around 15k at any given moment when I played mere months after release. That's what this entire argument is over. That statement, which a couple of you are so incensed by, you feel the need to make stupid accusations and try to argue it by posting about total unique players over a 24 hour period... which isn't even relevant to what I was saying, because AGAIN... there's a whole bunch of ways in which you can have a high overall number of players who log into a game, while the actual number of concurrent players at any given moment can be abnormally low.

I'm sorry nobody tracked concurrent players on an hourly basis from the launch of Halo Reach. If they did, I could get y'all to shut up, and unfortunately, I didn't have the foresight to take screenshots of the player count in each matchmaking playlist every day. I honestly didn't know I'd be getting into an argument this stupid almost a decade later. So with the lack of clearly documented evidence, I suppose you'll just have to admit that the only way to figure it out is with some basic math and a little common sense.

It'll be mildly humorous when you refuse to do so considering that's the only evidence you have yourself, having posted an "analysis" based on assumptions and some fuzzy math by someone trying to prove that Reach population numbers weren't dropping because of daily logins...
Fry Hervas wrote:
Thing is that 600k different players daily divided in 24 hours give 25k players per hour average.
As you say, there are other factors. I already linked and discussed the best data analysis we have on Halo's actual population, done by tsassi, and it strongly suggests that the daily unique user count is below five times the daily peak concurrent player count. In other words, unless current Halo populations behave wildly differently than former Halo populations in terms of the relationship between concurrent and daily players (and we have no data about this, period), if you have a peak 24h concurrent of, 25k players, the daily unique user base is under 125k, and conversely if you have a daily unique user base of 600k, you would expect peak 24h concurrent numbers of at least 120k.

There is no world where the statement "600k gives 25k per hour on average" has anything at all to do with actual Halo population behavior. Absolutely no data supports it. It's just an arbitrary statement about math. The guy is literally pulling numbers out of his butt and then getting annoyed when he gets called out for his nonsense.
I even listed many of those other factors, and I even said that it's a simplistic average.

lol

You people get so mad and defensive about everything and you don't even bother trying to comprehend the point.

Breaking down the 600k number to 25k per hour is useful to point out that if all of those people were only online for an hour at a time, the population would already be down to around 25k concurrent players.

*Concurrent*.

And as I said in the post where I pointed that out, the number fluctuates for a whole host of reasons. You agreed with that when you quoted the previous guy who restated what I stated, but with an argument against the usefulness of the statement of fact.

And to that, I circle back around and say that I saw concurrent players in MULTIPLAYER averaging around 15k at any given moment when I played mere months after release. That's what this entire argument is over. That statement, which a couple of you are so incensed by, you feel the need to make stupid accusations and try to argue it by posting about total unique players over a 24 hour period... which isn't even relevant to what I was saying, because AGAIN... there's a whole bunch of ways in which you can have a high overall number of players who log into a game, while the actual number of concurrent players at any given moment can be abnormally low.

I'm sorry nobody tracked concurrent players on an hourly basis from the launch of Halo Reach. If they did, I could get y'all to shut up, and unfortunately, I didn't have the foresight to take screenshots of the player count in each matchmaking playlist every day. I honestly didn't know I'd be getting into an argument this stupid almost a decade later. So with the lack of clearly documented evidence, I suppose you'll just have to admit that the only way to figure it out is with some basic math and a little common sense.

It'll be mildly humorous when you refuse to do so considering that's the only evidence you have yourself, having posted an "analysis" based on assumptions and some fuzzy math by someone trying to prove that Reach population numbers weren't dropping because of daily logins...
that’s exactly what i meant with my post :p
Fry Hervas wrote:
Thing is that 600k different players daily divided in 24 hours give 25k players per hour average.
As you say, there are other factors. I already linked and discussed the best data analysis we have on Halo's actual population, done by tsassi, and it strongly suggests that the daily unique user count is below five times the daily peak concurrent player count. In other words, unless current Halo populations behave wildly differently than former Halo populations in terms of the relationship between concurrent and daily players (and we have no data about this, period), if you have a peak 24h concurrent of, 25k players, the daily unique user base is under 125k, and conversely if you have a daily unique user base of 600k, you would expect peak 24h concurrent numbers of at least 120k.

There is no world where the statement "600k gives 25k per hour on average" has anything at all to do with actual Halo population behavior. Absolutely no data supports it. It's just an arbitrary statement about math. The guy is literally pulling numbers out of his butt and then getting annoyed when he gets called out for his nonsense.
I even listed many of those other factors, and I even said that it's a simplistic average.

lol

You people get so mad and defensive about everything and you don't even bother trying to comprehend the point.

Breaking down the 600k number to 25k per hour is useful to point out that if all of those people were only online for an hour at a time, the population would already be down to around 25k concurrent players.

*Concurrent*.

And as I said in the post where I pointed that out, the number fluctuates for a whole host of reasons. You agreed with that when you quoted the previous guy who restated what I stated, but with an argument against the usefulness of the statement of fact.

And to that, I circle back around and say that I saw concurrent players in MULTIPLAYER averaging around 15k at any given moment when I played mere months after release. That's what this entire argument is over. That statement, which a couple of you are so incensed by, you feel the need to make stupid accusations and try to argue it by posting about total unique players over a 24 hour period... which isn't even relevant to what I was saying, because AGAIN... there's a whole bunch of ways in which you can have a high overall number of players who log into a game, while the actual number of concurrent players at any given moment can be abnormally low.

I'm sorry nobody tracked concurrent players on an hourly basis from the launch of Halo Reach. If they did, I could get y'all to shut up, and unfortunately, I didn't have the foresight to take screenshots of the player count in each matchmaking playlist every day. I honestly didn't know I'd be getting into an argument this stupid almost a decade later. So with the lack of clearly documented evidence, I suppose you'll just have to admit that the only way to figure it out is with some basic math and a little common sense.

It'll be mildly humorous when you refuse to do so considering that's the only evidence you have yourself, having posted an "analysis" based on assumptions and some fuzzy math by someone trying to prove that Reach population numbers weren't dropping because of daily logins...
This is a really long winded way to say "you're right Primus, I'm making numbers up, because I don't think data from past games means anything for current ones", but I'll take it. Thanks for confirming what was already obvious.

For what it's worth, it's pretty ironic that you accuse me of not reading, and then demonstrate you didn't read the analysis which I posted to you in the first place, since if you had read the analysis, you would know that it has nothing to do with, as you say, "trying to prove that Reach population numbers weren't dropping because of daily logins". If you had read, you would have noted statements such as "Halo 4 lost players faster than Reach, which lost players faster than Halo 3, which lost players faster than Halo 2."

This part of your statement is the problem:

"Breaking down the 600k number to 25k per hour is useful to point out that if all of those people were only online for an hour at a time, the population would already be down to around 25k concurrent players." This statement is a hypothetical counterfactual and a complete non-sequitur. Your if... then logic has no data to support it. I think this conversation is done; you're inventing numbers, admitting you're inventing numbers, and getting irritated when I call you out for inventing numbers.

Get some actual real world data about how populations behave before you post again on the topic, or at least have the honesty to admit you're just making things up to make arbitrary arguments about made up scenarios. Your statement is exactly as meaningful and substantive as if I were to say "If 80% of players log on during peak hours around 6PM PST, then 600k breaks down to 480k concurrent players at that time". It's utterly made up and has nothing to do with anything in the real world. Stop.
The main reason I don't play anymore is because I never play on EU servers, always US and its unplayable. I understand the idea of getting people into games quick but the ping is just too high for me to have any chance of playing well. I won't come back until they allow for server selection as it appears the matchmaking algorithm either doesn't account ping at all for or seems to think 100+ ping is playable

I imagine I speak for a fair few non-US players in what I'm saying.
This thread just becoming pointless by the posting. People just throwing numbers or lecturing one another. Don't even get the point of the subject of this thread nothing we post here going to bring the players back just cause there less then 4,981 players on steam data within past 24 hours. Just wish mods would close this thread.
This thread just becoming pointless by the posting. People just throwing numbers or lecturing one another. Don't even get the point of the subject of this thread nothing we post here going to bring the players back just cause there less then 4,981 players on steam data within past 24 hours. Just wish mods would close this thread.
not even 3k players on Steam an hour ago, that's just sad, it's the same population OG Reach had, A YEAR AGO
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 10
  4. 11
  5. 12
  6. ...
  7. 13