Please keep Rush!

2

Comments

  • ENKkii87
    200 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Competitive by a long margin. It's not even a question to me lol.
  • barnesalmighty2
    1334 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 12
    In all fairness likely all of us have had fun in locker, argonne or metro once or twice.

    LVGs for the win. Sometimes a tight cluster fudge is a proper laugh for a short while at least.
  • ENKkii87
    200 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    In all fairness likely all of us have had fun in locker, argonne or metro once or twice.

    LVGs for the win. Sometimes a tight cluster fudge is a proper laugh for a short while at least.

    Minimal thought. When I needed to chill from ptfo I joined 64 man CTF or locker or metro yeah. In bf1 I found fort veaux (forgotten how to spell it) was also good for chilling and killing. Didn't like bf1 much though myself.
  • iamwiener
    71 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 12
    Because it is a DICE decision to keep limited variation of game modes and we will not convince them to drift away from that. Tbh, I understand what they try to achieve with it, even though I do miss rsp, of course :(

    Anyway, off for a game of rush ;)
  • ENKkii87
    200 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    iamwiener wrote: »
    Because it is a DICE decision to keep limited variation of game modes and we will not convince them to drift away from that. Tbh, I understand what they try to achieve with it, even though I do miss rsp, of course :(

    Yeah fair point.
  • ENKkii87
    200 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 12
    What I'd like.is conquest increased to 50 VS 50. I used to play planet side 2 and was doing that in 2013-2016/17. Over 100 players aside battles. The pop in was absolutely disgusting though.
  • ENKkii87
    200 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Same off to rush lol.
  • TropicPoison
    2320 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I think Rush absolutely sucks in BFV so they can never bring it back for all I care, DICE seem to have lost all of their creative talent and just talent in general.
  • Redstripe101
    2546 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Rush is fun from attacking, not so much defending. Something needs tweaked for balance and objective distance, other than Conquest its the only other mode I'd consider short of ToW required ones
  • MAJWolfcookies
    555 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    No please don’t!!!
  • DrunkOnRedWine
    1373 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 13
    The sooner rush goes the better. Poorly designed and implemented in this game. You can easily tell little effort went in to designing these. Changing around the existing maps rather than designing proper maps for rush. I can see why this is for a limited time only.

    The only good thing about it is farming kills and doing assignments - easy mode. I think I have played perhaps a dozen games and come top every time with an MG 42.

    I'd much rather have Sqaud Conquest back with new maps. At least there is an element of teamwork and tactics.
  • Zviko0
    1519 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I like it but I don't play it because of assignments. A lot of them require you(or the enemies) to be inside the objective. Not sure if this works in rush. Maybe that's why it's only temporary, they are trying to expand assignments to rush?
  • ENKkii87
    200 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    The sooner rush goes the better. Poorly designed and implemented in this game. You can easily tell little effort went in to designing these. Changing around the existing maps rather than designing proper maps for rush. I can see why this is for a limited time only.

    The only good thing about it is farming kills and doing assignments - easy mode. I think I have played perhaps a dozen games and come top every time with an MG 42.

    I'd much rather have Sqaud Conquest back with new maps. At least there is an element of teamwork and tactics.

    Why would you want it to go? Just don't play it. Yeah I'd like squad conquest bacl too.
  • DrunkOnRedWine
    1373 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 13
    ENKkii87 wrote: »
    The sooner rush goes the better. Poorly designed and implemented in this game. You can easily tell little effort went in to designing these. Changing around the existing maps rather than designing proper maps for rush. I can see why this is for a limited time only.

    The only good thing about it is farming kills and doing assignments - easy mode. I think I have played perhaps a dozen games and come top every time with an MG 42.

    I'd much rather have Sqaud Conquest back with new maps. At least there is an element of teamwork and tactics.

    Why would you want it to go? Just don't play it. Yeah I'd like squad conquest bacl too.

    DICE have already said they are concerned too many game modes splits the player base
  • WetFishDB
    1974 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 13
    I have no issue with Rush remaining, but found Rush in BFV terribly imbalanced. It was a boring walk over most of the time, with the enemy either not bothering to attack, or putting up a pretty weak defence. I played with 2/3 mates and just wanted to get the Tides of War done and then back to normal game modes. Not sure if the balance is normally that bad, or just that it’s attracted a bunch of rando’s who are just doing it for the Tides of War etc.

    64 rush though would be terrible (I suspect). The density of players defending combined with the limited routing, poor visibility, and camping abundance would make it even more imbalanced IMHO.
  • ENKkii87
    200 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ENKkii87 wrote: »
    The sooner rush goes the better. Poorly designed and implemented in this game. You can easily tell little effort went in to designing these. Changing around the existing maps rather than designing proper maps for rush. I can see why this is for a limited time only.

    The only good thing about it is farming kills and doing assignments - easy mode. I think I have played perhaps a dozen games and come top every time with an MG 42.

    I'd much rather have Sqaud Conquest back with new maps. At least there is an element of teamwork and tactics.

    Why would you want it to go? Just don't play it. Yeah I'd like squad conquest bacl too.

    DICE have already said they are concerned too many game modes splits the player base

    What like firestorm? Lol. That seems to be more of a scapegoat. The fact this game is bare minimum content is probably reducing the player base, not splitting it.
  • DCAT627
    51 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I am in the keep rush (my favorite game mode), 64 too many camp (maybe 48 though).
  • ENKkii87
    200 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    I have no issue with Rush remaining, but found Rush in BFV terribly imbalanced. It was a boring walk over most of the time, with the enemy either not bothering to attack, or putting up a pretty weak defence. I played with 2/3 mates and just wanted to get the Tides of War done and then back to normal game modes. Not sure if the balance is normally that bad, or just that it’s attracted a bunch of rando’s who are just doing it for the Tides of War etc.

    64 rush though would be terrible (I suspect). The density of players defending combined with the limited routing, poor visibility, and camping abundance would make it even more imbalanced IMHO.

    I don't think anyone would be playing 64 player rush for anything but the compete and total chaos seen as that is what it would be and nothing but, but fair play.
  • Halcyon_Creed_N7
    1300 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    I have no issue with Rush remaining, but found Rush in BFV terribly imbalanced. It was a boring walk over most of the time, with the enemy either not bothering to attack, or putting up a pretty weak defence. I played with 2/3 mates and just wanted to get the Tides of War done and then back to normal game modes. Not sure if the balance is normally that bad, or just that it’s attracted a bunch of rando’s who are just doing it for the Tides of War etc.

    64 rush though would be terrible (I suspect). The density of players defending combined with the limited routing, poor visibility, and camping abundance would make it even more imbalanced IMHO.

    From my experience, because it's just a small and focused gamemode a single squad working together is enough to completely imbalance the lobby. 4 guys attacking in coordination, or 4 guys clearing and disarming objectives. It's near impossible being on the other side of that.

    If Conquest and other large gamemodes are easily imbalanced by clanstacks, Rush is 10x worse. Also, the maps are not well designed for the mode and allowing tanks on Narvik and Twisted Steel doesn't help, because it's such a linear gamemode and those maps don't exactly have a lot of cover, especially indestructible cover. A tank can set up and just rain down constant fire on the objectives, while defenders have to somehow blow them up at a distance with PIATs and AT Pistols that fall faster than lead balloons.
  • WetFishDB
    1974 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ENKkii87 wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    I have no issue with Rush remaining, but found Rush in BFV terribly imbalanced. It was a boring walk over most of the time, with the enemy either not bothering to attack, or putting up a pretty weak defence. I played with 2/3 mates and just wanted to get the Tides of War done and then back to normal game modes. Not sure if the balance is normally that bad, or just that it’s attracted a bunch of rando’s who are just doing it for the Tides of War etc.

    64 rush though would be terrible (I suspect). The density of players defending combined with the limited routing, poor visibility, and camping abundance would make it even more imbalanced IMHO.

    I don't think anyone would be playing 64 player rush for anything but the compete and total chaos seen as that is what it would be and nothing but, but fair play.


    It’s all conjecture of course, and I know that’s what you think it would be “total chaos” and it might be, but I personally think it would be the exact opposite.

    Due to the nature of this game I suspect you’d end up with a camp/snipe off, with the attackers inevitably burning up tickets. The handful who would otherwise ordinarily play the objective will get overwhelmed by numbers, and eventually not bother and join those who want to sit back and camp/snipe. It’d be not unlike a typical Conquest spawn trap - no fun for either side. And if its like that in almost every single game, I can’t see anyone actually wanting to play it.
Sign In or Register to comment.