Weekly BF

Please keep Rush!

13»

Comments

  • ENKkii87
    200 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    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.

    It's not like that at all in Any game I've played so far. I've had a really.good experience with rush so far.

    Double the ticket amounts could counter that possible scenario but what you're saying isn't how I've experienced even 1 game yet.
  • TFBisquit
    1721 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    There are some good rounds in rush, defending or attacking.
    Even with clan squads. As long as they’re legit.
  • WetFishDB
    2053 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ENKkii87 wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    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.

    It's not like that at all in Any game I've played so far. I've had a really.good experience with rush so far.

    Double the ticket amounts could counter that possible scenario but what you're saying isn't how I've experienced even 1 game yet.

    What do you mean you haven’t had a game like that? What I was describing was how I believe 64 player Rush would manifest itself. Something we can only guess at.

    Have you spawn trapped someone on Conquest and haven’t been spawn trapped on Conquest? Spawn trapping on Conquest thankfully doesn’t happen that often in BFV, but does on occasions. Like BF1 (where it was unfortunately much more common) when it does happen it’s no fun for anyone and generally plays out as I described. That’s what I anticipate 64 player Rush to be like. The trapped (aka attacking team) team barely tries to get out as they get instantly mowed down by the significantly entrenched opposition. Doubling the ticket count would only double the pain. I’m already a huge advocate for a mercy rule, where if one team on Conquest holds every single flag for 60 seconds then the game ends, so having to sit waiting for an enemy to trickle out of their spawn for twice as long does not sound like fun to me.

    And Rush at the moment isn’t 64 players, so wouldn’t play out like I described. At the moment I mostly found Rush to be mostly imbalanced - not by virtue of design per se, but by the calibre of players playing that mode. I only played something like a dozen rounds maybe, 1 unfortunate loss I think where it was a pretty decent and close game - the rest were either quick wins attacking, or wins where the attackers don’t even get the first phase.
  • ENKkii87
    200 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    ENKkii87 wrote: »
    WetFishDB wrote: »
    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.

    It's not like that at all in Any game I've played so far. I've had a really.good experience with rush so far.

    Double the ticket amounts could counter that possible scenario but what you're saying isn't how I've experienced even 1 game yet.

    What do you mean you haven’t had a game like that? What I was describing was how I believe 64 player Rush would manifest itself. Something we can only guess at.

    Have you spawn trapped someone on Conquest and haven’t been spawn trapped on Conquest? Spawn trapping on Conquest thankfully doesn’t happen that often in BFV, but does on occasions. Like BF1 (where it was unfortunately much more common) when it does happen it’s no fun for anyone and generally plays out as I described. That’s what I anticipate 64 player Rush to be like. The trapped (aka attacking team) team barely tries to get out as they get instantly mowed down by the significantly entrenched opposition. Doubling the ticket count would only double the pain. I’m already a huge advocate for a mercy rule, where if one team on Conquest holds every single flag for 60 seconds then the game ends, so having to sit waiting for an enemy to trickle out of their spawn for twice as long does not sound like fun to me.

    And Rush at the moment isn’t 64 players, so wouldn’t play out like I described. At the moment I mostly found Rush to be mostly imbalanced - not by virtue of design per se, but by the calibre of players playing that mode. I only played something like a dozen rounds maybe, 1 unfortunate loss I think where it was a pretty decent and close game - the rest were either quick wins attacking, or wins where the attackers don’t even get the first phase.

    Oh Ok cool. Yeah maybe.
  • Draccon149
    38 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    64 player rush please, i play battlefield games for large scale warfare. Even though 64 players isn't really large scale IMO if you compare it to games like Planetside in its prime could have way more than 64 players in the same area, with 2000 players across the entire map but were plenty of focused areas with large amount of players in a smaller area. Compared to hamada conquest they had ton more players in a smaller area but was a fun time.

    32 players is kiddie stuff in the large scale warfare that BF is supposed to be. I hate the direction DICE is going with the lower player limits on modes like TDM, domintion, frontlines and now rush. feel like im playing COD now.
  • Ernie_Shavers
    131 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    This version of RUSH is anemic compared to previous versions and the maps/paths are really poor. I'd call the current iteration RUSH lite.

    With that said I do have fun with it and hope it stays, but it won't.

    They'll take it away for a while then bring it back with the headline "Look what we did for you guys! More free content! NEW RUSH mode is coming!".
  • ENKkii87
    200 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Draccon149 wrote: »
    64 player rush please, i play battlefield games for large scale warfare. Even though 64 players isn't really large scale IMO if you compare it to games like Planetside in its prime could have way more than 64 players in the same area, with 2000 players across the entire map but were plenty of focused areas with large amount of players in a smaller area. Compared to hamada conquest they had ton more players in a smaller area but was a fun time.

    32 players is kiddie stuff in the large scale warfare that BF is supposed to be. I hate the direction DICE is going with the lower player limits on modes like TDM, domintion, frontlines and now rush. feel like im playing COD now.

    I was in GOON brigade on PC on miller :)
  • ENKkii87
    200 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    64 man game modes is actually child's play in 2019 yeah. Once you've played planet side this is just small fry.

    I'd like a 50vs50 or even 100vs 100 map.

    The new firestorm would have been better for this. A huge map for conquest with 100vs100 would bw amazing and if a joke team like SOE/DBG can achieve planet side 2 in 2013 then with the tech we have now, shouldn't be hard for dice.
  • ENKkii87
    200 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I've led platoons of 48 people in real time, coordinating with a few others.
  • barnesalmighty2
    1572 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    ENKkii87 wrote: »
    64 man game modes is actually child's play in 2019 yeah. Once you've played planet side this is just small fry.

    I'd like a 50vs50 or even 100vs 100 map.

    The new firestorm would have been better for this. A huge map for conquest with 100vs100 would bw amazing and if a joke team like SOE/DBG can achieve planet side 2 in 2013 then with the tech we have now, shouldn't be hard for dice.

    Did you never play MAG? so much epic in one game. 128 v 128 large squads if ps3 could manage it I see no excuse to not have it now.
  • ENKkii87
    200 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ENKkii87 wrote: »
    64 man game modes is actually child's play in 2019 yeah. Once you've played planet side this is just small fry.

    I'd like a 50vs50 or even 100vs 100 map.

    The new firestorm would have been better for this. A huge map for conquest with 100vs100 would bw amazing and if a joke team like SOE/DBG can achieve planet side 2 in 2013 then with the tech we have now, shouldn't be hard for dice.

    Did you never play MAG? so much epic in one game. 128 v 128 large squads if ps3 could manage it I see no excuse to not have it now.

    Nah I only started console.gaming with the ps4.
  • ENKkii87
    200 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Planet side 2 it used to be common to have about 300 people in 1 battle on a Continent with about 2000 people on. I've not played it in ages on PC AMD it's pretty.Mich dead on ps4.
  • SumwhatKrazy
    557 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 13
    Iam not a fan of Rush at all. But if people like it then why not keep it?
    Personally i see it as a good mode to die a lot in but i think all modes should stay in the game because all modes have fans. It may divided the community a little but i dont think it will every effect conquest (my favourite mode).


Sign In or Register to comment.