Weekly BF

Share one suggestion to help fix Rush.

«1
RabNebula
235 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Medal of Honor Warfighter, Battlefield 1 Member
Rush is fun. I enjoy it a lot and really like some of the changes like the objectives varying their spawns on the maps which really mixes the mode up a bit. However theres also clearly some things in it which DICE really need to get on and sort out to save this mode because theres lot wrong with it and overall its one of the worst Rush modes they've released for a BF.

My 1 suggestion and biggest problem with the mode. 12v12 needs to be 15v15. There are a few reasons for this, I don't feel 12v12 allows enough freedom in team balance to be able to effectively deal with the vehicles available as a team. Mainly though, it is a terrible oversight to have the squad size set at 5 but not have these non 64 players modes being set to have player counts in multiples of 5. Squadding up is a big issue in Rush at the moment because 12 means 2 squads of 5 and then 2 guys left over. That's not right. It doesn't give them a fair game in terms of spawns or squad score. Those 2 are always at a disadvantage. This is a big problem DICE and it needs to be sorted in the next update because its one key thing that contributes to people just giving up on the mode completely.

Comments

  • Foodie88
    663 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I second this. Rush was a mode I played a lot in past BF titles but now I tend to gravitate towards Operations. This is one of those annoyances that made it that way.

    I have indeed experienced being in a team with two full squads and then having to squad up in a squad of only 2 people. It's not fun.

    Another possible fix could be to limit Rush squads to 4 people instead of 5, thus creating 3 squads of 4 people.
  • lerki0
    907 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Personally feel Rush is in a pretty good place in BF1. The matchmaking/autobalance can be a bit of an issue but its not the end of the world.
  • RabNebula
    235 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Medal of Honor Warfighter, Battlefield 1 Member
    Foodie88 wrote: »
    I second this. Rush was a mode I played a lot in past BF titles but now I tend to gravitate towards Operations. This is one of those annoyances that made it that way.

    I have indeed experienced being in a team with two full squads and then having to squad up in a squad of only 2 people. It's not fun.

    Another possible fix could be to limit Rush squads to 4 people instead of 5, thus creating 3 squads of 4 people.

    That could be a fix but I wonder if just upping the player count on the servers could be easier. Also I feel keeping it at 12 wouldn't address the issue with the vehicles and team class balance. In this sort of mode its very easy to dominate as in a vehicle because theres a lot more room and time to maneuvre and less people who can go assault to deal with it. It's not very well balanced in that respect and so I feel the larger team size of 15v15 could solve 2 issues in one.
  • Foodie88
    663 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    You are right, I skipped over that fact. Rush in BF1 does feel terribly 'quiet' sometimes and I think that has to do with the fact that past titles had higher player caps in Rush.

    Don't get me wrong, I hated those 64-player Rush servers - that was just a meat grinder in most occasions. 48-player servers were in a good place. 15 vs 15 could be a good balance now, in BF1.
  • RabNebula
    235 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Medal of Honor Warfighter, Battlefield 1 Member
    lerki0 wrote: »
    Personally feel Rush is in a pretty good place in BF1. The matchmaking/autobalance can be a bit of an issue but its not the end of the world.

    Ah yeh, balancing is certainly very odd. Many times I see the game have a team that is all between 0-20 and the other team is mostly level 40 or 50+. Now I know level doesnt really represent skill but it does represent the amount of experience you've had with the game and how quickly you've levelled. So having a whole team of 0-20's isn't really balanced on experience and experience with the game does still count for something. A level 3 might turn out to be a very skilled player but the majority of the time they are most likely still getting to grips with the handling of weapons and the maps while a whole team of 40's should pretty much know their way around at least and are at a great advantage over a whole team of level 0-20s excluding myself who is an 80+.

    Because of this balancing there are often games where I'm the only guy who goes with a positive kd and arms most of the objectives. Attacking I stand a chance still with these teams but defending nuh uh. Too many tickets for 1 guy getting the kills. I was playing with a friend the other day. 2 guys on our team went 0-13 and 0-9, another guy went 1-22 and another was 6-20. My friend and I had 50 kills each but it is just impossible to defend with teams balanced in such a way.
  • RabNebula
    235 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Medal of Honor Warfighter, Battlefield 1 Member
    Foodie88 wrote: »
    You are right, I skipped over that fact. Rush in BF1 does feel terribly 'quiet' sometimes and I think that has to do with the fact that past titles had higher player caps in Rush.

    Don't get me wrong, I hated those 64-player Rush servers - that was just a meat grinder in most occasions. 48-player servers were in a good place. 15 vs 15 could be a good balance now, in BF1.

    Yeh I thought you might have missed that part ;) I certainly get the whole meat grinder thing. I used to like the 48 players on other BFs. Another part of my thinking on 15v15 being a good size is that I do feel the objectives are usually a little bit closer on BF1 it seems so not sure 40-48 could work as well here now. I actually like they've lowered the count a bit and I like that there is still a bit of vehicle play involved so thats another reason why I feel if they were to do multiples of 5 then 15 would work better than lowering to 10.
  • MrOnlineToughGuy
    691 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Rush should be bumped to 15 v. 15 and the Ops standard should be 25 v. 25.
  • gamingwithlofty
    302 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I like rush, mainly stuck to conquest but rush is gaining traction in my BF heart of late, not to say they are perfect as some of the bunker objectives can be a pain if you team is full of A holes, and on ballroom blitz that last tank can be harsh on the final objective as all it needs to do is sit back and shell the house, but this is very game specific as if I’m squaded up my team can usually steamroll objectives.

    top tip for rush which seems to work for me; I get my squad to b-line it straight to an objectives and lay down tons of rounds whilst I peel off straight from spawn and hug the edge of the map with a close quarter load out like assault with dynamite and make my way to the far base, there is usually very little resistance and I can usually handle it (usually being the word ;) ) , then you plant the base which brings there team off the other objective also, plant a few dynamite on the objective then leave and explode when there defusing then go on the defence with an incendiary to try and 1 man the base. Even if you don’t get it, you can normally be enough of a distraction to take the other base with the numbers at it.

    let me know if you use this and how it goes :smiley:
  • Foodie88
    663 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    It's a neverending question as to how the game should balance the teams. I have absolutely no clue how they are doing it right now but it obviously isn't right.

    Balance based upon SPM? That doesn't work across modes as some modes yield a lot more SPM than others.

    Balance based upon K/D? That doesn't work if it puts all high K/D, non-PTFO campers in one team and all high K/D but actually PTFO'ing players in the other.

    Balance based upon level? Would work in a lot of cases but I still see many high-level players that aren't very good and low-level players that are a lot better than they should be. Basic skill in FPS is universal, so if you're good in one FPS it's quite likely you're good in others as well. So, this is also quite hit-or-miss.

    My conclusion is that the only way to do it properly is some kind of combination of multiple stats. But what?
  • lerki0
    907 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Foodie88 wrote: »
    It's a neverending question as to how the game should balance the teams. I have absolutely no clue how they are doing it right now but it obviously isn't right.

    Balance based upon SPM? That doesn't work across modes as some modes yield a lot more SPM than others.

    Balance based upon K/D? That doesn't work if it puts all high K/D, non-PTFO campers in one team and all high K/D but actually PTFO'ing players in the other.

    Balance based upon level? Would work in a lot of cases but I still see many high-level players that aren't very good and low-level players that are a lot better than they should be. Basic skill in FPS is universal, so if you're good in one FPS it's quite likely you're good in others as well. So, this is also quite hit-or-miss.

    My conclusion is that the only way to do it properly is some kind of combination of multiple stats. But what?

    They used to base it on skill which was a measurement of a number of different stats. It wasn't the best but had its uses.

    The trouble with the system was it would swap the strongest players round by round . In which case if you were consistently a good player you would get stuck on defense game after game, or attack game after game, making things very boring.
  • Foodie88
    663 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    lerki0 wrote: »
    Foodie88 wrote: »
    It's a neverending question as to how the game should balance the teams. I have absolutely no clue how they are doing it right now but it obviously isn't right.

    Balance based upon SPM? That doesn't work across modes as some modes yield a lot more SPM than others.

    Balance based upon K/D? That doesn't work if it puts all high K/D, non-PTFO campers in one team and all high K/D but actually PTFO'ing players in the other.

    Balance based upon level? Would work in a lot of cases but I still see many high-level players that aren't very good and low-level players that are a lot better than they should be. Basic skill in FPS is universal, so if you're good in one FPS it's quite likely you're good in others as well. So, this is also quite hit-or-miss.

    My conclusion is that the only way to do it properly is some kind of combination of multiple stats. But what?

    They used to base it on skill which was a measurement of a number of different stats. It wasn't the best but had its uses.

    The trouble with the system was it would swap the strongest players round by round . In which case if you were consistently a good player you would get stuck on defense game after game, or attack game after game, making things very boring.

    Yeah, I would've guessed this is the 'skill' stat. I'm quite curious as to how that stat is calculated. Which stats are used and what is the 'weight' of each individual stat.

    That last thing you mention is something that has been plagueing my squad and me.. So irritating in Rush when your squad repeatedly gets switched at the end of each round. It's nice that Operations doesn't have this problem.
  • djroymedina
    25 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    They probably tried 3 squads but it breaks the game for the defenders. It's better if it's biased for attackers so the game progresses down the map. They would have to add 3 telegraphs for 3 squads.

    It never feels empty for me because I always rush the telegraph and there's always action there.
  • RabNebula
    235 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Medal of Honor Warfighter, Battlefield 1 Member
    They probably tried 3 squads but it breaks the game for the defenders. It's better if it's biased for attackers so the game progresses down the map. They would have to add 3 telegraphs for 3 squads.

    It never feels empty for me because I always rush the telegraph and there's always action there.

    That doesnt make sense. There are 3 squads and there would be 3 full squads for both teams so it would still be balanced and would not need more objectives. How many objectives do you think they had when Rush was 48 and 64 player?? It wasnt 1 for every squad.

    The case isnt about it feeling empty. Its that vehicles are fairly balanced for 64 players but 12v12 they still have the space they always had but far less people to damage them so they can just sit back. I've had a fair few flawless 50 kill rounds where I probably would have been taken out against a higher player count that could afford a little flexibility in team class balance. As it is 12v12 doesnt really have that. And of course you have to admit the 5, 5, 2 squad situation is ridiculous as it puts the 2 at a real disadvantage for a lot of reasons.
  • Ronin0ni
    1758 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    RabNebula wrote: »
    Rush is fun. I enjoy it a lot and really like some of the changes like the objectives varying their spawns on the maps which really mixes the mode up a bit. However theres also clearly some things in it which DICE really need to get on and sort out to save this mode because theres lot wrong with it and overall its one of the worst Rush modes they've released for a BF.

    My 1 suggestion and biggest problem with the mode. 12v12 needs to be 15v15. There are a few reasons for this, I don't feel 12v12 allows enough freedom in team balance to be able to effectively deal with the vehicles available as a team. Mainly though, it is a terrible oversight to have the squad size set at 5 but not have these non 64 players modes being set to have player counts in multiples of 5. Squadding up is a big issue in Rush at the moment because 12 means 2 squads of 5 and then 2 guys left over. That's not right. It doesn't give them a fair game in terms of spawns or squad score. Those 2 are always at a disadvantage. This is a big problem DICE and it needs to be sorted in the next update because its one key thing that contributes to people just giving up on the mode completely.

    15v15 is 1 solution

    4 man squads another.

    I think it wouldn't be too overcrowded with 15 per team, but I think the mode always worked best with 24p count. 3 4-man squads, no locking, no new squads, just A, B, C squads with 4 slots each like it used to be.

    Lacking that, screw it.. 30p Rush.

    Honestly, I think it's silly they have any player counts that aren't a multiple of 10 considering the squad size. 60p CQ, or 70p. but 64? You have the same situation, albeit less often than it happens in Rush because some groups will lock their own smaller groups... but you could have 6 full squads and only 1 guy to squad up with (guarantee he'll be locked in a squad by himself too lol)
  • Fas7Eddi3
    125 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    i used to love rush but hardly play it now. They ruined it by lowering it to 12v12. I agree with OP that rush should be 15v15. Hell if it was up do me it would 20v20. Ever since BFBC2 Rush has been dying a slow death. Now with OPS available its almost as if Dice is cutting it out altogether.
  • TickTak77
    4695 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited November 2016
    One suggestion to fix Rush?

    Remove it entirely, design maps specific for Rush, and then reintroduce it.

    The biggest issue with Rush is how they try to shoehorn it into maps that are clearly designed for other game modes.

    BF4 rush was awful. BF1 rush is no better.

    With Operations, there is no reason to play Rush.
  • RabNebula
    235 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Medal of Honor Warfighter, Battlefield 1 Member
    ifryrice69 wrote: »
    i used to love rush but hardly play it now. They ruined it by lowering it to 12v12. I agree with OP that rush should be 15v15. Hell if it was up do me it would 20v20. Ever since BFBC2 Rush has been dying a slow death. Now with OPS available its almost as if Dice is cutting it out altogether.

    I feel that this approach to Rush is more esports friendly than Operations and that is why they have made it the way they have. The games are shorter but still get very competitive play and with a few changes it could be a mode that you could actually watch full games of with high level play from clans.
    I'm sure they actually said they had plans to support BF1 on the esports side so it seems Rush could be one of the modes they are looking at to do that with. That's also why I feel 15v15 is still a suitable amount of players to pull together for a clan match like that while 64 players is not as easy to organise with esports play in mind.

    So Rush really is different to Operations in a lot of ways that require a very different approach to take sectors. They are similar but the differences really do become clearer the more you play between the 2.
  • mikepalazzo
    91 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Give us server information so I can join friend in rush games manually when the join friend feature is on the fritz.
  • RabNebula
    235 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Medal of Honor Warfighter, Battlefield 1 Member
    Give us server information so I can join friend in rush games manually when the join friend feature is on the fritz.

    Thats something they definitely need to sort out for every mode. It's really odd that sometimes you have the option to join or queue for a server a friend is on in the main menu and then other times it just doesn't let you have that option. It needs to have "Friends servers" in the server browser because the party system right now just doesn't work.

    Have you got a suggestion as to how the mode itself could be improved?
  • RabNebula
    235 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Medal of Honor Warfighter, Battlefield 1 Member

    Pwnstar makes a similar case for increasing player count in this video. I can understand the reason for the changes but to balance the mode with vehicles and to get rid of the silly 2x full squads with 2 guys left out situation then the size has to go to 15v15. It would pretty much keep it the same kind of faster competitive play where your efforts make more of an impact than in Operations (that mode you can sometimes bust 100+ kills and still lose because team mates are total smurfs) and it would be a good size mode for clan battles should DICE actually learn how to manage and support an eSports scene properly.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=NCQoXqk69_g
Sign In or Register to comment.