Focused Feedback: Rush

Comments

  • barnesalmighty2
    1624 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I didn't think that I would enjoy rush since I haven't enjoyed it since BF4, but I was pleasantly surprised and wished it'd be a permanent game mode. I can't stand grand operations so it's nice to have a targeted objective mode that was fun outside of my normal Conquest play.

    A lot of people struggle to transition to rush from conquest it's a hard game mode but those games that are hard fought are so very rewarding. I really want this to become permanent and added to all maps along with the BF1 mcom placements that can change between games.
  • Ernie_Shavers
    131 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    SirBobdk wrote: »
    Imo the devs should reinstall and play BC2. All the answers are right there. I don't think trying to tweak existing maps to fit Rush is the right solution.
    If you want to have a game play like Rush then start by designing the maps or remake maps that we know are working.

    I keep saying that. Been pushing it in general since launch.
  • Ernie_Shavers
    131 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Arica Harbor did RUSH so well. Other maps also did It well but for now let's point to Arica Harbor.

    It had a great balance of verticality, cover, distance of objectives and structures/landscape.

    Let's beat the dead horse some more: why is it so hard to re-create or even mimic Arica Harbor RUSH?

    Do they not know of the existence of Arica Harbor RUSH in BFBC 2?
  • Ameriken05
    451 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    You guys should have added Arras to this Rush rotation since it is essentially already created for Battle of Hannut GO - not sure how much re-balancing would be needed to take it from 64-player to 32-player.

    I'm hoping Rush makes a permanent addition to BFV on ALL MAPs in the near future. It is a staple!
  • Noodlesocks
    3655 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Arica Harbor did RUSH so well. Other maps also did It well but for now let's point to Arica Harbor.

    It had a great balance of verticality, cover, distance of objectives and structures/landscape.

    Let's beat the dead horse some more: why is it so hard to re-create or even mimic Arica Harbor RUSH?

    Do they not know of the existence of Arica Harbor RUSH in BFBC 2?

    Maps in Bad Company games were designed specifically for rush. Main series Battlefield games are generally designed around conquest and adapted for other modes.
  • JUJAMAKILL
    331 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 2019
    Ya, i am absolutely loving the rush game mode. Nice and fast sometimes chaotic, not being picked off by too many snipers. Only disappointed by the lack of maps. I mean it really should have been available to all current maps. Also like the new artillery barrage, looks and sounds awesome, though I don't like how it also sometimes kills me when i place it and run in to attack objectives... lol
    Also think the team size is spot on. 64 would be too many and pure carnage, and 16 would not be enough, spending too much time looking for players. I think it flows well how it is atm.
  • Granatenmaxe
    67 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    After playing a while I really love this rush. Unlike in previous BF I actually care to win. This mode has much potential to be expanded and made permanent.
  • scienceteacher74
    125 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member

    Dear @mattd3162014


    "Is this your first time playing Rush?"

    ''I've tried buying Sturmtiger 2 times, both times it dissapeared and took my 20k points with it''.

    It only costs 2500 cc you don`t use points to purchase items.
    [/quote]

    Dude, if you are going to be a smart Alec, at least know what you are talking about. This is embarrassing, delete this post.
  • American_Outlaw
    61 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    Rush mode should absolutely NOT have tanks, it should be infantry only!!! The current maps and layout just does not really work in this mode honestly. Twisted Steel is horribly designed in this mode and needs a complete rework. Narvik and Devastation or slightly better in Rush but still fall way short in competitive design for this mode. I just think that with the current maps we have it will be tough to really make Rush mode become balanced and not a curb stomping for one side like it is now. I do like the mode but it needs some serious thought and design changes with these maps.
  • Hawxxeye
    7778 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Too favorable to the defenders
  • SirBobdk
    5318 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Arica Harbor did RUSH so well. Other maps also did It well but for now let's point to Arica Harbor.

    It had a great balance of verticality, cover, distance of objectives and structures/landscape.

    Let's beat the dead horse some more: why is it so hard to re-create or even mimic Arica Harbor RUSH?

    Do they not know of the existence of Arica Harbor RUSH in BFBC 2?

    Maps in Bad Company games were designed specifically for rush. Main series Battlefield games are generally designed around conquest and adapted for other modes.
    Imo it would be a massive succes if they started by just remaking one map from BC2 and run it 24/7 in rush mode. Could even work in GO/BT.
    Valpariaso, Arica Harbor or Lagune Presa would be my choice. There are really no map in BVF designe for a particular game typer, so it would be amazing to have one for rush.
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    6310 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 2019
    Can we get rid of stupid screen/ground shake after MCOM explosion please? It's not only annoying and pointless, it actually prevents you from moving or even looking around which easily gets you killed. Sometimes "realistic" stuff harms the experience and makes it less fun overall.
  • ChiefSniper
    184 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 2019
    Way too many players, imho. Even then, I think it should be Infantry only. We've already got enough modes with Vehicles... even if they just keep transport type vehicles (non-offensive) that would be better I think.
  • stiny1838
    263 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Tanks on rush that can sit in invincible spawns (twisted steel comes to mind) make the entire round 100% a chore.

    it also does not help that seconds after killing the spawn camping tank the same player comes back in a new tank and spawn camps.
  • ragnarok013
    3895 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    I didn't think that I would enjoy rush since I haven't enjoyed it since BF4, but I was pleasantly surprised and wished it'd be a permanent game mode. I can't stand grand operations so it's nice to have a targeted objective mode that was fun outside of my normal Conquest play.

    A lot of people struggle to transition to rush from conquest it's a hard game mode but those games that are hard fought are so very rewarding. I really want this to become permanent and added to all maps along with the BF1 mcom placements that can change between games.

    @barnesalmighty2 I've been playing Rush since BC1 when it was called Gold Rush so I've no issue transitioning. I just hated the rush changes in BF1 after the best iterations of Rush in BC2-BF3.
  • ragnarok013
    3895 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Arica Harbor did RUSH so well. Other maps also did It well but for now let's point to Arica Harbor.

    It had a great balance of verticality, cover, distance of objectives and structures/landscape.

    Let's beat the dead horse some more: why is it so hard to re-create or even mimic Arica Harbor RUSH?

    Do they not know of the existence of Arica Harbor RUSH in BFBC 2?

    Maps in Bad Company games were designed specifically for rush. Main series Battlefield games are generally designed around conquest and adapted for other modes.

    This might be the issue. The best times in rush were IMO BC2 when the maps were specifically designed for the mode and the best times for DOM were in BF3 when they yet again had maps specifically designed for the mode.
  • RRedux
    759 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    This is the poorest iteration of rush I've seen so far in the battlefield series.
  • RAGING_LIGERROB
    1 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I think we could use more players in this mode. The one thing I miss about bf1,my very first battlefield,was the insane chaos we had,none stop action. Too many slow moments,camping in almost all modes.
  • Zenga
    164 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I've played it extensively now and I have to say I like it a lot. There are some issues, but they're mostly rooted in basic game mechanics, such as poor balancing of teams and how incredibly sensitive the balance is if only a single player leaves, or more often doesn't even spawn at once.
      Things I like:
      • much higher degree of PTFO than in any other mode I've seen
      • playercount feels perfect to me
      • very little camping snipers, much more agressive ones that often sway the battle
      • the chaos is exhilarating, the only other mode that has this feeling is Arras in the last sector
      • with very little actionless moments
      • maps are surprisingly well balanced in Rush
        Things I don't like:
        • if only 1 player leaves your team or if the match starts with 14v16 or similar, it's pretty much a steamroll
        • some objectives are too closely placed, mainly on Narvik, first and last sector. Could use just a tiny bit of distance between them.
        • I'm unsure about the tanks given to attackers. First sectors, yes, but they often survive until the end and then they can really overpower the defending team. Maybe they should be physically prevented from progressing to the last 2 zones.
      • someguy12121
        468 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
        Maps used are way too small for Rush. Overall Rush in this game is awful. Too many people just sit in the round not doing anything so your down a player and in this game mode that's even worse. Every game after BF3 has had rush and in each game it gets worse and worse. Just overall the quality of the layout is bad.
      Sign In or Register to comment.