Rush 2.0

Comments

  • sabootheshaman
    1186 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Ameriken05 wrote: »
    I used to be an avid Rush player and frankly its exclusion from BFV was a bit of a shock, compounded by the general weakness of Grand Operations compared to BF1 Operations.  There is something very lacking from the BFV version of Rush and I think it primarily revolves around how narrow the maps are and how close the objectives are.  I'm not seeing a whole lot of change from the first run of Rush, and games seem to quickly devolve into a campfest in a single area overwatching both objectives, where I feel like in previous titles there has been enough spacing and width to the map to allow some more maneuvering and isolating objectives to set them.  It also never helps with ANY of these limited time game modes when there are only 3 maps.  I don't really care what game mode you're playing - 3 maps get stale after about an hour of playing.  BFV is really suffering from solid game mode variety - and though it has renewed my enjoyment of Conquest (it's a good fit for WW2), the weakness or lack of other solid modes reduces overall replay value.  I think all of these maps could support Rush, but not quite sure why they don't open up the maps a little more - doesn't sound like the mode is huge priority, and that's a shame.  With Grand Operations in the state it is, no more frontlines, no rush, and breakthrough being a somewhat watered down version of BF1 Operations - it doesn't leave many options other than Conquest and maybe some Firestorm.  So much potential for this game, very love/hate...

    CPT CALIGULA

    For the love of god use some paragraphs.
  • ragnarok013
    3442 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    I for one am shocked that you can't simply take the same exact map and just place objectives willy nilly to make a great game experience on a variety of modes.
    Cookie cutter copy paste does not work, design maps from scratch for Rush with love and attention and it will succeed
    DrunkOnRedWine I think this is why Rush in BC2 and Dom in BF3 are considered the best of their game modes because the maps were designed specifically for those modes. I also think that Rush in BF3 was pretty awesome as well but those maps were also multi-use so I'm not sure why rush lost its shine for me after BF3.
  • Ameriken05
    451 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Ameriken05 wrote: »
    I used to be an avid Rush player and frankly its exclusion from BFV was a bit of a shock, compounded by the general weakness of Grand Operations compared to BF1 Operations.  There is something very lacking from the BFV version of Rush and I think it primarily revolves around how narrow the maps are and how close the objectives are.  I'm not seeing a whole lot of change from the first run of Rush, and games seem to quickly devolve into a campfest in a single area overwatching both objectives, where I feel like in previous titles there has been enough spacing and width to the map to allow some more maneuvering and isolating objectives to set them.  It also never helps with ANY of these limited time game modes when there are only 3 maps.  I don't really care what game mode you're playing - 3 maps get stale after about an hour of playing.  BFV is really suffering from solid game mode variety - and though it has renewed my enjoyment of Conquest (it's a good fit for WW2), the weakness or lack of other solid modes reduces overall replay value.  I think all of these maps could support Rush, but not quite sure why they don't open up the maps a little more - doesn't sound like the mode is huge priority, and that's a shame.  With Grand Operations in the state it is, no more frontlines, no rush, and breakthrough being a somewhat watered down version of BF1 Operations - it doesn't leave many options other than Conquest and maybe some Firestorm.  So much potential for this game, very love/hate...

    CPT CALIGULA

    For the love of god use some paragraphs.
    Just got on that tangent and kept going.  Take a few breaks in there if needed.
  • THERAMPAGE_ci0h
    227 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Recon's scope for 3D spotting is bugged in this gamemode, ennemies doesn't appear when spotted ... 
  • MarxistDictator
    4977 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I for one am shocked that you can't simply take the same exact map and just place objectives willy nilly to make a great game experience on a variety of modes.

    remember BC2 when a bunch of Rush maps were made given bad CQ versions and a bunch of CQ maps got bad Rush versions? Dice forgot apparently
    It’s just highlighted the real lack of verticality or creative map design

    It feels like DICE have totally lost site of what people love. I’d prefer metro to this.

    this is a good satire post. right? checks too many boxes.
  • ChickenTheTank
    518 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I for one am shocked that you can't simply take the same exact map and just place objectives willy nilly to make a great game experience on a variety of modes.

    remember BC2 when a bunch of Rush maps were made given bad CQ versions and a bunch of CQ maps got bad Rush versions? Dice forgot apparently
    It’s just highlighted the real lack of verticality or creative map design

    It feels like DICE have totally lost site of what people love. I’d prefer metro to this.

    this is a good satire post. right? checks too many boxes.

    He has a point though. There isn't a ton of verticality on the launch maps. A little sure, but definitely no where near most previous BF titles.
  • sabootheshaman
    1186 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Ameriken05 wrote: »
    sabootheshaman said:


    Ameriken05 wrote: »
    I used to be an avid Rush player and frankly its exclusion from BFV was a bit of a shock, compounded by the general weakness of Grand Operations compared to BF1 Operations.  There is something very lacking from the BFV version of Rush and I think it primarily revolves around how narrow the maps are and how close the objectives are.  I'm not seeing a whole lot of change from the first run of Rush, and games seem to quickly devolve into a campfest in a single area overwatching both objectives, where I feel like in previous titles there has been enough spacing and width to the map to allow some more maneuvering and isolating objectives to set them.  It also never helps with ANY of these limited time game modes when there are only 3 maps.  I don't really care what game mode you're playing - 3 maps get stale after about an hour of playing.  BFV is really suffering from solid game mode variety - and though it has renewed my enjoyment of Conquest (it's a good fit for WW2), the weakness or lack of other solid modes reduces overall replay value.  I think all of these maps could support Rush, but not quite sure why they don't open up the maps a little more - doesn't sound like the mode is huge priority, and that's a shame.  With Grand Operations in the state it is, no more frontlines, no rush, and breakthrough being a somewhat watered down version of BF1 Operations - it doesn't leave many options other than Conquest and maybe some Firestorm.  So much potential for this game, very love/hate...



    CPT CALIGULA



    For the love of god use some paragraphs.

    Just got on that tangent and kept going.  Take a few breaks in there if needed.

    Just a note. Some people get a headache when even attempting to read that. Also, it’s not good for people with learning disorders.

    So if you expect it to be read.

    *i fit into both categories so will not read it.
  • Noodlesocks
    3150 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 21
    Feels pretty much the same as it was before. Shame they spent so much time on these changes instead of implementing rush on more maps.
  • jroggs
    704 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Rush is a bad mode. 20% because of design, 30% because of team balancing, and 50% because of bad players who either don't understand the mode or just don't have any desire to play it correctly.
  • Ameriken05
    451 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Feels pretty much the same as it was before. Shame they spent so much time on these changes instead of implementing rush on more maps.
    Yeah I do think there has been a slight improvement with the overall flow the mode - but yeah a bit disappointed it's on the same 3 maps instead of maybe tweaking the original 3 AND adding a couple more.  Only 3 maps for any mode gets real stale after a few rounds.  Really not a big fan of the temporary experimental game mode approach, and with frontlines/domination game modes gone we really need another full-time dedicated mode...
  • TFBisquit
    1754 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 21
    I'm only enjoying broken steel. The other 2 are awfull imo.
    Feels like they merged grind with rush on devastation, and Narvik, is Narvik. A bad map imo.
  • bran1986
    5794 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I like rush on Narvik but that is about it. Devastation and Twisted Steel get better if you get past the awful first sector on each map. I played about 5 hours of rush and I had 1 match that wasn't a steam roll and that was on Narvik.
  • biggien79
    83 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Every round has been basically a steam roll for one team when I played. I gotta finish the last objective and that will probably be it for me this week with this mode.
  • G-Gnu
    1460 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 21
    Tried Rush on Broken steal as Attacker, worst experience so far.  Start location for attacker must be the worst placement ever. Total fail, but that is no surprise anymore.
  • BaronVonGoon
    6976 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Maybe I need to keep trying but so far not one round I've had can be considered a fight. Each one has been a beatdown, one side or the other.

    I don't remember it being like this in BF4. Rush was fun back then, it felt like both teams were trying.

    I don't think it's the players, it's got to be the map design.
  • bigiain
    309 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I've had one round that was really close, it's usually a steamroll. I thought it was the same in BF1 to be honest, I'm surprised so many people are still fans of the mode. Too many people either don't understand the mode, can't use gadgets or give up as soon as it goes bad. The maps aren't great, but I think good maps would cause a lot of players even more problems.
  • SirBobdk
    4257 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited July 21


    I don't think it's the players, it's got to be the map design.
    The map designs are garbage. We have seen that rush can be fantastic with the right map design like in BC2 and ok in BF3. But since those games it has been really bad for rush imo. And map design seem to be the biggest problem in BFV. I could live with all the bugs if just the maps had some quality, but they dont.
  • Pelliy
    2228 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    It's terrible
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3410 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Maybe I need to keep trying but so far not one round I've had can be considered a fight. Each one has been a beatdown, one side or the other.

    I don't remember it being like this in BF4. Rush was fun back then, it felt like both teams were trying.

    I don't think it's the players, it's got to be the map design.
    BF4 Rush had bad map design decisions as well. Take Siege of Shanghai Rush for example. The first set of objectives was nearly impossible to take, so most matches ended there, which is quite silly. To make matters worse, the last two sets of objectives were nearly impossible to defend. DICE should have done it the other way around, so that matches would have lasted longer instead of ending on the first set of objectives, but resulting in a guaranteed victory for the attackers if they somehow got through the first set.

    Not to mention the fact that even in Rush, you had Recons sitting on the skyscrapers camping all day.
  • MarxistDictator
    4977 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    SirBobdk wrote: »
    BaronVonGoon said:




    I don't think it's the players, it's got to be the map design.

    The map designs are garbage. We have seen that rush can be fantastic with the right map design like in BC2 and ok in BF3. But since those games it has been really bad for rush imo. And map design seem to be the biggest problem in BFV. I could live with all the bugs if just the maps had some quality, but they dont.

    BF3 had so many bad Rush maps. Kharg was literally shooting fish in a barrel since the Americans couldn't come close to the shore if the Frogfoot pilot knew how to not fly into the ground. Noshars was like the same thing except instead of trying to attack a beach with a plane lording over the vehicle dictation you have an AA tank annihilating light vehicles in their deployment with no hope of countering. Davamand has you try to run down a hill with no cover to start while Tehran was the opposite...so many garbage Rush maps. Only Firestorm and Caspian were fun in that mode.
Sign In or Register to comment.