Battlefield 3

[praytella]

Originally Posted by Snoochems

Rush >> Conquest for me.

I can see why some find conquest fun. I find it just seems to random, and "messy" for me. Enemies come from all directions, and there is no focus point for you team. The general strategy is "everyone do your own thing".

Rush though. Your team is all focused on one clear objective (two actually). The enemy is not as likely to just suddenly appear behind you either. You can still flank, but requires actual skills and tactics over just luck and a buggy that gets you around fast.

Each their own.

Thats incorrect. You can't really flank in rush (some maps are more open though), and the only tactics that work no matter what side you are on is attacking pressure. Actually everything you just listed in what makes conquest better than rush. You sure you haven't got them mixed up?

The team is split into squads. Each squad should have their own objectives to ensure the teams overall objective is met, basically that they win.

Rush doesn't need any communication or teamwork, it's fairly straight forward and no decisions are required. Attack or defend depending on what side you are on is basically it, unless you're just observing the action from a scope. All you need to win at rush is suicidal team mates. Those happy to die and distract or take out as many defenders as they can. Actually if your whole side is like that, then you'll roll most teams.

Conquest requires teamwork. No matter what side you are on, some need to attack, some need to defend, some need to be a roving squad in reserve providing backup or flanking the lines to take rear flags to disrupt spawns etc. The problem with conquest is not the mode, but the lack of communication and teamwork in and between squads.

BF2 had decent communications. I rarely hear anyone talking in BC2.

[Psycho84]

Conquest in BC2 is pretty lame, it's a really poor imitation of whats found in BF2.

However, Conquest in BF2 was really awesome. Worked very well and more often then not you ended up with Rush style attacker/defender battles at each flag...just a bit less suicide chargy and more tactical which is good.

[s4mmy]

The idea of Rush is good. I just think the maps they use are wrong. They seem to cramped.

[Darkness']

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/06/27/ba...ame=0&ns_fee=0

A sliver of light has been shed on Battlefield 3′s co-op mode in the latest issue of PSM3. The mode will support two players side by side, will span ten missions and will be a standalone section, separate from the single player game. Apart from that, DICE are keeping a tight lid on things. Hopefully they’ll will show more as we get closer to the October 25 release date.

[Chif]

Originally Posted by s4mmy

The idea of Rush is good. I just think the maps they use are wrong. They seem to cramped.

I think the full conquest maps with rush mode would be pretty cool. The Mcom stations are placed in different areas of the map, once two are destroyed the next ones activate. You could either have it a random order, similar to headquarters in COD, or have them in a set order to give it a little bit of linearity.

Although the issue there is that with larger maps people could camp the next mcon station etc.. Maybe just have two that are really strong... Or not, ahh I dunno what i'm taking about haha


In regards to above post. It's awesome that there's a serperate co-op. Just hope it didn't take too much attention from the main single player campaign.

[s4mmy]

Originally Posted by Chif

I think the full conquest maps with rush mode would be pretty cool. The Mcom stations are placed in different areas of the map, once two are destroyed the next ones activate. You could either have it a random order, similar to headquarters in COD, or have them in a set order to give it a little bit of linearity.

Although the issue there is that with larger maps people could camp the next mcon station etc.. Maybe just have two that are really strong... Or not, ahh I dunno what i'm taking about haha


In regards to above post. It's awesome that there's a serperate co-op. Just hope it didn't take too much attention from the main single player campaign.

Just seems like sometimes the defenders spawn a little TO close the the MCOMs.

[Frontl1ne]

Originally Posted by Darkness'

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/06/27/ba...ame=0&ns_fee=0

Awww, only two player co-op. Would've been sweet if they incorporated a full sized squad co-op (similar to Operation Flashpoint: DR).

[Chif]

Originally Posted by s4mmy

Just seems like sometimes the defenders spawn a little TO close the the MCOMs.

Yeah that's true. Maybe all it needs is to spawn them a little further away. I know that when I play it's usually the defenders that win. It'd still be nice to have the maps a little more open.

Originally Posted by Frontl1ne

Awww, only two player co-op. Would've been sweet if they incorporated a full sized squad co-op (similar to Operation Flashpoint: DR).

I thought that at first, but to be honest, i'll be playing proper multiplayer more often anyway.

[Mau1wurf1977]

I also think that Rush is awesome with fewer players. In general I prefer maps with only half the players because it changes the whole dynamic of the game.

Something like Rush, but with 2 or 3 "tunnels" might work well.

I liked how BF2142 combined conquest (on the ground) and rush (on the titan).

[FiShy]

Originally Posted by Mau1wurf1977

I also think that Rush is awesome with fewer players. In general I prefer maps with only half the players because it changes the whole dynamic of the game.

Something like Rush, but with 2 or 3 "tunnels" might work well.

I liked how BF2142 combined conquest (on the ground) and rush (on the titan).

squat rush is aweeeesome

[anthonyl]

Originally Posted by FiShy

squat rush is aweeeesome

Squat rush? Is that what you have to do after eating a hot curry?

[demowhc]

I'd like to see a gametype where both teams have objectives to destroy and defend, with all vehicles available for each team. Kind of like Rush in two directions on wider maps.

[Chif]

That'd be cool.

And i'd like to see the aircraft carrier being driven like in 1942 and bring back submarines, torpedos and depth charges!

[Mau1wurf1977]

I would also love to see some servers with no snipers. Infantry only or something like that.

[ShadowGeoff]

Originally Posted by demowhc

I'd like to see a gametype where both teams have objectives to destroy and defend, with all vehicles available for each team. Kind of like Rush in two directions on wider maps.

What about conquest on one of the long rush maps but only the closest flags can be capped at any one time. It would be like a tug-of-war.