Battlefield 3

[Sosseres]

Isn't DICE's Rush Mode first introduced in BC2? At least there it was implemented.

It was called "Gold Rush" in the original Bad Company... but the official "Rush" game type was originally designed in 2142 with "Titan Mode". I forgot if 1943 had it or not.

Titan mode wasn't rush. It was much more dynamic than that. It was basically conquest for the first part, getting the enemy shield down. Then it wasn't arm an objective, it was destroy 5 with whatever weaponry you had.

[TMRNetShark]

It was basically conquest for the first part, getting the enemy shield down.

"Conquer the objective areas"

Then it wasn't arm an objective, it was destroy 5 with whatever weaponry you had.

"Destroy objectives to advance."

What did the people do who had the Titan on their side?

"Defend."

If you don't think it's similar in nature, that's alright. Titan mode does have a far different feeling. The basic concept of attack/defend objectives is basically the same though. Instead of vastly differing objectives for the two teams to control, rush just had a set of objectives that got increasingly more difficult to attack after each objective had been taken out. Depending on the map that the rush mode was on, it was very similar to Titan mode because getting to the reactor cores and destroying them could sometimes be the most difficult thing to do (similar to arming the last bomb in rush mode).

[Sosseres]

I agree they are similar. The biggest difference is in the win condition though. Both sides have to take down the other side instead of one side only defending. You also didn't have to attack the enemy titan, you could just hold the missiles and let those finish it off. Meaning it never passed from conquest mode.

[TMRNetShark]

I agree they are similar. The biggest difference is in the win condition though. Both sides have to take down the other side instead of one side only defending. You also didn't have to attack the enemy titan, you could just hold the missiles and let those finish it off. Meaning it never passed from conquest mode.

Yeah, the whole unlimited Tickets thing wasn't the best. That's why Rush mode is such a good mode. They added in the whole attackers ticket running out if they all cannot get to the objective.

[Sosseres]

I agree they are similar. The biggest difference is in the win condition though. Both sides have to take down the other side instead of one side only defending. You also didn't have to attack the enemy titan, you could just hold the missiles and let those finish it off. Meaning it never passed from conquest mode.

Yeah, the whole unlimited Tickets thing wasn't the best. That's why Rush mode is such a good mode. They added in the whole attackers ticket running out if they all cannot get to the objective.

That is what is bad with rush mode. It sets one team as attacker instead of having both defenders and attackers in a team. Conquest and its variants is so good because it allows you to play at different paces, for different objectives and still help your team (one person managing to sneak in and out a capture area over and over can occupy a lot of people, no killing needed, yet it helps a lot). Being somebody that likes to defend and ending up in the aggressive team in rush is just...

Conquest having dual ways the points count down is another good thing, killing a lot means you win, if the opponent manages to hold a majority of the control points it is hard to kill that much more though. I honestly don't see what makes rush better than conquest or its variants.

It can be argued that no points was a flaw of the titan mode, yet it was more akin to a mix of Capture the Flag and king of the hill than anything else when you came down to the scoring method.

The worst problem with rush is that it focuses combat in a game designed for a lot of players, widening the combat area is better than funnelling 30+ people into 1/100 of the total map area. Rush/plant the bomb modes are nice when you have few players though, it works fine up until around 16 when other modes start being better.

[newy]

Everything sounds to me like the classical Assault from Unreal Tournament...

[TMRNetShark]

I honestly don't see what makes rush better than conquest or its variants.

The worst problem with rush is that it focuses combat in a game designed for a lot of players, widening the combat area is better than funnelling 30+ people into 1/100 of the total map area. Rush/plant the bomb modes are nice when you have few players though, it works fine up until around 16 when other modes start being better.

Sorry, edited a bit for what you said to be related to what I'm about to say:

Conquest is great. There are multiple points of where a squad or even a single person can capture. It's fun gameplay and allows for a very dynamic gameplay of how you attack/defend flags in conquest. Oh? The frontal assault doesn't work? Go around and attack from the back. It allows for the fun type of gameplay that Battlefield players have loved for a long time.

Rush on the other hand is a completely different monster. You nailed it though, it's "funneling" 32 (I don't think there is a 64 player rush map) players into narrow lanes. That means there are only a few set lanes of attack and thus limiting your attack strategy. This is the great thing about it though, Rush allows a smart player to be able to defeat a dumb player who is only covering the conventional lanes. Think of it as being creative with the lemons you were given (aka... make lemon grenades). Even in normal combat, it creates a "front" battle that allows the attackers to be able to punch through a line in the defenses and flank the enemy while someone plants the bomb. I agree, funneling only limits your tactics... but it's instantly gratifying if you set up the objective as an attacker and defend it until it explodes.

As a defender though, I like playing this little fun game I like to call "World's Deadliest Bush." 

[Supai]

As a defender though, I like playing this little fun game I like to call "World's Deadliest Bush." 

Umm... Isn't that what TotalBiscuit calls that game?

[tomoya-kun]

Capsian border is a great map, this is what the beta map should have been all along.  When the servers don't drop me of course.

[Slysoft]

I don't know why, but every caspian border map my game crashes as soon as the round ends. Operation metro works fine and there are no glitches in game, but as soon as the enemy tickets run out on caspian border my game crashes without warning and without an error message.

[TMRNetShark]

As a defender though, I like playing this little fun game I like to call "World's Deadliest Bush." 

Umm... Isn't that what TotalBiscuit calls that game?

That commentary on that video was hilarious. And he called it just "Deadliest Bush." I agree with that statement that everyone uses that tactic on defense... hell, even some attackers do it.

[TMRNetShark]

Time to thank Amazon again...

PC download version of the game from Amazon is $41.99. This is also the full game with the Dog tags and the Back to Karkand DLC. It is actually quite tempting to get seeing as how I can save $20 on this game. But I might actually WANT to physical version mainly because EA reserves the right to revoke your "ownership" or digital games after 24 months of not using them. So at least this way, I can prove "Hey yeah... I own the game" with a physical copy.

EDIT: F*** it, I went with the $20 cheaper download off Amazon. Now I'll just shift my BF3 preorder to Skyrim. I'm wondering how many people will go with the $41.99 on Amazon. That's practically at a price that BF3 will be in 4 months from now... not 2 weeks before.

[Smokeyjr2]

Time to thank Amazon again...

PC download version of the game from Amazon is $41.99. This is also the full game with the Dog tags and the Back to Karkand DLC. It is actually quite tempting to get seeing as how I can save $20 on this game. But I might actually WANT to physical version mainly because EA reserves the right to revoke your "ownership" or digital games after 24 months of not using them. So at least this way, I can prove "Hey yeah... I own the game" with a physical copy.

EDIT: F*** it, I went with the $20 cheaper download off Amazon. Now I'll just shift my BF3 preorder to Skyrim. I'm wondering how many people will go with the $41.99 on Amazon. That's practically at a price that BF3 will be in 4 months from now... not 2 weeks before.

Im getting mine on PS3 but i myself cant stand not having a physical copy of the game. Only games i have that arent a physical copy is Final Fantasy 7,8 & 9 but thats because i bought them on the PSN.

[SeventyX7]

What do you guys suppose the odds are this will ever actually get a modkit?

I assumed it was zero, since DICE is going the map pack route (if a modkit existed, people would just mod the dlc maps in), but wanted to check if I missed something?

[Supai]

^ 0%, no doubt about that.

And I mean, they said that playing on servers with modified max player counts "can put your account in at risk". Banning your account for something like that?

Edit: Link.

[AceHigh]

Of course, that is the only thing we needed after all the shit they already shoved down our throats. I guess mods are out of question, after all they can compromise your account stats.

It wouldn't have to be like that, after all you load the client with the mod files and it would only show you servers running that mod like in BF2... oh wait, I almost forgot, can't have that with the battlelog, now can we?

[TMRNetShark]

Of course, that is the only thing we needed after all the shit they already shoved down our throats. I guess mods are out of question, after all they can compromise your account stats.

It wouldn't have to be like that, after all you load the client with the mod files and it would only show you servers running that mod like in BF2... oh wait, I almost forgot, can't have that with the battlelog, now can we?

They're trying to be streamlined... AKA making things only work as consoles work. Can't mod console game code? OH so you can't mod PC game code.

Battlelog adds some nice features and I don't care if it's my game menu... I just care about the community that game has and honestly... the Battlefield community is filled with a lot of angry people right now (over the obvious flaws of the game so far).

[AceHigh]

By the way, was talking about those flaws with some friends in my clan and the conversation went like this:

him: "Do you know what alpha testers are saying about beta?"
me: "what?"
him: "That open beta was identical to pre-alpha version, and that the closed alpha and beta work way better than this open beta"

That made me think. Was it done because they didn't want to reveal too much? Or was it just for convenience sake? After all they were just stress testing their server.

[newy]

Officical statement: To test the server load

Think of it as euphemism of whatever you want

[Smokeyjr2]

Im getting the game regardless im a BF fan and will always be a BF fan. I played the beta and loved it i can see past the few issues and see the game for what it is, Better then any CoD game out there and any future game.