Battlefield

[LSD-39]

Conquest is definitely better and a true test of skills, rush is well, groundhog day, the same strategy you used last time - played over and over. Conquest games change by the minute and the dynamic change coupled with the large playable area is what makes Battlefield unique.

Rush is dominated by the ex COD players who try to play it like it IS COD. I like to think that the battlefield series instead appeals to the more discerning strategic thinkers. Did you ever hear that old saying 'fools rush in where wise men fear to tread'? It applies well to some rush players. Don't get me wrong, battlefield needs these players who are obsessed with winning at any cost and rush in head first, I use them to test the enemies weakness from my command post up on the hill.

Jump to it soldier ! Go do your duty and arm that bomb ! Myself and the other illuminati will be right behind you - as soon as we've finished our cuppa lol.

Seriously, some people are the human equivalent of a fly that keeps smashing its face against a window, and you'll find most of them playing rush. I suppose watching them has entertainment value lol.

[Cringles88]

The only thing RUSH has over Conquest is bigger maps. Just the other day I was playing Rush on Grand Bazaar, & I've never seen the last two MCOMS before! I didn't even know there was any past the market place.

[mistachicken]

---

LSD-39 wrote:
Conquest is definitely better and a true test of skills, rush is well, groundhog day, the same strategy you used last time - played over and over. Conquest games change by the minute and the dynamic change coupled with the large playable area is what makes Battlefield unique.

Rush is dominated by the ex COD players who try to play it like it IS COD. I like to think that the battlefield series instead appeals to the more discerning strategic thinkers. Did you ever hear that old saying 'fools rush in where wise men fear to tread'? It applies well to some rush players. Don't get me wrong, battlefield needs these players who are obsessed with winning at any cost and rush in head first, I use them to test the enemies weakness from my command post up on the hill.

Jump to it soldier ! Go do your duty and arm that bomb ! Myself and the other illuminati will be right behind you - as soon as we've finished our cuppa lol.

Seriously, some people are the human equivalent of a fly that keeps smashing its face against a window, and you'll find most of them playing rush. I suppose watching them has entertainment value lol.

---

I agree sir..

except that i find conquest quite similiar to headquarters  in cod with a few knobs and whistles attatched (did i just spell that right?) , but thats not a bad thing as that was easily the best mode (for me anyways!).

Your right about Rush , the last game i played was frustratingly manic , just as you said , you must be the messiah!! i bow down to you and your fish n bread n sh*t , cheers

[LSD-39]

Actually I was joking dude, I was having a little dig a someone for a laugh , yeah Conquest is still better though.

[Cloudburst--]

Rush was epic in BFBC2. . . unfortunately it's poo in BF3 and so you've to play Con-spawn camp / flag camp / get a spot a decent sitance from the enemy flag and shoot em as they spawn / kill farm-quest instead.

[leggy1975]

---

Cloudburst-- wrote:

Rush was epic in BFBC2. . . unfortunately it's poo in BF3 and so you've to play Con-spawn camp / flag camp / get a spot a decent sitance from the enemy flag and shoot em as they spawn / kill farm-quest instead.

---

[Cloudburst--]

Let us be honest with ourselves.

BFBC2: Rush: Amazing.
BF3 : Rush : Terrible.

Everything seems to be designed for conquest. Rush was just burgh.

[I_reaps_I]

Rush is a bit... congested in this game. On many maps it requires attackers to bottleneck through very small access points that any half decent squad... Yes squad, not team, can defend effectively.

The thing I have always enjoyes about battlefield is the sense of having options, of their being another way around a stern defence. In rush on this game I often feel like im just throwing myself into a meatgrinder over and over again.

That can be fun sometimes though.

[Mr_Inconspicous]

---

Cloudburst-- wrote:
Let us be honest with ourselves.

BFBC2: Rush: Amazing.
BF3 : Rush : Terrible.

Everything seems to be designed for conquest. Rush was just burgh.

---

Battlefield is all about conquest. Rush was developed for the Bad Company spin off. BF3 was always going to be geared towards conquest. Rush works really well imo on BF3 but conquest is better.

With BFBC2 they really wanted to show off Rush and the map design fits rush more. Going back to the main series and 64 player PC conquest was always going to be the dogs *****.

So far you complained about:

• Tanks
• Engineers fixing vehicles (how dare they )
• The assault class players healing and reviving
• The support class players using LMGs as they are designed to be used
• Briandead players
• The actual repair tool it self
• RPGs/SMAW
• The Javelin
• LMGs accuracy
• Vehiclesin general
• Rush
• Conquest
• Spawning on an objective and being killed
• DLC

[LSD-39]

It would be boring here without Cloudy though, I enjoy reading his rants.

It's getting very quiet around here lately....