After only playing conquest 64 players since the game was released, i decided to try a few rush maps. Holy, rush feels like utter garbage after only playing conquest. The feeling of having to rush head on just irks me after being able to flank,sneak, parachute, and rush head on in a vehicle. Also the map layouts for rush are horrible, if you combine those parts for a conquest map they create nice variety, but they shouldn't be stand alone rush sections.

Mortars, on rush, are even worse than Seine Crossing. Except now that applies for every single map, every single section. I think I'll stick to Conquest, and maybe the occasional TDM. I hadn't realized how much i missed true conquest, after BF:BC2. I almost get a claustrophobic feeling playing rush maps, knowing its conquest counterpart is so much larger.

Yeah, rush just promotes camping way too much. It's forgivable on Damavand since you get to do the base jump, but it's always just a clusterfuck of people getting slaughtered and having no chances to revive eachother

I really don't like it either but my friends who love infantry combat play it all the time. I vastly prefer conquest mode but some maps are straight up unplayable in conquest like metro, canals and crossing. Rush mode also has the base jump part of damavand peak and the A-10 Thunderbolt.

Rush is meant for 24 players of a few less. It's awesome with that amount of players. It gets increasingly broken past 24 players. Some servers do 64 player Rush, which is insanity.

I am known to enjoy Rush/Conquest mode rotations on 24-32 player servers, albeit 32 player Rush already is a 'lil to cramped for my taste.

32 player rush is okay, i don't find it too impallatable.

I'm actually convinced that every one of the maps was designed for Rush first and then Conquest was added after the fact. The old DICE designed Conquest only BF games had much more square shaped maps. The Conquest maps and their flag placements on BF3 are still rather linear compared to the old style. Rush is a very different game. The skills/tactics required for one don't translate to the other. I actually quite enjoy Rush, even though a play more Conquest. They are so different for me, I switch between both just to mix things up. I actually have found the few TDM matches I have played to be fun too.

Rush can be great with 24 players. I really enjoyed Rush in BC2 (especially in the Vietnam expansion, those maps were awesome). In BF3 Rush can be hit or miss, depending on the map and your team (a team without 6 snipers all camping on a rock getting kills while the rest of the team tries to blow up the M-Comm stations)

I played 64 player rush on Seine Crossing and Grand Bazaar last night and it seemed pretty clear to me that neither were designed for that many people. In both cases the first M-COM station would go down almost immediately before the defense would make a stand for the rest of the round at the second station. Grand Bazaar was particularly cramped. It has essentially two routes you can go to the second M-COM stations; down a road or through an alley. Both were being targeted by mortars from both sides and had snipers and LMGs and rockets and grenades and an endless line of infantry streaming in to be gunned down.

Any progress that was made by me or some other poor soul pushing up wouldn't be followed up on by the others. But I haven't given up hope! I was only in a squad of two with my brother and he was using a mortar. I'm pretty sure if we had a full squad with mics we could have coordinated a good push.

I think it's kind of silly that Rush promotes camping, as what else is the defending team supposed to do? It isn't a great gametype yet, but it is quite a bit of fun to roll in, plant, and roll out like bosses. You should have played it in Bad Company 2: Destroying the building the MCOM was in took out the objective, and some players had that down to a science with an airdrop. It broke often.

I think I've played two or three games of rush in the release version (I had no choice in beta). It's kinda awful. Conquest rewards good play way more. In rush most people just camp the objectives and  wait for someone to come around the corner.

YOU CANNOT CAMP IF THE GAME TYPE IS DEFEND ONE SPOT YOU ARE JUST DEFENDING ARGH

@doomocrat: I feel your pain. Defending on Rush IS camping, by definition really. What else should you do? It is fun as hell to play a game type where you know they are camping and just waiting for you, and you steamroll in and destroy all their M-COMs. A Rush win on offense is immensely more gratifying to me than any Conquest win. And I freaking love playing Conquest!

Rush sucks on every platform. I played like 3 rounds to get my ribbons and then went back to Conquest. It's just a clusterfuck.

I stopped playing it in BC2 after some time and never went back. Just like all the other modes, I played those 1-3 times to get the ribbons associated with them and then never again.

I'll be a broken record and keep saying Rush was designed for mostly console players because of the smaller player count, it seems alot more balanced.   I noticed this in the beta, 32 players on metro seemed too much on PC but on the console it seemed like the sweet spot and easier to get those objectives.

I'll be a broken record and keep saying Rush was designed for mostly console players because of the smaller player count, it seems alot more balanced.   I noticed this in the beta, 32 players on metro seemed too much on PC but on the console it seemed like the sweet spot and easier to get those objectives.

@Marz said:

I'll be a broken record and keep saying Rush was designed for mostly console players because of the smaller player count, it seems alot more balanced.   I noticed this in the beta, 32 players on metro seemed too much on PC but on the console it seemed like the sweet spot and easier to get those objectives.

So, logically the B2K maps should be the best maps in the entire game, right...RIGHT?

Having played Rush on consoles with 24 players, I can agree with this post. It's just a campfest for the defenders, which is normal in this gametype, but it kills the fun of having to run around and capture points. Mortars and snipers are a real pain, and I think I've only played about 3-4 Rush games since I bought the game.

I really don't like Rush at all compared to Conquest. As an Attacker I don't like having to throw myself against the enemy's base until we manage to destroy the stations and then have to do it again. As a Defender I don't like having to camp out at our base waiting for the enemies to show up. It makes the maps feel limited which is why I prefer Conquest.

Wow seems like i'm the only one who's the other way around. I don't really like conquest because it doesn't encourage teamwork. People are scattered around hoping to have their rambo/commando moment of sneaking capture points.

Matter of taste ... I prefer Rush to Conquest because I like the focused gameplay. And mortars ... I have no idea why people whine so much about those. I hardly see them used and if they are its not the end of the world ... all you need is one decent support to counter them. I would agree that there are a couple of maps that clearly are focused on Rush and some that are a clusterfuck with 64 players though.

64 player rush with knifes and c4 was the best.

Rush in Battlefeild 3 is terrible.

I sort of liked Rush in BC2, in BF3, not that much, but it depends which side I am on.

My feeling is rush is more of a console thing. Since its from Bad Company (the first Bad Company didn't ship with Conquest mode). I imagine rush with 64 players would be crazy.

I play 360 and don't really like Conquest.

Why? People waiting at jet spawn, waiting at spawn screen for jet (there are two jets in CQ) and I just run around never seeing anyone.

Seriously, a guy finished first on my team and went 0-1 (about 2700 points). He never saw anyone, captured a point, went to a lost point and repeat. This wouldn't be a problem, however it's no fun when you're not getting shot or shooting others sometime in that process.

@2HeadedNinja said:

Matter of taste ... I prefer Rush to Conquest because I like the focused gameplay. And mortars ... I have no idea why people whine so much about those. I hardly see them used and if they are its not the end of the world ... all you need is one decent support to counter them. I would agree that there are a couple of maps that clearly are focused on Rush and some that are a clusterfuck with 64 players though.

Just wait 'til you join a game with 2-3 mortar whores and nobody on your team being willing or capable of countering them. I just stopped spawning with mortars, because mortar whores just never stop. Once I go mortars, I'm stuck doing counter mortars all round long and that's just no fucking fun. If you don't counter them though, as soon as there's some tactical campy situations at a choke point, those mortars will wreck havoc.

Unfun gadget is unfun and can ruin the certain map/mode combinations in certain situations quite thoroughly. Can't wait for the inevitable patch.