Battlefield 3 - Official Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
well..Mcoms not able to take any kind of damage anymore..Planes are just another addition..

maybe they could also Increase the size of the player count for Rush..to say 64.
 
Uh, a 64 man rush would be the largest cluster of all time. Talk about concentration of fire. Imagine trying to arm with twice the number of people shooting at you. Good luck. Plus the lag of so many in a small area. No thanks.
 
but BC2 was 32 player?
so your not really missing anything by it staying 32 player.

64 player would be awesome and near impossible with that many frontline troops in a head to head battle..pilots would love it. also hate it..alot of Stingers going up.

But 32 player Rush with Planes will be fun reguardless. Just makes it that much harder for both sides.

also,
dont know if this was posted last week or not..but 100 Hours to unlock everything per class..wow..so 400 hours total. Nice.

http://bf3blog.com/2011/09/dice-it-takes-100-hours-to-complete-a-kit-and-unlock-everything/

Of couse 100 hours could be for people that suck(dont play much or just bad) also.
 
TwistedAegis said:
MOTHER(@*&()#@! :( :mad: That's my favorite mode, something like 80% of my playtime. Wow that is a huge, huge buzzkill.....what a disappointment.
Click to expand...

That's too many players for rush. The attackers will never, ever get the mcoms (especially now since they can't take damage).
 
As long as there is cover and enough space, it could work. :( And I'm stubbornly going to hold that view no matter how much evidence and logic you throw my way!
 
TwistedAegis said:
As long as there is cover and enough space, it could work. :( And I'm stubbornly going to hold that view no matter how much evidence and logic you throw my way!
Click to expand...

:::grabs TwistedAegis by the arms and violently shakes him:::

Rush team #'s should be no more then 1 squad vs. another squad.
 
Try this. In a bc2 32 man server, tell all but 3 people on your side to let you attack against the entire other team and see how it feels. lol

I agree it would be funny. Just no fun for the offensive side.
 
Well there are some options I guess you could do to tweak the mode to allow it work.

1) Give the offense side more vehicles, faster vehicle respawn
2) Move the defense spawns further away from the mcom, perhaps even have it dynamically move further back with each mcom you destroy in a given phase
3) Not requiring every mcom to be destroyed per phase
4) map restructuring on the defense side so they are more open to getting hit with "artillery" type fire from offense vehicles, more vulnerable to snipers
5) restructure the areas around mcoms so it is more open from the offensive side (defense can't camp in the area/easier to clear) while more closed from the defensive side. Basically you defend against access to the mcom, versus just packing the area around the mcom

Just some random possibilities
 
Why not add 1-2 more mcoms? On a bigger map, with cover, I don't see how it couldn't be made to work with 32 instead of 16.
 
I also don't think 64 player rush is a good idea, because often you have everyone in the same small area, unlike in conquest where everyone is usually spread out.
 
64 player rush would cause tons of people to rage, oh man I could see it now.

you would be able to point whore like crazy dropping ammo/med kits on defense. each game would stalemate especially since mcom's don't take damage anymore.
 
Everyone is stuck on seeing 64 plopped down into Rush exactly how it is in BC2 - but why would it have to be that way? You could spread it out much more, you could swap things around a bit, get creative. Seperate the two mcoms quite a bit, so the defending team has to be sure to be balanced defensively, or the attackers could just overwhelm a single mcom. As someone else suggested, make capturing only a single mcom advance the map, etc.

I just really like the more fixed nature of rush - capturing an objective and it's done. Sometimes Conquest just feels like chasing your tail and pointless; I get much more satisfaction out of capping or defending an mcom than re-capping a flag for the umpteenth time.
 
They tested in with 64 players internally. It wasn't fun. This was in the thread a long time ago, so if you want a link search this thread.
 
64 player Rush just sounds dumb. Glad they didn't just toss it in , keep it smaller and more focused.

Conquest is the meat and potatoes for me though.
 
Godmachine said:
64 player Rush just sounds dumb. Glad they didn't just toss it in , keep it smaller and more focused.
Click to expand...

And what do you have to lose if 64-player Rush were included? Nothing. Just because the you don't like it doesn't mean that others won't.
 
I guess one impact is you won't have mixed mode 64 player servers.

I know in BC2 it did add some variety just being able to stay on one server yet getting a mix of conquest and rush.

You'll either have to manually server hop to change modes, or I guess stay with 32 player conquest (if that works even).
 
spaceman said:
It could all be done. If only we could mod the game....

Sign the petition. No need to donate if you don't want to. I think it goes to a team of nasties who will force the issue? Not sure.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bf3modtools/
Click to expand...

Interesting Read

defiant007 said:
Read and learn:

http://www.battlefieldnexus.com/ind...upport-and-dice-–-setting-a-myth-straight-r33
Click to expand...

Mod tools? Don't count on it. I think they just need to open up the files and the people will do the rest.
Asking for mod tools will only increase their cost and may not show up until late next year anyway, after all the DLC is released.

Everything is worth a try, but focus efforts on things that has a possibility of happening i.e. Mod Support.
I'll sign it for mod support.
 
Man i can't believe they aren't doing a 64 player rush, that sucks i was totally waiting for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top