Evolved1
make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
Rush is the only mode worth playing. If they nerfed some of this lock-on shit and added attack choppers on a couple more maps, it'd be almost BC2 levels of fun.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Battlefield 4 |OT2| Is it fixed yet?
- Thread starter Overdoziz
- Start date
Rush is the only mode worth playing. If they nerfed some of this lock-on shit and added attack choppers on a couple more maps, it'd be almost BC2 levels of fun.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Conquest is the only mode worth playing. Any game modes that don't use 64 players aren't worth my time. The maps suck for Rush too.
SG-17 said:
You obviously haven't played with Faceless and I where we took a Humvee, crossed the out-of-bounds over the hill of Arica. Slammed into a wall, rushed to the roof of second set A and did 24 C4 with no issue outside of taking out defenders that may or may not have seen us.
The C4 bled through walls so you could still do 24 C4 damage with no need to worry about your life because the C4 would take out defenders in the rooms that it could bleed through as well.
That's not to mention that AT mines couldn't be "defused" WITHOUT doing objective harm to the crates as defense.
Shit was stupid. It wasn't ever the intention of the mode to be "Objective Harm: The game" and I'm glad DICE came to the sense of making an "attacker lopsided" mode into a "defender" mode. The PROBLEM, once again: DICE doesn't do map design for the mode. They've been doing Conquest-first map design since BF3 and it shows in regards to Rush sets and not giving reasonable flanking routes or "out-of-bounds antics" to at least give the attackers the ability to FLANK unless they Rush hard and Rush fast toward the back of the defenses spawn to spawn trap the defenders.
Edit: Also Grenades were NEVER an issue for Rush because they weren't able to be "sniped" or "persisted after death" traps. Rockets being able to collapse buildings onto the crates for instant-taking, sniping from your attacking spawn at open-air crates that weren't covered (INCLUDING TANK SNIPING) in addition to AT Mines persisting after death to where people couldn't take them out AND C4 bleed were the issues.
lostsupper
Banned
Damn straight. Conquest is disorganized clusterfuckery for ADHD children.
Also, signing on.
Evolved1
make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
Except this time there is the possibility it involves actions within the game.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Conquest is open and fluid while Rush is stale and rigid, perfect for stodgy crusty old men though.
But you didn't. At least not all of them. People used to hang back and tank snipe from near the first set to the second, third and even fourth. It was silly. I agree in theory that if a team was so oblivious as to not notice people sneaking in and using C4 (you would get alerts that the crates were being damaged) that they deserved to lose, but on the whole the game is better off with that stuff gone.
The trouble with rush now has to do with map design, not crate damage. Seks and I actually agree on something here. We've gone from having wide open space with room to flank and maneuver (a few chokepoints thrown in here and there) to confined shooting galleries. Posted this before, but:
Then:
If it existed in BF3/4:
It's not unplayable or anything as is, but it's not nearly as fun as it used to be. Feels like Oblit has surpassed it as the #2 mode.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Maybe if the maps were at the same level of BC2 and designed with 64 players in mind I'd actually enjoy Rush. But as it stands now, all I've experienced with Rush in BF3/4 is either a complete pushover enemy team or a total meatgrinder. The game basically points you at the enemy and tells you to run straight. It's pointless. Without the ability to damage crates, the meatgrinder becomes a loss in minutes.
If the maps were good, maybe I'd enjoy it. But as it stands now I only like Conquest and Carrier Assault in BF4. CTF was good until they cut the playercount.
If the maps were good, maybe I'd enjoy it. But as it stands now I only like Conquest and Carrier Assault in BF4. CTF was good until they cut the playercount.
SolidSnakeUS
Member
I think why Rush was so good in BC2 was because they weren't trying to design every map for every mode. Some were only Rush, some were only Conquest and it was perfectly fine. Arica Harbor just did amazingly well. Isla Inocentes was an amazing Rush map. So, so so well made. So many fun different kinds of gameplay types involved. Snipers, rushers, tanks, water works, mortars and all kinds of defending points. BC2 made Rush fun as shit. I couldn't care less about Rush in BF3 and 4.
SharpAttorney
Neo Member
No, if the person being healed is suppressed, they won't heal.
Kane Zakharov
Banned
I think you have to play at least a match for the service star battlepacks to show up, that's how I managed to get mine.
Does it? That'd be pretty interesting than the standard ARG.
That's what I was saying to Kane two days ago. DICE during BC2 said "Panama will never be Rush" (despite me thinking it could work, but I'd have to see what/where they'd put the sets for the map) and it was a Conquest-only map. Same for a few others like IIRC Heavy Metal which they moved from the single-player.
I'm not against that. But apparently making maps over and over and over on Frostbite is an ordeal (it's why we don't get "simple ports" from the previous outing) for DICE. Which begs the question: Why are they redoing their entire pipeline/developer tools over and over and over per reiteration? Surely they shouldn't have to do that. But IANAD so I dunno.
As it is, if they're going to shoe-horn modes into maps, I'd honestly rather they'd nail the Rush map design first and then expand from 2-3 flags (pref. not in a straight line) with 2-4 more flags outward from the "Rush" map linarity into a Conquest map.
(Pref. I'd like Rush to be slightly less a "line." Look toward Bad Company 1 in terms of Rush map design but pref. a little less hilly if we're keeping the TTK low)
If you're under ANY suppression (even 0.01%, minor blackness) the medicbag WILL NOT heal. It's a total bullshit move to appease CTE whiners that can't throw a grenade or shoot a medicbag to stop healing. :/ It's basically frustrating most everyone besides like 1% of CTE tester/feedbackers. :/
Can't be as bad as me yesterday. I was bad and I played the maps during Alpha/Beta in CTE.
Granted on Conquest and not Rush but still
Evolved1
make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
The game feels a bit different on PS4 since the patch,,, but I can't really blame that. I was just bad.
the first time i play on curent gen i get thrown a fucking dumbass update.
the medbag nerf is so fucking stupid, it makes the assault class almost wothless, ffs DICE.
also, nice to see my luck in getting on moronic teams hasn't changed on the ps4, 4 loss streak at the start, lol.
the medbag nerf is so fucking stupid, it makes the assault class almost wothless, ffs DICE.
also, nice to see my luck in getting on moronic teams hasn't changed on the ps4, 4 loss streak at the start, lol.
They changed the netcode. (<---Battle(non)sense video BTW for those of you that want to click) Some people are saying it's improved for them. But for me, it's just made hit registration and player positioning worse (at least it isn't performing terribly like Dragon's Teeth did for me on PC), so I dunno. DICE-LA/T1gge and CTE are apparently going to look into it. But if CTE's medibag changes are an indication of them "fixing things" I don't have much faith on it. :/
David___ said:
Out of ammo? Possible bug. It shouldn't prevent you from charging otherwise?
Nope. Always pick it up from the spawn. Only fired it twice ever, both by complete accident.
It is, when DICE gets it right. Conquest gets boring after a bit when it's musical flags until you cap the entire map and then sit at the enemy spawn to spawn camp them. :/ --Which, to be fair, the converse also happens in Rush depending on team make up.--
That said, I'm honestly surprised by how well Sabotage plays in Battlefield. Then again I guess I shouldn't be since it's a sandbox shooter, but it scales well with Conquest (unlike Rush) from 8/16/24/32 to 64 players.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
I haven't played a permadeath mode in full since the old SOCOM days. I've attempted to play SnD in COD a few times, it did not go well. I've never played a single round of Defuse in BF4.
So, I bought it for the PS3 (yeah yeah, I know, sorry for not having a PS4/XBO/Good PC) and it seems that in this version, defending MCOMS in Rush is downright impossible.
When I'm in defense, matches are almost instant because the stations get destroyed instantly, and when attacking, it's ridiculously easy to win.
I dunno, was playing BF3 a week ago and the community is still good in there, had some fun matches (in Metro, of all places) but Rush in BF4 is something I'm not really liking right now.
When I'm in defense, matches are almost instant because the stations get destroyed instantly, and when attacking, it's ridiculously easy to win.
I dunno, was playing BF3 a week ago and the community is still good in there, had some fun matches (in Metro, of all places) but Rush in BF4 is something I'm not really liking right now.
Kane Zakharov
Banned
Conquest has always been the defining mode for mainline Battlefield games. Rush mode doesn't utilize the strengths of the franchise nearly as well as Conquest does.
BF4 is focused very heavily on 64 player Conquest (which is to be expected since it's a mainline BF game), almost every other mode feels like an afterthought except for maybe Oblit on some maps.
BF4 is focused very heavily on 64 player Conquest (which is to be expected since it's a mainline BF game), almost every other mode feels like an afterthought except for maybe Oblit on some maps.
And when was the last time DICE got Defuse (since apparently we call modes whatever we like, now) right? BC2? When the game was limited to 24 players, and maps were made based around it. Sure.
I sometimes feel I even felt that way because I didn't give Territories an honest time back then. After playing Domination (since BF3, with 64 players), Defuse stopped making sense to me. Why play a limited mode of the true battlefield experience? Vehicles are limited, pathways are limited, maps are limited. That isn't battlefield, man. Who are you kidding? Rush isn't real battlefield. It's okay if you like it, though, just don't come in and say it's the only way to play. I don't even know why I bothered to respond.
Hot Potato is way better than Defuse.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
I don't really understand your post. In Battlefield 4 Defuse is that no-respawn mode that is basically Search and Destroy from Call of Duty pasted into Battlefield. I assumed that was what Seks was talking about when he was saying Sabotage. I don't think anyone actually plays it, but it is there.
Capture the Flag on Oman and Caspian before they reduced the playercount from 64 to 32 was my go-to mode after Conquest, but I still don't understand why they had to fucking cut the playercount.
Even my second favorite mode, Carrier Assault doesn't match up to 64p Conquest. It gets close, but the way they laid out the flags on the maps is a bit odd. I don't understand why they couldn't just have used the Conquest 64 layout.
Capture the Flag on Oman and Caspian before they reduced the playercount from 64 to 32 was my go-to mode after Conquest, but I still don't understand why they had to fucking cut the playercount.
True story, I forgot that mode existed in BF. Defuse = counter strike aka plant bombs. It was on purpose, mocking how Seks names stuff however he wants.
Not when Hot Potato is 3 Potatoes in a line and then you spawn trap for 1000 dishes, no. Granted, they added more Potatoes in BF3 and 4 to make a stew. But the stew was ruined with too much pepper instead of making broth
Ticket bleed after all flags are capped literally ends the mode in two seconds
DICE limited Rush in BC2 to a line. Blame them for doing that when Rush was the focus of Bad Company 1 to the point that Bad Company 1 did not launch with Conquest. The maps in BC1 Rush were FAR more open. If you haven't played it and you still have your PS3 (and there is a community still playing it) I suggest you pick up a cheap copy at Gamestop and give it a whirl. While the maps still had a "linear" progression, the routes weren't "straight forward always" and the maps actually allowed flanking for 24 players.
In fact, PC players that complain about how "32 players is barren" shouldn't look at how BC1's more open maps for Rush AND Conquest were probably WAYYYYY more barren than BC2/BF3 and 4's map design for both alone.
The problem with BC1 though? Slot-machine damage for the guns. I could fire 5 bullets at the same person at different times and get anywhere form 65 to 85 or even a kill at full 100% from the same gun because of it.
It never will be at this rate. At this point you're better off praying it doesn't happen then waiting for DICE to fix. :/
The Faceless Master
Member
nope. you could tank snipe every single objective except one on the 2nd set that got moved from the collapsible building to the garage.
This. You could "tank snipe" set 2, set 3 completely. You could <Destruction 2.0> B on set 2. You could even "Jihad quad/Humvee" (granted the hill of first set would sometimes "clip" the vehicles and cause the C4 to auto-explode/EPIC FAIL) the entire map UP UNTIL SET 4. Because C4 would bleed through cover that was supposed to protect the sets and objective harm.
6 C4 was the only thing needed to collapse a building on a crate in Rush on Bad Company 2.
The defenders couldn't do shit about it. Oh you destroyed the foundation of a building holding the crate. YOU WIN!
It's why I'm glad DICE had the common sense to actually remove objective harm and <D 2.0> doesn't instant-take the crate now. The building will collapse but the collapse protects the crate for defenders while being harder for attackers. The major problem is... once again: DICE didn't design for the mode in mind and expand maps from that (or even make maps for modes separately. I mean, hey, would work to get some people to play other modes if they want to try the other maps. Did for Faceless in BC2).
In other news:
CTE said:
Not sure how I feel about this even if it's the competitive version of Sabotage. Means the area around the hotel is gonna have a bit more cover (good) but getting through the area quickly with the humvee/jeep is gonna be a bit of a bitch (bad).
Speaking of Competitive Sabo: Why the fuck is 80% of the map unused!? This was also something I was discussing with Kane a few days ago. DICE has this big huge map, slaps a competitive mode in, adds ATVs so the bomb carrier can get to the crates quickly while trying to make it "infantry focused" but leaves a huge fucking map with no crates to exploit the huge map.
They might as well make the regular map out-of-bounds outside of like the city area they designed the three crates per team to be in. More proof that more modes and more shoe-horning doesn't equal a good thing, DICE.
The Faceless Master
Member
3 C4 with explosive spec to take out a building iirc. just had to place them properly to take out enough panels. D2.0 on objectives wasn't so good, but objective damage, especially after they doubled it, was great. meant you really had to work at it to actually destroy it.
It was still six, wasn't it? 2 on the "middle" foundation that ran across the first floor. Four in the corners. If not that maybe one or two less if you put a C4 under the "corner" landing of the stairs to blow the "four corners" and the foundation to trigger the collapse.
Objective Damage was always meant to be a side-goal and had good intentions, sure. But when the majority of rounds were played where people were rocket/tank-sniping and going no where near the objective because hey, why waste tickets to play the mode? It was a bad thing. Raising the "damage-to-kill time" didn't really solve the issue. It just showed the issue was a problem that DICE didn't intend for it to be.
You could Rocket Snipe/AT4 and Tank Snipe about 80-90% of the crates in Bad Company 2 Rush depending on your position and how good you were with the AT4 (given the projectile would disappear after a certain distance so you had to pre-cog it trajectory with the box and know where it was in relative space 24/7). Adding a few more rockets just meant you had to waste maybe one or two more tickets depending on how good your aim was and depending on if the defense was a complete dunce to not at least attempt to stop you.
The only two you couldn't was redesigned A last set White Pass (after it was a <D 2.0>) and Last set B (since it was behind indestructible cover, oh hey Dream!) Nelson Bay.
Edit2: But let's be fair: When the maps could be made to look like the surface of the moon and to where people couldn't push up because they ran into no-man lands (oh hey, BF4 design!) where the defense could see them coming because of the linear map design + destructible trees? I can't blame the attackers for being forced to go that route.
Edit: And actually thinking on it. Set 2 wasn't fully a complete tank-snipe on Arica. B could be taken via <D 2.0> with the tank (or a UAV!) collapsing the building but the tank can't hit the bleed-through wall or Roof of A. It could if it pushed up into the "town" but not from afar.
Set 3, meanwhile. A could be tank sniped (despite the indestructible bus supposed to prevent that) and B on the train car could. Set four (further down the train line) could as well depending on player position (and could AT4 snipe B in the building if you were good with the AT4 at long distances, I guess).
Last set/5 was the one where all that stopped because they added a few indestructible panels in the construction area for A/B. IIRC.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
I never experienced this C4 bleeding effect to my knowledge on the PS3 when I played BC2.
The Faceless Master
Member
you may not have noticed, but it would be virtually impossible to not experience it. C4 did area effect damage to objectives. thru walls, thru floors, thru ceilings, as long as it's within the blast radius.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Yeah once they doubled it, it worked great. It encouraged defenders to push out a little rather than just dig in. In BF4 with prone and bipods encouraging digging in anyways, they really could have used a push the other way. The set-up of rush in BF4 is just terrible all round though, that one change wouldn't fix it.
Exactly. If only we had your capture card back in that day. You could C4 bleed second set A Arica by the "side road" of the main road "north" (defense) of A and over the roof.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rQ6IA1Kbn4 <---This is what Faceless and I are talking about, SG. You could place C4 right over the roof of the crates at times and "bleed through" to hit them/damage them while killing the defense that couldn't see you.
That wall he runs past (on the left) to go up to the roof that is where A is? You could also hit the crate from there if you and a bunch of people were needing to do that (or even slam the Humvee there a la Jihad Jeep's).
Shit was fucking broken and people NEVER went for arming the objectives which should always be the main point of the mode. People should have to break through lines to get to the crates. But they never did because, hey... why but the tickets when we can remotely reach them with UAV/AT4/Tanks or attempt to Rush with Jihad Jeeps or if we REALLY reach it troll with AT mines (that persist beyond death to where Engineers couldn't take them out [good change by DICE in BF3/4]) or C4 through areas or collapsing the building?
Defense had very little they could do beyond "make no man lands" to actually stop the onslaught of damage that attackers had to their advantage in BC2.