Pages: 1 … 237 238 239 240 241 … 683
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 3 »
- Battlefield 3 - Main Thread
I heard September 8th
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
do alpha ppl also get access tot the beta?
From what I understand you only get the beta if you own medal of honor or used Origin to pre-order BF3menzo wrote:
do alpha ppl also get access tot the beta?
anyone who pre-ordered I think
Everyone gets in the beta. Those people just get 2 days early access.Roc18 wrote:
From what I understand you only get the beta if you own medal of honor or used Origin to pre-order BF3menzo wrote:
do alpha ppl also get access tot the beta?
Oh yeah that's right lol.TravisC555 wrote:
Everyone gets in the beta. Those people just get 2 days early access.Roc18 wrote:
From what I understand you only get the beta if you own medal of honor or used Origin to pre-order BF3menzo wrote:
do alpha ppl also get access tot the beta?
give us another awful rush map for the beta 1 time?
>Rushgurdeep wrote:
give us another awful rush map for the beta 1 time?
>good
Pick one
But seriously rush can be a good game mode if it's done on the right maps. Like if Strike at Karkand has a rush mode in BF3 i can see it working pretty well on a map like that. In BC2 Most of the rush maps were these huge tank maps i.e Arica Harbor, that were boring as hell especially with 32 players. There's probably like 1-2 rush maps I like playing in BC2.
Arica Harbor was great.
Conquest yes it's my favorite infantry map. Rush hell no; it turns into a huge ass tank map that's boring as hell.Vilham wrote:
Arica Harbor was great.
Last edited by Roc18 (2011-09-02 07:33:07)
why havent we played that one yet huh
HUH
HUH
I guess thats on PC. On PS3 its fine, its a mainly infantry map with only 1 tank after the first base.
it will probably caspian border and metro. as that are the 2 maps featured in events
We played arica harbor a bunch of times, its that desert infantry map. In rush mode the map turns into thisgurdeep wrote:
why havent we played that one yet huh
HUH
Is metro any good btw? Because looking at play through videos it doesn't look very good.
They reeeeally should've made the last Arica rush zone into a conquest map. It'd be a lot better than the current one where one team sits perched on the hill with sniper rifles.
Last edited by bugz (2011-09-02 07:40:02)
the only infantry we played was the snow one and oasisRoc18 wrote:
We played arica harbor a bunch of times, its that desert infantry map. In rush mode the map turns into thisgurdeep wrote:
why havent we played that one yet huh
HUH
o nvm im dumb
I'd say laguna presa rush and Valparaíso rush are the only 2 rush maps I can stand.
wot. Rush > Conquest. Conquest just ends up with people scattered all over the map. Conquest only works well either on very small maps with no vechicles or very large open maps with vechicles.
Arent those the only 2 types of maps basically? Rush isn't that great to me because the 2 objectives are always right next to each other which usually ends up in some type of bottleneck situation where everyone defending is forced to camp the objective and everyone attacking has to run straight towards them, with no where to flank like you can do in conquest.Vilham wrote:
wot. Rush > Conquest. Conquest just ends up with people scattered all over the map. Conquest only works well either on very small maps with no vechicles or very large open maps with vechicles.
thisRoc18 wrote:
Arent those the only 2 types of maps basically? Rush isn't that great to me because the 2 objectives are always right next to each other which usually ends up in some type of bottleneck situation where everyone defending is forced to camp the objective and everyone attacking has to run straight towards them, with no where to flank like you can do in conquest.Vilham wrote:
wot. Rush > Conquest. Conquest just ends up with people scattered all over the map. Conquest only works well either on very small maps with no vechicles or very large open maps with vechicles.
Rush sucks mad balls, better suited for CoD and not Battlefield.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
I never really liked rush mode myself. Only having 2 objectives so close together makes it difficult for the attackers - no matter how large the playing area is, or how far around the attackers can flank, the defending team will always know their destination: M-COM A or B.
In conquest, there are 3 or 4 (or up to 8 in BF2) destinations spread about the map that the other team can head to. It breaks up the enemy forces, having to defend on multiple fronts, making it easier to capture the flags.
IMO the better game type is the one where you aren't forced to run into the sights of a dozen waiting enemy guns and launchers.
In conquest, there are 3 or 4 (or up to 8 in BF2) destinations spread about the map that the other team can head to. It breaks up the enemy forces, having to defend on multiple fronts, making it easier to capture the flags.
IMO the better game type is the one where you aren't forced to run into the sights of a dozen waiting enemy guns and launchers.
Also squad deathmatch ... great funRoc18 wrote:
Arent those the only 2 types of maps basically? Rush isn't that great to me because the 2 objectives are always right next to each other which usually ends up in some type of bottleneck situation where everyone defending is forced to camp the objective and everyone attacking has to run straight towards them, with no where to flank like you can do in conquest.Vilham wrote:
wot. Rush > Conquest. Conquest just ends up with people scattered all over the map. Conquest only works well either on very small maps with no vechicles or very large open maps with vechicles.
Pages: 1 … 237 238 239 240 241 … 683
- Index »
- Games »
- Battlefield Series »
- Battlefield 3 »
- Battlefield 3 - Main Thread