eaeb4

In BF3/4/H massive buildings in Urban settings often were used as big dividers. Due to the architecture used in WW1 and WW2 times, we don't have too much of this right now.

It's almost the opposite sentiment to what you're saying here (and not Rush focussed), but I hope with future maps (I'm hoping for something along the lines of Stalingrad/Berlin) we get big buildings that are actually combat areas with lots of verticality and not just big dividers. I'm always quite disappointed when I see maps promoted with big centrepiece buildings (white house/cathedral on rotterdam) but they're either not often used for combat or they play just like a normal portion of the map with no verticality. If we can get fighting in big apartment complexes or multistory factories in late-war urban maps, I'll be very happy.

Fun fact: Early during development we experimented with having a second level in the Devastation Cathedral. About 10m high on sides. Kinda like balconies. You can find those in some cathedrals. We really tried hard, but it ended up hurting the gameplay. Sniper and MMG players would camp up there and rain bullets into the lanes. So we decided against it. I still like the idea though. Maybe in another map one day.

captaindealbreaker

The first iteration of Rush for BFV offered the attacking team more flexibility, especially on Devastation. Being able to skirt around the permiter of the map and enter the objective areas from the defender's spawn area, while overpowered the way it was, is a VERY useful tactic. Removing those flanking routes with the updated layouts removed a key aspect of the mode that gives attackers a chance against deeply entrenched defenders.

Bringing back some of those flanking routes would be really appreciated. As a player that expects to do stuff like that with more freedom, it's frustrating that my options are generally limited to "charge the frontline and don't die."

I think we went to far and removed a bit too much flanking on Devastation. Any other areas you feel like need adjustment?

leefyg

I wonder how Rush would play on Marita. Attacking/defending the lanes in the mountain area around the bridge and cliff (C and D on Conquest) seem like they'd be really interesting compared to a lot of the other maps where everything is more open, even if there's cover.

I feel like previous titles had more areas like this where there was impassable terrain between areas of playable map, which feels like a different type of flanking than just going along a different wall, house or running the edges of a map.

I'm trying to think if any areas are similar - maybe pathways in Fjell 652 but those are more narrow and aren't parallel to each other. It can be pretty fun on Breakthrough sector 2.

It's true. In BF3/4/H massive buildings in Urban settings often were used as big dividers. Due to the architecture used in WW1 and WW2 times, we don't have too much of this right now. Probably something that we would see return if we ever go more modern again.

ArtooFeva

Probably because it wasn’t built as a launch mode and want to make it better. On top of that Rush sucked in BF4 and BF1. Every map favored defenders giving them both favorable positions and high ground to rain death on attackers. Many of the maps were also so open that it was impossible le to successfully flank around.

BFV has got to have the most balanced Rush I’ve played since BF3. I haven’t felt balance like this for the mode in years.

Very much yeah. Rush was on a decline in terms of popularity, I know the Reddit memes like to point out that Rush was a staple of the franchise and is time exclusive now, but the reality is that this mostly happens because most of the people wouldn't play it. The lack of interest in it during BF1 and the popularity of Grand Operations was the reason why Rush wasn't part of the launch offering. Currently we are trying to revive that interest and popularity to bring it back as this corner stone of Battlefield.

IIIIDANNYIIII

What's up guys.

I really enjoyed Rush in this last rotation, save from a single detail which was the tanks on Twisted Steel. The attackers tank, if it wasn't destroyed before the gameplay moved closer to the river, had sort of a safe area in other sectors, and was able to sit behind the river bank picking apart the defences. Due to the distance he had between himself and the line of actual combat he was often really difficult to take out, even when a bunch of team members worked together.

I was in a couple of games where attacking tanks got 50-60 kills easy, without really being threttened at any point.

I guess a V1 would take care of that, but at the same time we don't want to rely on that alone, right?

Haven't seen anything similar on Narvik, for instance. While the attacking tank did have some cover there, if he's not careful or if the defending team focuses fire he can be taken down.

Also, I would prefer if some objectives were spread out more side on the X axis if that makes sense. Right now they seem to be in a very narrow line behind each other, which makes attacking somewhat less tactical, as it's very difficult going for B when A is still not destroyed.

So you would like to see some more anti tank structures and field guns in later sectors to deal with the threat. I think that's something we can explore. :)

Panogan

I hate that pak on the bridge too

You might like to hear that the field gun will be gone in the future. It was mostly used against infantry which wasn't the intend here. First sectors are not meant to last too long. Sectors should get progressively more difficult. So yeah, I something can be done on all of them. Thanks for the input! :)

hotdogswithphil

I miss being able to call in artillery from the Mcoms. I understand it was removed because sector artillery is a squad reinforcement, but in my experience, it's quite rare to get enough points while defending to use it.

Hmmm, last time the feedback was to remove it.

What did it do for you that is missing now? The chance that it would kill people was rather rare. Just trying to understand the underlying issue here. :)

Fuchsberger

When placing the objectives next to each other the teams, especially the defending one is forced to split up in order to defend both objectives.

With the current system where some objectives are in front of each other, the defending team only has to defend the first in line and block off the path to the second. Therefore the attackers have a hard time.

Furthermore some matches and even following are pretty one sided, so a need of in between round balancing is very important for this gamemode.

As you can imagine, not all maps offer enough options to put them next to each other. Would you think it's okay to instead offer more flanking routes in such sectors?

kanunt

Yeah I was thinking of Damavand Peak, and they are all side by side or very slightly staggered. u/partwelsh might need to do some research?

Also really close to each other I think as well? might be something to look at.

Yes and no. You are right that they were rarely behind each other and rather more in a diagonal line. Probably something that I can look into again, but there were cases of them being behind each other (Grand Bazar, Kharg Island, Noshar Canals).

Sometimes putting them behind each other allows us to use the map in a better way though. Do you think it would be good to offer more flanking routes in sectors where we have to do that?

3ebfan

I feel like for Rush to be successful - you need push all of your chips in with the maps. Experiences like jumping off that cliff in Davamond Peak Battlefield 3 were what made the mode in previous games great. The maps were built for it.

Rush needs more than 3 maps at a time. It just feels half-baked playing a timed game mode that only feature 3 maps.

Also, off-topic but I’m not a huge fan of timed game-modes intermixed with Tides of War because it forces me to play the game in a way that I don’t want to. I should be able to advance my Tides of War progress by playing any mode whether it’s Rush or Firestorm or Conquest.

We obviously hear this a lot. Make maps for specific gamemodes and we totally get the idea behind that, but at the same time everyone wants more maps. Currently, we rate the second request higher which means that we try to expand gamemodes on all kinds of maps. Take Damavand Peak as you mentioned. Everyone remembers it as this amazing Rush map, but not many mention it as a great CQ setup. Sometimes it's hard to strike the balance as you can imagine.

None the less we are adapting the somewhat tho. Currently we only to offer certain experiences on maps where we believe we can deliver full on gameplay quality. Meaning that going forward not every map will necessarily feature every secondary mode. This way the overall quality will improve. :)

breaktimehero

I see a lot of folks upset over tanks but I don't feel like tanks are really the issue. I personally really enjoy using them in RUSH and at some points it does feel slightly OP but a good balance would be to add a few more areas where supports can build AT guns. This would do a pretty good job at area denial for the tanks and cause the player to stay on their toes when advancing.

Totally something I can look into. Do you have any sectors in particular in mind?

And yes, I agree that tanks can be in Rush. We only want them in sectors where they can have good lanes to move around in. So we won't see them in every map/sector, but yeah, tanks are a pillar of BF and we want them to be included in this experience when possible.

cr3amy

My suggestions for Rush:

Overhaul The Ticket System
The Problem: Total tickets are low, so the system relies on refilling the tickets after attackers complete a sector, while also leaning heavily on the 'comeback code'
Proposed solution:

1. More tickets
2. Drastically reduce minimum tickets after taking sector
3. More chances to earn extra tickets after taking sector
4. Tone down the comeback code (or remove entirely //crosses fingers//)
   

Why is this better? It's odd to have low tickets and strong comeback code... it feels like an artificial way to juice up the intensity, so it doesn't actually hit. It's also incredibly demoralizing to be kicking ass on defense, about to win, they complete one sector and now they have 75 tickets + a huge bonus for every kill. Nobody wants to be pubstomped, but it should be okay to lose.

Vehicles
Tanks: Tanks can be overpowered and annoying to deal with in 16v16. Could be alleviated by limiting the types of tanks per map and/or somehow getting rid of them after the appropriate Sector
Transports: Need more

Artilery
Call-ins are OP: Bombs are too effective for too wide of an area for Rush... maybe make them cheaper for attackers, but a smaller AOE. Smoke is top-tier in Rush... its effects are too obscuring for too wide of an area for way too long... maybe make them cheaper but shorter duration
Call-ins too expensive: It can take too long to earn a call-in in the first sectors. Then sometimes it can take too long to earn a second call-in for later sectors. This is especially frustrating when your first call-in wasn't very effective, then you desperately need one in the final sector, but you're stuck in your refractory period. Potential solutions above... make them less effective and cheaper

Map/Sector Updates
Twisted Steel Sector 1: I've held attackers inside the village on probably more than half of my Defensive rounds. It's very difficult to play as attack because: long distance, no cover, not many options for hiding a spawn beacon, defense has high ground, defense has less distance to run from HQ, defense has easy access to supplies, defense has many spots to hide spawn beacons
Twisted Steel Final Sector: I don't think I've ever lost here as attack because the sector is so wide, I can just run far right, back-cap the bomb behind the defense, and plant a spawn beacon in the creek. This is really cool and fun in general, but it's pretty anticlimactic for a final sector... this is more appropriate in a middle sector
Narvik is great: I don't even like Narvik in general, but it's pretty great in Rush. My only note is that the first 3 sectors are generally too easy for attackers. Every (or almost every) victory of mine on defense came from the final sector
Devastation Sector 1: I enjoy attacking on this map, but I feel many teams struggle getting past the campfest. So much verticality in this area, but both bombs are on the same level. The bomb near the windows (A?) is too exposed... decent defenders can cover both bombs from the back area. Could probably benefit from adding another path to the top floor, but make it a high risk, high reward setup
Devastation Final Sector: I don't think I've ever lost as attacker or won on defense in this sector. HQ spawns are very far away from the bombs, but there's a lot of space between attacker HQ and the bomb sites that stops being useful to defenders VERY quickly, so it feels unbalanced in attackers' favor. This feels like a sector that should be tighter... bring all the spawns closer and get rid of the attack route near the elevated train tracks
IMPORTANT CAVEAT: Some of these notes may be unnecessary in conjunction with my other ideas... they might swing the pendulum too far the other way. Examples: Devastation Final Sector could be totally fine if the attacker tickets were limited by my ticketing system overhaul, Twisted Steel Sector 1 could be totally fine if attackers have troop transports or could call in smoke more often

Woah, some extensive feedback. I love it!

Tickets: So you basically want the Breakthrough ticket system, right?

Vehicles: I think we can look into adding more field guns to the maps.

Artillery: Interesting. I think it will be hard to adjust those just for a single gamemode, but I will bring it up with the team.

Map/Sector updates:

• Twisted Steel - I made similar observations. Especially for the first sector. First sectors are meant to be taken by attackers most of the time. So there is definitely room for adjustments.
• Narvik - Yeah, the 3rd sector seems to be really easy to take. Will have a look on how to make this a bit more exciting.
• Devastation - The first sector is definitely a bit too hard as well. Will have a look.

Really good feedback. Thanks a lot for putting in the work. <3

rhelslootgames

What about vaulting Grand Operations and keep Rush so you guys can work on Grand Operations!

We haven't forgotten Grand Operations. :)

FloridaIsHell

Its probably too late for this but the biggest thing for me was that back when Rush was at its peak the maps were DESIGNED for it. It feels like the maps were not designed around game modes but more to be a kack of all trades and master of none. Remember base jumping to the next objective in BF3? That was how it was done.

Only in BC1 and 2 maps were made with one specific map in mind. After that we took the approach to prioritize certain modes per map but offer all or most of them. You can kinda see that across the titles.

• Damavand Peak has a Rush focus and isn't much remembered for CQ.
• Caspian Border has a CQ focus but little Rush focus.
• Fort De Vaux a map I worked on has a CQ focus and less focus on Operations (Breakthrough).
• Yet Monte Grappa was more focused around Operations and CQ came secondary.
• Arras focuses around CQ where Narvik tries to work a lot with the sector setup of Breakthrough.

Reality is that everyone wants more maps. So when we make X amount of maps, we feel like the player would miss out of only half of those X maps are playable on CQ and half of them are playable on whatever other mode we decide to. Do you feel like it would be better to only have half of the maps playable in one mode?

userename

Exactly this. Pak40 should not be able to shoot directly at attackers spawn and at resupply station

The Pak40 will be gone next time around. :)

Where do you think tanks are missing right now? Obviously, some maps like Devastation are not really made to allow good tank gameplay.

6StringAddict

That was my go-to route whenever I played that map. I was sad it wasn't possible anymore.

Removing that Devastation route was a mistake by me. Will fix. :)

mi6300m

I appreciated just having the game mode back it was a welcomed change. I do like the changes to arming and disarming the M-Coms. Just overall making more like Battlefield 3's rush settings was amazing!

What I would like to to have more of the atmospheric events like when playing Rush on Operation Metro...the giant explosion to open up the Subway tunnels. Battlefield V needs something like that!

What if on say Marita...the castle that's on fire begins crumbling down on the map with large spectacular debris. Or a plane were to fly into the castle to cause this? Just it needs more...life!

I like the idea. Such things are normally hard to add in hindsight, but maybe something we can apply to levels going forward.

I don't think we are ready to go back to full blown Levelution anytime soon, but that doesn't mean we couldn't add smaller events in the backdrop. Will definitely bring it up with the team. :)

[deleted]

[deleted]

Rush compared to Breakthrough is meant to be a bit more of a break through (funny cause the names are swapped) compared to an out-smart/flank kinda kinda mode. Having that said, I agree that some areas need a bit more space (looking at you first Devastation sector).

Where do you guys think more space is needed? Feedback last time around was that the maps are too wide. So would be interesting to know where the middle ground of those conflicting feedbacks it.

That cracked me up good.

cmonachan

Ummm, you say that, but the excellent spectator mode lets you view normal conquest at night and I've been all over the map and in houses and it looks pretty damn good.

It's close, but it's not there yet. The Swine farm on Hannut for example needs some work on the interior lighting. I think the church was done a bit ago. Narvik I don't remember from the top of my head. Trust me we are not holding it back because we hate fun. We are just not done yet. :P