End Game is out for Premium members. Share your thoughts

[Kenadian]

The final Battlefield 3 DLC, End Game, is now out for Premium members on the PC, PS3, and Xbox 360. … Read on →

More...

 

[Kitlope]

Love the CTF

 

[Hubby_MC]

I actually DONT like the CTF, makes the vast majority of the map irrelevant. but thats just me, everyone seems to huddle around the two flags and thats it. I love the new maps though!

 

[Kenadian]

CTF really depends on the players on it. On a good server with decent players it can be a lot of fun but on the majority of Servers I hear it's a camp fest.

The thing I've never liked about CTF or Rush is you know where the people are going so it promotes camping. Even though the flags are static in Conquest, there's more accessibility to them in the larger maps and they can be capped at any time so you're not camped (as much).

 

[Kitlope]

The trick with CTF maps is to find a server with 24 - 32 players, then it's not so bad. I've tried 48+ player servers and its impossible, as was stated just a campfest. 64 players is a gong show. The lower populated servers things really open up and tons of fun can be had.

 

[Solo4114]

CTF really depends on the players on it. On a good server with decent players it can be a lot of fun but on the majority of Servers I hear it's a camp fest.

The thing I've never liked about CTF or Rush is you know where the people are going so it promotes camping. Even though the flags are static in Conquest, there's more accessibility to them in the larger maps and they can be capped at any time so you're not camped (as much).

True, but the thing with Rush is that in some ways it's a more organized fight. Yes, the approaches are generally pretty well known, but you still have several to cover, and unless your defense is solid and responsive, you can end up with the attackers breaking through. Likewise, unless your offense is capable of pinning the enemy down and maneuvering around them, you'll just bleed out. To me, Conquest just seems like a round-robin of flags, unless one team gets totally spanked, in which case it's over and you end up basecamped until the tickets bleed out. Plus, with Rush, if the offense loses one spot, it gets another chance at the next one.

Much of it depends on teams and map design, of course. Some maps always struck me as favoring one side over the other at certain points, at least given how pubbies play. But that's something I've been dealing with since FH1.

 

[Kenadian]

Pretty much every map in the game favors one side over the other. This is why you go by total ticket count over a few rounds in most Competitive Matches to decide who wins.

 

[Solo4114]

Right, and that always pissed me off about FH and other games that do it. If a map favors one side over the other, it's not a well designed map. To my way of thinking, the ideal map is one that either team can win.

There was a map in RO: Ost that was, in my opinion, the most perfect map I've ever played: Berezina. It was an attack/defense map. The trick for the Russians on defense was how many reinforcements they'd spend defending weaker positions vs. falling back to more defensible ones. For the attacking Germans, the trick was in exploiting speed and overwhelming enemy defenses with a coordinated attack. Neither side had it easy throughout, although some parts were easier for one side or the other. It was perfectly balanced, though.


I wish more games did that sort of thing.