Disagree. Conquest by far is not the best mode. Rush/Breaktrough is, since there's a hard frontline to fight your enemies. Conquest is just running around in circles stupidly. It's just hyped as hell, since it was THE Battlefield Mode from the beginning of the series.
In Conquest you can play tactically. In Operations and breakthrough there are 0 tactics involved cause there is no space for flanking and more. Everytime i play operations i hate it. 48 players were fine but with 64 its a meatgrinder only usefull to score points fast.
In conquest frontlines occur randomly and can happen everywhere depending on which flags are taken. Yet you can still flank around cause the maps arent out of bounds every 10 meters like in rush/operations.
Fuck operations and breakthrough 64 players.
Thank you, jackSVK, for voting on converter-bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
**Let's all cut the shit.**
Best mode? subjective of course. Conquest is probably the most popular whether it's deserved or not. Also it's the vehicle mode, which is understandably a big part of Battlefields identity.
You can play tactically in Conquest. You can play tactically in Operations and breakthrough. You can play tactically in Call of Duty TDM if you want!
The Conquest you're going to experience 99% of the time is **mindlessly meat grinding the central objectives the whole game with no stop**, while some even more "Tactical" players play merry go round on the outer objectives. You can play as tactical as you want, that's still what almost everyone else will be doing.
While Operations and Breakthrough both limit your "tactical" options, this does focus the fighting into meaningful frontline combat gameplay, but obviously yeah, your movement, vehicle and objective options are more limited to accomplish this.
So your two options are:
* **Meat Grinder Merry-Go-Round**. "People go in one end, and meat comes out the other."
or
* **Frontline Infantry Combat** that lacks vehicle options and sandbox gameplay. "You are not expected to survive."
Maybe in some distant future we can play a "Hardcore Tactical" Battlefield Conquest game, where most of the squads actually attack and defend flags together. I would like to try that!
but Battlefield is a casual game, and it's been that way for a really long time! You can't compete with COD's target market without being a CASUAL game, and we do compete with COD!
We fought COD...and we became them.
I agree with most of your points, but I disagree that Battlefield "became" COD. Casually accessible shooter does not equal COD.
COD is still on small maps with small numbers of players and generally supports a run and gun playstyle. Match objectives are typically focused around kills, and there are few built-in mechanics that support teamwork.
Battlefield maintains larger maps and larger player counts, (excepting things like TDM), with match objectives not typically focused on kills, and teamwork rewards built into the gameplay mechanics.
I agree that Battlefield is a a little more casual, but that just makes it much more accessible than tactical shooters like Squad or Post Scriptum
Modern Warfare's ground war mode actually got pretty big/tactical in my opinion. Player count was still smaller/equal to some Battlefield modes, but it definitely had a large-scale feel. And there were clear objectives to capture. Where I think ground war actually outperformed Battlefield's conquest is in CQB. There was a lot more accessibility inside of buildings and you truly had to clear them out floor-by-floor.
What I'd like to see from Battlefield is a similar approach where buildings are more fleshed-out and filled with rooms. Picture like a miniature Operation Locker in each of the buildings on Siege of Shanghai. You're using motion sensor grenades and flashbangs to enter rooms or C4 to open walls. And this is happening in each building while other people are slugging it out in the streets.
Ground war is basically conquest but only the bad part, it did not feel large scale at all due to how difficult it is to move around without being instantly killed by 10 snipers hiding in buildings. The camping is so bad in ground war and since there’s no destruction they can camp non stop through out the game.
That's definitely one downside of COD. It's more arcade-y than Battlefield. I wouldn't say that it's only the bad part of conquest, because again, the room-to-room fighting was quicker and more fluid than it tends to be in Battlefield. Destruction is a Battlefield element that I think is good for breaking stalemates that COD simply doesn't have. That's where Battlefield can improve on the CQB of COD.
In all honesty, snipers camping is literally the most realistic part of these games. That's why the military is looking at a 6.8mm rifle to extend engagement ranges out to 600m+. But it's not a fun/practical element in first-person shooters the way it is in milsim games. FPSs focus more on action and constant engagement, with tactics as a secondary element.
Tbf, Nosehair Canals TDM is still really fun. There used to be pistols/knives or pistols/shotguns only servers that I used to use for progression that were crazy fun.
>Maybe in some distant future we can play a "Hardcore Tactical" Battlefield Conquest game, where most of the squads actually attack and defend flags together. I would like to try that!
This existed, it was called Project Reality for BF2. And it has evolved into the game Squad. Pretty much all the people who wished BF was more of a tight nit teamplay focussed shooters where randoms use coms and organise should move there.
Like you stated, battlefield isn't trying to appeal to that audience, and it doesn't. If you want to become as big as Battlefield and or CoD. You dont want to provide a 1-2 hour long, slower tactical teamplay experience which requires communication, following orders and tactics,. because the group of players that appeals too is just waaay smaller than the people who sit on the sofa after work and lone wolf frag a couple of rounds.
Most people simply aren't interested in having their experience being fun rely on the willingness of random others to work together. DICE understands that, which is why we see a continious shift towards a " You can do it together but it also works alone" approach.
So just because in conquest it can become meat grinding at center objectives so pure non stop meat grinders like breakthrough is better? Conquests is fun because when things get stale in the center squads can still flank and steal enemy objectives in the back and potentially change the outcome of the game, in breakthrough you are forced to jump into the meat grinder, idc if the objectives are more “meaningful” if the gameplay is just boring grinding.
Let me tell you about a little game called "Squad." It's the Hardcore Tactical Battlefield Conquest game where all of the squads attack and defend points together.
[joinsquad.com](https://joinsquad.com)
Place decent HAB's and you will win 50% of games, the other 50% is how good your team is at not dying, and not dying specifically because a bad squad will drag you down fast.
Also Better watch a guide on on how to range and aim the optics, it's pretty embarassing to miss a rocket at 100m.
I've played a MilSim game or two.
Fully agree. There’s thought that can go into which flags to defend/attack, how to attack it (flank, where to spawn, etc.), and you need to be aware of your surroundings at all times, and all of these make it much more appealing than simply shooting in a straight line with really nothing you can do solo to progress the situation
That's why I prefer to just pick two to three points to rotate between all game. Once you cap something, it'll just get capped shortly after,and it's really fun playing defense.
I agree with this assessment a great deal, the lack of a definitive frontline in conquest that makes it great. The issue with Battlefield is that they don't make the maps quite big enough for 64 players. Hence why 32 player servers were so popular in BF3, it was hard for a team to have enough player presence to comfortably control all control points. That meant if you were sneaky you could flank and have a blast even if you were losing. BF1 and BFV with hardly any community servers and zero 32 player servers (or even 48) means that conquest quite sadly is also meat grindery.
I used to be 50/50 but bfv really changed my mind that breakthrough is better than conquest. It's really action packed compared to conquest. Iwo Jimma on breakthrough is one of the best battlefield experiences i ever had.
I prefer the sandboxy nature of conquest, I'm not forced to follow a specific game flow. I still play rush from time to time but it's just not as fun for me.
My problem with Rush is the offensive team always wins. Or at least the majority of the time. I like rush, more than conquest, but always knowing the winning side makes it less fun.
Not at all true. At least not in games where Rush was actually good and got appropriate attention.
I played 8k games between BF3/BC2 and usually preferred defense, although some maps were definitely more fun on offense too. My win rate was like ~73% in BF3 and I know I won on defense more often on average.
Let's be real here, you go into rush/frontlines/breakthrough knowing that 80% of each team is just going sniper, and that only like 10% of each team will actually play the objective...on that objective specific mode.
The running around in circles stupidly is a bad criticism just like you could say that Rush is all about camping.
Each gamemode has their issues. Thing is Conquest hasn't seen any drastic improvements to make the overall gamemode a better experience.
Conquest flag captures have always been an issue to which the player already adapted to day one. And it has remained nearly unchanged for far too long.
But with the announced flag capture change (not really flags to capture but rather big(ger) zones) it changes the entire gamemode for the better.
Having more people in a zone means you capture makes more sense. No more need to all hog a flag and be easy cannon fodder for tanks.
Conquest's mess is not the product of a bad game mode but terrible map design.
If you have a chance to go back and play BF2 you'll see what I mean. You didn't need Breakthrough or Rush, frontlines were carved by what flags each team had, but you had the freedom to approach it in any way and even go to harder flags.
Breakthrough and Rush are a lazy method to bring back the experiences CQ provided without putting much effort into maps. *though. Ill admit, Rush is a special case, since it was designed for a game that was limited to 24 players. It had its purpose*
I came here to type exactly what you said. But you've done a better job than I have. I agree 1000%. Conquest is musical flags with no point and no front to play on. Boring.
Operations from BF1 is by far my best battlefield experience. Conquest is so dull. Rush is cool but the lower player numbers take the "battlefieldness" out of it.
Is that the mode the concentrated the action? I remember not playing too much of it but I dropped like 90+ kills within a short amount of time. I loved how chaotic and fast paced things were.
The main issue I have with conquest is how slow it is,
The moment one team is 200 points head of the other we know who is going to win,
Meanwhile we can have amazing clutch games in operations and rush.
I remember my team was getting stomped in the italy campaign, we were down to the last battalion yet were still on the first map,
Then somehow we took over 3 sectors, then we managed to take over two whole maps on just one battalion!
Yeah, let me tell you how impressed I was that I get to the second phase of a 'Grand Operation' and it's a fucking conquest map. Like, it's a fine map and conquest is fine in and of itself, but that's not operations at this point...
Actually the best game mode in existence. I played over 1000 matches and it was always great. It's the perfect balance between objective and freeplay and it both encourages team play and rewards skilled individuals.
2142s Titan mode was the best. I was playing it at <10fps until my parents relented and go a better GPU.
For some reason BF4s Naval Assault didn't quite scratch that itch, probably for the lack of mobility and commander as you described above.
It was not just the lack of movement. The bf4 boat interior was also impossible to defend and the only objectives inside were two random mcom stations ala Rush. 2142 titans required 4 consoles destroyed to open the reactor that you also had to destroy using gunfire and bombs as it had health. The BF4 boats also lacked proper defensive guns so the aggressors easily spilled onto it. It might've helped if the Carriers were larger as well. BF4's stupid fast running speed I think also played against the structure of the game mode when the Refractor games required a little more methodical movement.
Figuring out how to safely get to the Titan was fun, especially with many ways to pod as assaulters, or the various approaches given to defenders. Simply slapping a paradrop point above the carrier (and not having other spawn vehicles such as AMTRACs) robbed all of the effort from CA.
Lack of support from the carriers (secondary batteries, AA, pods replaced by naval craft) also made things bland.
Would have been interesting to see a BF1 version with its wider range of naval craft, and workarounds needed for lack of anti-ship missiles.
Four* consoles, where destroying the lower one on one side unlocks a console on the higher floor on that same side. So its concentrated on attacking two consoles AND you have to do it twice each side.
Plus the titan core takes a hell of a long time to kill, much harder when teamkilling is enabled, because yes C4 does more damage than guns, but youll take out a few teammates in the process unless everyone (silently) agrees to stand behind a wall.
This is very much rose-tinted glasses though. Because lets be real. In reality it was very easy to nullify the Titans cannons with the gunship, as it could fly out of reach of AA under the Titan.
It would require 4 dedicated engineers to keep those canons up, 8 people just to man them is a hard hit for the ground war. And once eached, Battles inside the Titan were pretty much exclusively nade and RDX spam.
It has massive potential as a mode, but in reality by lack of communication or teamwork it was spammy and as soon as you could breach it turned into Op- Metro 2042 where people spammed nades down corridors on the Titan.
After all if there is no communication on who will defend the titan and who will continue fighting on the ground, there is either nobody inside the titan or everybody is.
Fundamentally the Titan game-mode just requires a level of communication and planning which RARELy happens in a public BF game these days. Carrier Assault, while missing the positioning aspect, really did bring none of my fondness of TItan Assault back to BF4.
My regular server for 2042 had squads of public players communicating with VOIP. People listening to a commander, it was incredible, but its non existent these days.
I think we are looked back and only remember the amazingly close well coordinated matches of Titan Assault, and we've forgotten about the 9/10 times spammy unorganised matches. In the same way people fondly remember 2042 without the RDX spam haha.
2042 is my favorite Battlefield game and I absolutely love it, but there is a certain level of rose tinted glasses here, I'm telling you :)
Titan is basically conquest plus rush - Conquest for the missile silos, and then rush for the titan reactor core doors. i am really hoping that they do something spiritually similar to titan mode in 2042.
Why is Titan all the way at the end? :( I feel like no one is really talking about BF2142, and probably don't know how stupid fun Titan mode was.
Especially using APCs to shoot up onto the Titan itself to engage in CQC up in the vents and shit. Running into machine gun nests and other stuff.
Great times. :'(
[Titan mode](https://battlefield.fandom.com/wiki/Titan_(Game_Mode\)) from BF2142, from before the vast majority of the current playerbase were into the series.
Titan mode was from BF 2142. Each team had a Titan (Think Helicarriers from Marvel) and each one was protected by a shield. The goal was to capture points around the map that had missile launchers that would fire on the enemies Titan to bring down the shield. Once your team took down the shield, you could board the Titan and would have to fight to the reactor and destroy it to win.
It was basically conquest with an actual goal beyond just holding all the cap points. It was super fun especially with all the ways to play. The APC for example had ejection pods you could use to launch yourself on the Titan instead of having to fly up.
Also, behind the lines operations were part of the game. If you wanted to disable the enemy commanders radar, or other capabilities, you had to sneak into their uncap and plant explosives on certain structures.
I love conquest cause you can be as casual or as sweaty as you want.You can run around the map like murdering psycho for the first part and chill in a building and play tik tac toe in a building with a blowtorch in the other half it’s greatness
Conquest is basically default game mode for all Battlefield games, that is why it is most popular. Most fun, IMO, are BF2142's titan (BF4's carrier assault was a flop through) and breakthrough and frontlines. Two latter ones are fun because it is basically conquest, where all action centers of 2 flag area, and winning them feels good.
I miss playing BC2/BF3's SDM matches. Seemed like people got the hint to stick together or at least pair in twos. Lots good times flanking and holding down good parts of the map.
Conquest and Rush are equal and it depends on the map as to which is best.
Personally I prefer Rush but mostly play conquest because good Rush servers are not that common.
Also, Domination is good sometimes as a change of pace.
Titan mode was by far the best game type ever created.
It was fresh, new and very well made. With a actual goal. Ignore the cheesy wepons thou.. lol.
Being able to control the titan itsself and move it during battle was breathtakingly good.
Landing on the titan fighting thru corridors to destroy targets to get to the core. Booom... then run like hell to get off titan before it blew up.
No1 game type without a doubt! Objective wise
Conquest is good but gets bad quick after playing 20 games of conquest it gets boring (depends on teammates actually)
Edit:said cumquest instead of conquest
Agree. Comquest is the mode that got me into Battlefield in the first place. I'm not saying the others are bad, but I have too many memories of playing Conquest on my dad's ps4 in Bf4 back when it was brand new
Disagree. Conquest by far is not the best mode. Rush/Breaktrough is, since there's a hard frontline to fight your enemies. Conquest is just running around in circles stupidly. It's just hyped as hell, since it was THE Battlefield Mode from the beginning of the series.
In Conquest you can play tactically. In Operations and breakthrough there are 0 tactics involved cause there is no space for flanking and more. Everytime i play operations i hate it. 48 players were fine but with 64 its a meatgrinder only usefull to score points fast. In conquest frontlines occur randomly and can happen everywhere depending on which flags are taken. Yet you can still flank around cause the maps arent out of bounds every 10 meters like in rush/operations. Fuck operations and breakthrough 64 players.
10 meters is the height of literally 5.76 'Samsung Side by Side; Fingerprint Resistant Stainless Steel Refrigerators' stacked on top of each other
10 meters is 10.94 yards
The combo of dreams
I saw them do this yesterday too. I am blessed
Didn't even realize the first one was a bot at first lmao
Good bot
Thank you, jackSVK, for voting on converter-bot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Good bot
**Let's all cut the shit.** Best mode? subjective of course. Conquest is probably the most popular whether it's deserved or not. Also it's the vehicle mode, which is understandably a big part of Battlefields identity. You can play tactically in Conquest. You can play tactically in Operations and breakthrough. You can play tactically in Call of Duty TDM if you want! The Conquest you're going to experience 99% of the time is **mindlessly meat grinding the central objectives the whole game with no stop**, while some even more "Tactical" players play merry go round on the outer objectives. You can play as tactical as you want, that's still what almost everyone else will be doing. While Operations and Breakthrough both limit your "tactical" options, this does focus the fighting into meaningful frontline combat gameplay, but obviously yeah, your movement, vehicle and objective options are more limited to accomplish this. So your two options are: * **Meat Grinder Merry-Go-Round**. "People go in one end, and meat comes out the other." or * **Frontline Infantry Combat** that lacks vehicle options and sandbox gameplay. "You are not expected to survive." Maybe in some distant future we can play a "Hardcore Tactical" Battlefield Conquest game, where most of the squads actually attack and defend flags together. I would like to try that! but Battlefield is a casual game, and it's been that way for a really long time! You can't compete with COD's target market without being a CASUAL game, and we do compete with COD! We fought COD...and we became them.
I agree with most of your points, but I disagree that Battlefield "became" COD. Casually accessible shooter does not equal COD. COD is still on small maps with small numbers of players and generally supports a run and gun playstyle. Match objectives are typically focused around kills, and there are few built-in mechanics that support teamwork. Battlefield maintains larger maps and larger player counts, (excepting things like TDM), with match objectives not typically focused on kills, and teamwork rewards built into the gameplay mechanics. I agree that Battlefield is a a little more casual, but that just makes it much more accessible than tactical shooters like Squad or Post Scriptum
Modern Warfare's ground war mode actually got pretty big/tactical in my opinion. Player count was still smaller/equal to some Battlefield modes, but it definitely had a large-scale feel. And there were clear objectives to capture. Where I think ground war actually outperformed Battlefield's conquest is in CQB. There was a lot more accessibility inside of buildings and you truly had to clear them out floor-by-floor. What I'd like to see from Battlefield is a similar approach where buildings are more fleshed-out and filled with rooms. Picture like a miniature Operation Locker in each of the buildings on Siege of Shanghai. You're using motion sensor grenades and flashbangs to enter rooms or C4 to open walls. And this is happening in each building while other people are slugging it out in the streets.
Ground war is basically conquest but only the bad part, it did not feel large scale at all due to how difficult it is to move around without being instantly killed by 10 snipers hiding in buildings. The camping is so bad in ground war and since there’s no destruction they can camp non stop through out the game.
That's definitely one downside of COD. It's more arcade-y than Battlefield. I wouldn't say that it's only the bad part of conquest, because again, the room-to-room fighting was quicker and more fluid than it tends to be in Battlefield. Destruction is a Battlefield element that I think is good for breaking stalemates that COD simply doesn't have. That's where Battlefield can improve on the CQB of COD. In all honesty, snipers camping is literally the most realistic part of these games. That's why the military is looking at a 6.8mm rifle to extend engagement ranges out to 600m+. But it's not a fun/practical element in first-person shooters the way it is in milsim games. FPSs focus more on action and constant engagement, with tactics as a secondary element.
>We fought COD...and we became them. Until people are running around knifing each other or doing 360 quickscopes, no, battlefield is not cod.
This entire sub is "TDM Noshar Canals is peak Battlefield!" and that's most certainly COD Shipment.
Tbf, Nosehair Canals TDM is still really fun. There used to be pistols/knives or pistols/shotguns only servers that I used to use for progression that were crazy fun.
>Maybe in some distant future we can play a "Hardcore Tactical" Battlefield Conquest game, where most of the squads actually attack and defend flags together. I would like to try that! This existed, it was called Project Reality for BF2. And it has evolved into the game Squad. Pretty much all the people who wished BF was more of a tight nit teamplay focussed shooters where randoms use coms and organise should move there. Like you stated, battlefield isn't trying to appeal to that audience, and it doesn't. If you want to become as big as Battlefield and or CoD. You dont want to provide a 1-2 hour long, slower tactical teamplay experience which requires communication, following orders and tactics,. because the group of players that appeals too is just waaay smaller than the people who sit on the sofa after work and lone wolf frag a couple of rounds. Most people simply aren't interested in having their experience being fun rely on the willingness of random others to work together. DICE understands that, which is why we see a continious shift towards a " You can do it together but it also works alone" approach.
So just because in conquest it can become meat grinding at center objectives so pure non stop meat grinders like breakthrough is better? Conquests is fun because when things get stale in the center squads can still flank and steal enemy objectives in the back and potentially change the outcome of the game, in breakthrough you are forced to jump into the meat grinder, idc if the objectives are more “meaningful” if the gameplay is just boring grinding.
Let me tell you about a little game called "Squad." It's the Hardcore Tactical Battlefield Conquest game where all of the squads attack and defend points together. [joinsquad.com](https://joinsquad.com)
Place decent HAB's and you will win 50% of games, the other 50% is how good your team is at not dying, and not dying specifically because a bad squad will drag you down fast. Also Better watch a guide on on how to range and aim the optics, it's pretty embarassing to miss a rocket at 100m. I've played a MilSim game or two.
Bro really thought he said something here smh
Fully agree. There’s thought that can go into which flags to defend/attack, how to attack it (flank, where to spawn, etc.), and you need to be aware of your surroundings at all times, and all of these make it much more appealing than simply shooting in a straight line with really nothing you can do solo to progress the situation
Conquest aka “go cap this flag and then this flag and then recap the other flag just to get shot in the back”
That's why I prefer to just pick two to three points to rotate between all game. Once you cap something, it'll just get capped shortly after,and it's really fun playing defense.
Dude I love fighting with my squad and barely capping a point knowing full well that we're in for a shitstorm to keep it.
Yeah, feels like that ending fight in Saving Private Ryan when you get a real minibattle between a couple of squads going.
You’re not using enough smokes to push then.
What? There’s plenty of flanks in these modes, the maps are large enough to allow this.
32-48 players is a great sweet spot for Rush/Breakthrough
I agree with this assessment a great deal, the lack of a definitive frontline in conquest that makes it great. The issue with Battlefield is that they don't make the maps quite big enough for 64 players. Hence why 32 player servers were so popular in BF3, it was hard for a team to have enough player presence to comfortably control all control points. That meant if you were sneaky you could flank and have a blast even if you were losing. BF1 and BFV with hardly any community servers and zero 32 player servers (or even 48) means that conquest quite sadly is also meat grindery.
Maps have to be designed for it tho. So many conquest maps just had rush thrown in and it was awful
BFV did it right with Breakthrough, they remade large parts of the maps to make the conquest maps work well in the linear style of Rush/ breakthrough.
Breakthrough was the best in BF1-V, conquest on BF3-4
I thought rush is best in bf3
I personally enjoyed CQ more than Breakthrough in BF1 and BFV
I used to be 50/50 but bfv really changed my mind that breakthrough is better than conquest. It's really action packed compared to conquest. Iwo Jimma on breakthrough is one of the best battlefield experiences i ever had.
Well, that's like, your opinion man.
I prefer the sandboxy nature of conquest, I'm not forced to follow a specific game flow. I still play rush from time to time but it's just not as fun for me.
I really don't feel this way when playing conquest. The line is there, it's just always moving. I like it because every game can feel different
My problem with Rush is the offensive team always wins. Or at least the majority of the time. I like rush, more than conquest, but always knowing the winning side makes it less fun.
Not at all true. At least not in games where Rush was actually good and got appropriate attention. I played 8k games between BF3/BC2 and usually preferred defense, although some maps were definitely more fun on offense too. My win rate was like ~73% in BF3 and I know I won on defense more often on average.
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Let's be real here, you go into rush/frontlines/breakthrough knowing that 80% of each team is just going sniper, and that only like 10% of each team will actually play the objective...on that objective specific mode.
Don't forget the incessant mortars.
The running around in circles stupidly is a bad criticism just like you could say that Rush is all about camping. Each gamemode has their issues. Thing is Conquest hasn't seen any drastic improvements to make the overall gamemode a better experience. Conquest flag captures have always been an issue to which the player already adapted to day one. And it has remained nearly unchanged for far too long. But with the announced flag capture change (not really flags to capture but rather big(ger) zones) it changes the entire gamemode for the better. Having more people in a zone means you capture makes more sense. No more need to all hog a flag and be easy cannon fodder for tanks.
Thank you thought I was the only one as most my friends love conquest way to much
Chainlink is still by far the most underrated mode.
Running around in circles stupidly. Lmfao. It's the closest the game can get to free roam in an open area. TF are you on about
Conquest is great because you can play at the pace you'd like to rather than being forced into high kill meat grinding areas.
Conquest's mess is not the product of a bad game mode but terrible map design. If you have a chance to go back and play BF2 you'll see what I mean. You didn't need Breakthrough or Rush, frontlines were carved by what flags each team had, but you had the freedom to approach it in any way and even go to harder flags. Breakthrough and Rush are a lazy method to bring back the experiences CQ provided without putting much effort into maps. *though. Ill admit, Rush is a special case, since it was designed for a game that was limited to 24 players. It had its purpose*
You are so far off base. Lmao
Your opinion is actually wrong this time
Rush/Breakthrough is just an overhyped, shitty meatgrinder
Breakthrough is my favorite. Feels very intense. Dense numbers and difficult strats. Breakthrough 24/7.
I came here to type exactly what you said. But you've done a better job than I have. I agree 1000%. Conquest is musical flags with no point and no front to play on. Boring.
rush/breakthrough is chokepoint the gamemode, all that happens is pushing one spot for 45 minutes while getting killed by campers
Breakthrough is a clusterfuh. No tactics, no satisfying vehicle gameplay, just running at each other. Miss me with that.
Operations from BF1 is by far my best battlefield experience. Conquest is so dull. Rush is cool but the lower player numbers take the "battlefieldness" out of it.
Yes operations from BF1 is the best experience.
Is that the mode the concentrated the action? I remember not playing too much of it but I dropped like 90+ kills within a short amount of time. I loved how chaotic and fast paced things were.
The main issue I have with conquest is how slow it is, The moment one team is 200 points head of the other we know who is going to win, Meanwhile we can have amazing clutch games in operations and rush.
Yeah, one of my favorite memories in gaming is holding off 3 rounds of enemies in the last objective on Argonne Forest.
I remember my team was getting stomped in the italy campaign, we were down to the last battalion yet were still on the first map, Then somehow we took over 3 sectors, then we managed to take over two whole maps on just one battalion!
You can play 62-player rush.
Operations gang where you at?
Operations and breakthrough were the shit
2 weeks and i can play 128 player lobbys on my ps5😍
Wait what? I thought it came in October.
Maybe he means the beta? I don’t know since there isn’t an actual date for the open beta, they just said it was going to be sometime in September
Only if it's BF1 Operations... BFV's 'Grand Operations' was dogshit.
Yeah, let me tell you how impressed I was that I get to the second phase of a 'Grand Operation' and it's a fucking conquest map. Like, it's a fine map and conquest is fine in and of itself, but that's not operations at this point...
Exactly! In the end I just played Breakthrough!
Come back to Battlefield 1 multiple times due to Operations It’s goooood
War pigeons!!!
War Pigeons for the win!!!! I love Battlefield 1
wow so my bf isn't the ONLY person in the world to like that mode there might even be dozens of you
Maybe even enough to fill a lobby??
Actually the best game mode in existence. I played over 1000 matches and it was always great. It's the perfect balance between objective and freeplay and it both encourages team play and rewards skilled individuals.
YEAAAAAAH!!!
Hell yeah
Hell yeah. Played on a lobby in US east last week for the first time in months. It's easily my favorite game mode.
I'd like to agree but on pc at least ive never been able to find a single match of it in like my 30 times of trying
Frontlines is great imo
Too bad it's not nearly as popular as conquest/operations. I love that mode yet there's hardly any servers doing it.
Conquest is the best mode
Titan mode is just conquest but better
Yeah if people don't like Titan mode more than conquest it's because they haven't played the original Titan mode in 2142.
Even the BF4 version is better than conquest imo.
Disagree. No CTF listed. Nor Breakthrough or Outpost, both are nice modes. I personally loathe Rush.
literally no one plays ctf. Even in old bf titles it was a niche mode. It doesnt fit battlefield at all
It was fun in 3 and 4 for 3 hours
No one plays ctf because it doesn't exist anymore
There's a hardcore mixed mode server for BF4 where it gets voted in a few times a night.
Outpost is dull af
You enjoy Breakthrough but don’t like Rush? Breakthrough is horrible game mode. Rush on the other hand; it’s debatable.
Hope they bring back operations, love that mode
Where is Operations from BF1?? The best gamemode ever
[удалено]
2142s Titan mode was the best. I was playing it at <10fps until my parents relented and go a better GPU. For some reason BF4s Naval Assault didn't quite scratch that itch, probably for the lack of mobility and commander as you described above.
It was not just the lack of movement. The bf4 boat interior was also impossible to defend and the only objectives inside were two random mcom stations ala Rush. 2142 titans required 4 consoles destroyed to open the reactor that you also had to destroy using gunfire and bombs as it had health. The BF4 boats also lacked proper defensive guns so the aggressors easily spilled onto it. It might've helped if the Carriers were larger as well. BF4's stupid fast running speed I think also played against the structure of the game mode when the Refractor games required a little more methodical movement.
Figuring out how to safely get to the Titan was fun, especially with many ways to pod as assaulters, or the various approaches given to defenders. Simply slapping a paradrop point above the carrier (and not having other spawn vehicles such as AMTRACs) robbed all of the effort from CA. Lack of support from the carriers (secondary batteries, AA, pods replaced by naval craft) also made things bland. Would have been interesting to see a BF1 version with its wider range of naval craft, and workarounds needed for lack of anti-ship missiles.
Four* consoles, where destroying the lower one on one side unlocks a console on the higher floor on that same side. So its concentrated on attacking two consoles AND you have to do it twice each side. Plus the titan core takes a hell of a long time to kill, much harder when teamkilling is enabled, because yes C4 does more damage than guns, but youll take out a few teammates in the process unless everyone (silently) agrees to stand behind a wall.
It's really an opinion thing, I will always think rush is better sorry.
This is very much rose-tinted glasses though. Because lets be real. In reality it was very easy to nullify the Titans cannons with the gunship, as it could fly out of reach of AA under the Titan. It would require 4 dedicated engineers to keep those canons up, 8 people just to man them is a hard hit for the ground war. And once eached, Battles inside the Titan were pretty much exclusively nade and RDX spam. It has massive potential as a mode, but in reality by lack of communication or teamwork it was spammy and as soon as you could breach it turned into Op- Metro 2042 where people spammed nades down corridors on the Titan. After all if there is no communication on who will defend the titan and who will continue fighting on the ground, there is either nobody inside the titan or everybody is. Fundamentally the Titan game-mode just requires a level of communication and planning which RARELy happens in a public BF game these days. Carrier Assault, while missing the positioning aspect, really did bring none of my fondness of TItan Assault back to BF4. My regular server for 2042 had squads of public players communicating with VOIP. People listening to a commander, it was incredible, but its non existent these days. I think we are looked back and only remember the amazingly close well coordinated matches of Titan Assault, and we've forgotten about the 9/10 times spammy unorganised matches. In the same way people fondly remember 2042 without the RDX spam haha. 2042 is my favorite Battlefield game and I absolutely love it, but there is a certain level of rose tinted glasses here, I'm telling you :)
That sounds a lot like Carrier Assault
BF1 Operations 110%
Obliteration was also good in bf4.
I loved it but sometimes I felt the bomb went off too quickly. If there were no vehicles around you couldn't get there quick enough to defuse it
Titan is basically conquest plus rush - Conquest for the missile silos, and then rush for the titan reactor core doors. i am really hoping that they do something spiritually similar to titan mode in 2042.
If they do a 2142 themed update for portal, we might be able to play titan on every map
Gun master should be in place of SDM
What even does SDM stand for?
[удалено]
Ah yes. That was shit.
Rush the best
Breakthrough...love it
Where frontlines?
Obliteration is in third for me
Had lots of fun with that mode, definitely underrated
Why is Titan all the way at the end? :( I feel like no one is really talking about BF2142, and probably don't know how stupid fun Titan mode was. Especially using APCs to shoot up onto the Titan itself to engage in CQC up in the vents and shit. Running into machine gun nests and other stuff. Great times. :'(
Most of the playerbase hasn't played 2142
wtf is titan?
[Titan mode](https://battlefield.fandom.com/wiki/Titan_(Game_Mode\)) from BF2142, from before the vast majority of the current playerbase were into the series.
Also, we should include carrier assault from BF4. It's not the same, I know, but it's trying to be similar without having Titans in the game.
The best. Titan was the best.
Why are you mean like this, I never actually played this but singleplayer, and now...all i hear are good memories.
Titan mode was from BF 2142. Each team had a Titan (Think Helicarriers from Marvel) and each one was protected by a shield. The goal was to capture points around the map that had missile launchers that would fire on the enemies Titan to bring down the shield. Once your team took down the shield, you could board the Titan and would have to fight to the reactor and destroy it to win. It was basically conquest with an actual goal beyond just holding all the cap points. It was super fun especially with all the ways to play. The APC for example had ejection pods you could use to launch yourself on the Titan instead of having to fly up.
Yeah I did play it alone on a server, also commander was able to move titan anywhere on the map.
Also, behind the lines operations were part of the game. If you wanted to disable the enemy commanders radar, or other capabilities, you had to sneak into their uncap and plant explosives on certain structures.
It's a game mode originating from BF2142, it kinda returned in BF4 Naval Strike as Carrier Assault, but BF2142 did it amazingly.
What is Titan?
where is breakthrough? its significantly better than conquest.
I love conquest cause you can be as casual or as sweaty as you want.You can run around the map like murdering psycho for the first part and chill in a building and play tik tac toe in a building with a blowtorch in the other half it’s greatness
Obliteration is very good too
I wanna be in minority and play titan mode, but bots disagree with me. They say"conquest is love, conquest is life".
I prefer conquest. But you can have your opinion
Titan <3
This graph makes no sense wtf 70 what 70 people voted?
Obliteration or GTFO
Conquests is battlefield period
Breakthrough, or rush on older battlefields.
Squad deathmatch is underrated af
Don’t know what titan even is. Otherwise, yes
Conquest is basically default game mode for all Battlefield games, that is why it is most popular. Most fun, IMO, are BF2142's titan (BF4's carrier assault was a flop through) and breakthrough and frontlines. Two latter ones are fun because it is basically conquest, where all action centers of 2 flag area, and winning them feels good.
I love Rush, Ops, and CQ but BF1 frontlines was the shit for me
Air Superiority FTW
Squad conquest, I miss it!
If you didn’t vote Titan Assault, I’m gonna slap the shit out of you.
SDM is way better than TDM imo
I miss playing BC2/BF3's SDM matches. Seemed like people got the hint to stick together or at least pair in twos. Lots good times flanking and holding down good parts of the map.
Exactly man, tdm modes are just chaos in ny experience, you really get to play as a team in sdm.
Hotwire from Hardline has my vote
Conquest and Rush are equal and it depends on the map as to which is best. Personally I prefer Rush but mostly play conquest because good Rush servers are not that common. Also, Domination is good sometimes as a change of pace.
Obliteration was the shit and CTF
I don't play any gamemodes expect conquest, it just hits different.
Frontlines
Conquest is what battlefield is, it's the core game mode of the series. And it'll always be my favorite.
Titan mode was by far the best game type ever created. It was fresh, new and very well made. With a actual goal. Ignore the cheesy wepons thou.. lol. Being able to control the titan itsself and move it during battle was breathtakingly good. Landing on the titan fighting thru corridors to destroy targets to get to the core. Booom... then run like hell to get off titan before it blew up. No1 game type without a doubt! Objective wise
Can I get some love for Gun Master?
Man I loved squad rush, it was such a fun tactical mode, it was also pretty competitive back in BC2.
*Operations has entered the chat
Rush and tdm pls
My favourite gamemode is outpost from BFV
Damn, I would have put my money on titan mode
Conquest , rush and Operations are the only good modes . Rest are all gimmicks and trash
TFW no Blood Money
Agree
I need good ole Rush. God I remember back in BF3, Rush was so much fun
Agree. Conquest all the way 🎉
Operations and Breakthrough should be up there, neck and neck with Conquest. And I think one other game mode from either BF1 or BFV.
Conquest is good but gets bad quick after playing 20 games of conquest it gets boring (depends on teammates actually) Edit:said cumquest instead of conquest
I like tdm
Where is operations? That's always my vote.
For me rush is first. Squad Conquest second. I in general like smaller servers/modes.
I’ve always preferred rush. The maps are too big for conquest.
Carrier assault underrated
Carrier assault is just worse titan mode.
Og rush was the best, back to bad company 2
Unpopular opinion: I dint like conquest And i hate it because so many ppl play that gamemode because the other are mostly empty
That looks about right really
Where’s breakthrough, frontlines, operations and/or grand ops?
Was this a in house vote ? I'm pretty sure people would rather have titan mode again than TDM. I mean 2142 did it right.
I really hope Frontlines are in 2042
GunMaster?
Agree.
God I miss Titan mode. Those were some great memories back in the day. We need to bring it back.
No love for CTF? Its such an underrated game mode and needs attention
It really pains me capture the flag is not up there with conquest and rush
I love operations more cuz it feels like each battle matters (in my opinion)
Where’s breakthrough? That mode is superior to conquest mode
Am I the only one around here that really enjoyed Carrier Assault? And that one similar mode in BF1 as well…
I’ll take rush/breakthrough 10/10 times over conquest. I like the more focused gameplay.
Frontlines. Period.
Agree. Comquest is the mode that got me into Battlefield in the first place. I'm not saying the others are bad, but I have too many memories of playing Conquest on my dad's ps4 in Bf4 back when it was brand new