Conquest or Rush

[Kerak]

What is your favorite? Why?

Conquest. The maps are superior, overall. Better terrain, better color, better options, but it also gives you the unknown; you never really know where the enemy will strike.

 

[Donnie the Dinosaur]

I like Rush better, no particular reason why.

 

[Panzer1509]

Rush has 2 objectives that can be blown sky high, not anything you gotta hold for very long. Easy and simple.

 

[noxx_]

Well for BC2 I'd have to say Rush. Altho... on every other BF game I played conquest it just seems that the other games got it right and BC2 failed rather hard.. too small of a map even atacama is small compared to Suez Canal(BF2142) and 32 players compared to 64 players on most BF games.

 

[Haggus McGee]

u get helicopters and really long distance sniping on rush

 

[RustyPwns!]

Neither, Titan.

 

[Dudemanguy86]

Both.

Conquest just isn't populated enough right now to be any fun at a consistent rate, great for learning though.

Rush is a little more fast-paced compared to conquest, which I tend to favor coming from COD4 and BF2142 conquest, which was pretty damn quick on some stages (canal).

Another thing about rush mode is that it actually makes you feel like you+your squad made a difference when you solo take an objective while the other 3 squads are off doing god knows what. Good communication in rush can create a nearly unstoppable group of players (albeit small...). The same COULD be said of conquest too, but like an above poster said, you don't know where someone will come from, and that creates this loop of going back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, between 2 areas and that gets VERY tedious in BFBC2 due to the player population limitations in the game.

Honestly, for conquest to work now that i think about it, they really do need 64 people cap. I still like conquest quite a bit though

 

[Baumer]

I like rush for the streamline objectives. I always tend to get lost on conquest. I also like knowing when and where to defend or attack something.

 

[Disciple]

i like both but if i had to choose, it would be Conquest, no particular reason why

 

[crazyrockets]

Rush! Then again, every time I look at the conquest servers, they are next to empty, while at least one of the rush servers usually has some people!

 

[BlackBird.]

I like both Its boring doing all the time the same thiing

 

[Christy]

Squad Deathmatch!

 

[Boo-Yeah!!]

If they could make the conquest maps more strategic I would say conquest. As for now though they are jsut random flags all in a line or spread around I wish that the flag points gave your group and actual strategic advantage if you took one over the other. I agree with noxx_ the maps are too small for conquest and there arent enough players to make it as epic as it used to be.

 

[Teh_Legend]

Rush, it lasts longer more people to kill and waaaaay bigger maps.

 

[Altec]

I prefer Rush as I like the way the maps/objectives are staggered and at each point when you destroy both objectives it unlocks another part of the map. As opposed to Conquest in which the objectives are stationary and the fight is always over the same place.

 

[zetas]

Well, rush is my favorite.

Conquest just really isnt that good for sniping :/

 

[ChaosCat]

I perfer rush, but sometimes conquest depeding on which map it is.

 

[nihongo94]

I would say Conquest because of the maps. But now when rush have those maps to I really don't know what to choose. They're both very fun to play. But I'll take conquest, right now I don't have any specific reason why.

 

[Luthorian]

im gonna go with rush, but overall i like them both, rush has lots of potential and is really fun when Teamwork is actually in play, like hoppin in vent and actually talking stragety and such, but conquest is the same way, but of course with some different maps and lots of fun like with the classic games, it was a blast on the older ones, and still is.

 

[WaterSnake]

I like conquest the most because that's classic Battlefield, however we only have 1 server for it and no one ever plays.