Conquest or Rush?

**Rob** · Mar 29th, 2010, 04:58 AM

Yeah but we're uncommonly awesome.

**The Good King Bad** · Mar 29th, 2010, 04:59 AM

I_raq_your_World: how did we lose so bad
I_raq_your_World: oh TMH

**Jibba-Jabba** · Mar 29th, 2010, 05:01 AM

I THOUGHT YOU WENT TO SLEEP

**Rob** · Mar 29th, 2010, 05:02 AM

Originally Posted by The Good King Bad

I_raq_your_World: how did we lose so bad
I_raq_your_World: oh TMH

Ha! I got a knife kill on that guy.

/smug satisfaction

**Fenris Wolf** · Mar 29th, 2010, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by The Good King Bad

Conquest is far too complicated for most BC2 players.

Which is kinda sad, because conquest has been what Battlefield IS since sometime in the 40's.

Rush is way better, though I was always a fan of the Titan mode from 2142.

**EMBAR** · Mar 30th, 2010, 10:57 PM

Conquest is better if you get two competent teams. Otherwise, I agree, it's terrible.

Rush, on the other hand, is good 24/7.

**PrivateParts** · Mar 31st, 2010, 06:40 AM

I like both.

Like rush a bit more since a good squad can typically control the outcome of the round.

Its harder on conquest. A good squad can hold down a point thats getting hammered all round and then look at the scoreboard and see they are losing by 30 tickets because the rest of the team cant hold another point against 60% of the enemy team not distracted.