TPG BF3 server going to be up after midnight launch?

**FragRaptor** · 10-04-11, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by [CoFR]SirMoo

well we could have a 32player mixed mode server for the people who don't mind (or actually like *gasp*) playing the rush maps if the primary 64p conq-only server is full of reservists...This does not need to involve the DLC at a all, and 32p server should prime faster....

only if we get 70+ reservists and/or it becomes a problem... Other than that we don't need to waste money on a mode that people think doesn't exemplify battlefield.

**FragRaptor** · 10-04-11, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by QuickLightning

Shitty doesn't even begin to cover the full on experience here. I LOATHED loading up 2142 towards the end of my play time there. Priming one empty server the clears out on an NS map was one thing, priming TWO was just god awful.

I don't know about you guys but 2142 priming was some fun shit. No it isn't funny to do it all the time but flying gunships and knife fights were the best

**Alundil** · 10-04-11, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by FragRaptor

I don't know about you guys but 2142 priming was some fun shit. No it isn't funny to do it all the time but flying gunships and knife fights were the best

Key part of that, Frag, was "No it isn't fun to do it all the time" which it became once the second server went up.

**[CoFR]SirMoo** · 10-04-11, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by FragRaptor

only if we get 70+ reservists and/or it becomes a problem... Other than that we don't need to waste money on a mode that people think doesn't exemplify battlefield.

We run mixmode rush on BC2 without a problem...I don't see it as a waste. The only reason why we would not run Rush maps for BF3 is because they only support 32 players. IF the Rush maps were 64 player maps I am pretty sure we'd run them with the conquest just like we do for BC2.

**WileECyte** · 10-04-11, 06:14 PM

That's assuming mixed mode is even possible with BF3. We don't have enough information about how BF3 will differ from BC2 (or BF2/2142 for that matter) to make an educated guess. We won't introduce a second server until we're damn sure we have the first server running smoothly.

**Partyball** · 10-05-11, 07:07 AM

I, myself, like Rush. It takes a team to win it, on either side. It would be sweet if we could have a mixed 32 player rotation as long as the Conquest maps scaled like in BF2. Of course I like Conquest, but, I also like Rush. Having a good mixed like in BC2 is fun and it always changes. You could have an awesome Conquest team, but, a shit Rush team with the same players and, vise verse. Too bad the rush maps aren't bigger to support 64 players.

**Toker** · 10-05-11, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Partyball

I, myself, like Rush. It takes a team to win it, on either side. It would be sweet if we could have a mixed 32 player rotation as long as the Conquest maps scaled like in BF2. Of course I like Conquest, but, I also like Rush. Having a good mixed like in BC2 is fun and it always changes. You could have an awesome Conquest team, but, a shit Rush team with the same players and, vise verse. Too bad the rush maps aren't bigger to support 64 players.

Yup. Rush can be very fun and VERY team oriented. In many ways it is more teamplayer-ish than Conquest... Easy to spot those who are playing just for themselves too...

**Interests** · 10-05-11, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Toker

Yup. Rush can be very fun and VERY team oriented. In many ways it is more teamplayer-ish than Conquest... Easy to spot those who are playing just for themselves too...