BF3 Close Quarters Will Introduce New Game Mode: Conquest Domination, No Rush?

Earlier, we reported that Battlefield 3: Close Quarters would feature the classic game modes of Rush and Conquest. As it turns out, it looks like this won’t be the case after all. Rush fans will have to look elsewhere while fans of Conquest can look forward to a slight variation of the game type we all know and love.

In the latest entry to the Inside DICE series, Lead Designer of Close Quarters Niklas Fegraeus explains that “while HD Destruction has a significant impact on how you experience the second-to-second gameplay, we also had to tackle the challenges of bringing our tried and tested game modes to the smaller scale. We understood quickly that Rush, being a large and progressive mode that takes you on a journey from M-COM to M-COM, simply wouldn’t fit physically. So instead, we turned our attention to Conquest. How could we tailor this essential Battlefield game mode to fit our new type of environment?”

This would obviously mean tailoring Conquest to a much smaller space. Now, before you start screaming accusations of DICE imitating Call of Duty’s Domination game mode, Fegraeus would like fans to know, “I spoke to my Game Designer Gustav Halling who, like me, has a history of competitive FPS gaming. We remembered Unreal Tournament from way back in 1999. It was the first time the world saw the game mode “Domination”, which is very similar to Conquest. There are some differences though, and the Domination type gameplay usually takes place on smaller maps, much like the ones we were creating.”

He elaborated, “inspired by these memories, we used the spawning systems from Battlefield 3 Team Deathmatch and came up with a Conquest mode adapted for smaller spaces. We called it Conquest Domination, and it worked beautifully. In particular, flag defense is suddenly more important, and you get different tactical layers due to the subtle differences the new mode provides.”

Fegraeus also spoke of the inspiration that went into the creation of Close Quarters: “I sat down and spoke with Jhony Ljungstedt, my art director, and had a discussion about how we could achieve this. After bouncing random ideas for a while, he told me that even though that explosive scene from “The Matrix” was rather old, seeing Neo and Trinity turn a lobby into rubble in slow motion did leave a huge impression, and hadn’t ever been properly done in a game. We both agreed and Jhony said he really wanted to be able to create that sensation.”

Since many process heavy elements like vehicles were removed from the equation, and environments and player counts had shrunk, DICE was able to push Frostbite 2 a little further this time around. Hence, the birth of HD destruction. Fegraeus explains, “I wanted to see if we could destroy things in greater detail. I wanted everything to get shot to pieces. Really, really small pieces. In short, I wanted destruction to go High Definition.”

Included in this edition of Inside DICE was footage of an early playtest that nicely shows off some of the HD destruction effects. Make sure to check it out below.

Also make sure to leave your thoughts of the upcoming Close Quarters expansion and new game mode, Conquest Domination, in the comments below!

BF3 Armored Kill Will Have The “Best Vehicle Experience,” Where’s The Tutorial Mode?

  • Andreas

    Sounds OK. Hope it dosent become to much COD style

  • Anonymous

    Sounding worse and worse with every reveal

    • erautour

      Yup! It worked flawlessly? The TDM spawning system is horrible. They couldn’t even come up with a new word but instead use the tired excuse that Unreal had it first. What happened to the last interview where the guy said the map expands (to allow for Rush I imagined)? These guys have no fucking clue what they’re doing. 

      At this point I just want the patch and for DICE to fuck off before they mess up anything else. 

      • http://twitter.com/Omega8Trigun Chris Stacy

         @ Qwiet: Exactly what I was thinking, lol.

        I stopped at “we used our tdm spawn system.”

        Basically what they just described is pretty much CoD domination. A tiny map, score counting up, shitty spawns, but with destructible cover.

        “Flag defense is more important.” Uh, it has always been important. If by “important” you mean that you noticed a lot more people defending flags, that’s because you’re playing on a smaller map, and smaller maps lead to a more defensive playstyle in a game with too high damage per bullet.

  • Tludt888

    Why isn’t HD destruction standard in all maps? I mean, that was sort of the advertisement they put out when BF3 was in development.

    It’s a bit irritating to see a guy that I just shot, go prone behind a thin knee-high barrier and not be able to at least chip away at it enough with .50 BMG, .338 LM, .308 or other high-er caliber rounds.  I don’t even care about the kill, I just want that option to ruin that piece of cover for the next guy.

    That, and I think RPG’s and GL rounds should take TWO to demolish a wall. As it stands, people use AT as anti-infantry and as a primary weapon wayyyy too much in BF3. When buildings are so easily demolished, it makes them just fancy concealment. Buildings need to be more substantial, tank rounds should still slice through em’ like butter… but not man portable AT.

    That, and it creates situations where people just cop out on using their primary weapon to blow up a target that they are too lazy to actually shoot at. Not that big of a deal, but I would rather people use the firearms in their hands… rather than the rocket they can just pull out of their rear-end and fire with pinpoint accuracy from a mile away.

    AT should be used for killing tanks, GL’s are for anti-personnel which is acceptable and totally works. I am glad that they’re toning down the damage against infantry for AT in the next patch.

    • http://www.nickartwork.com/ Loner

      I think you’re overreacting about the AT launchers being used against infantry. They’re slow, easy to see and hear, have a significant drop and aren’t all that easy to aim. However it’s usually engineer’s only way to defend themselves against snipers and machinegunners spraying at them from far away, since most of engineers’ other weapons are too inaccurate and weak to be of much use at long ranges.
      Shooting enemies with RPGs from a few meters away though (aka Quake Style) is indeed lame though, but I find that it happens very rarely.

      • Tludt888

         Several things
        - They are incredibly easy to aim, if you need to aim at all. Even from the hip, they hit dead center every time. They’ve got insanely simple iron sights, which lends to the fact that they’re pretty easy to aim on a building.

        - Drop is significant, but highly, highly predictable. When I can make reflex shots on a moving tank, multiple times from the end of the runway on Wake… it’s pretty self-explanatory.

        -Defense against snipers. I take snipers and support out with my carbine with ease. I can see at extreme range how it’d be advantageous to have AT, and that makes total sense. But like I said, this is more about buildings than the AT. Buildings need to be more substantial, they get demolished entirely too easy by AT and there is too much transfer of damage into the room.

        Close quarters RPG kills, I agree, happen very rarely. But it’s the medium range against infantry that bother me, because… here’s a scenario.

        I’m in a building, I’ve got concealment and supposedly some cover. I fire at a group of  infantry with (insert bullet firing weapon) and take out 75% of them. Then, one guy fires a rocket at me… when I should clearly have the advantage. Hits somewhere in my general area, either kills me, or completely demolishes my cover.

        Point being, to me, the destruction of cover is entirely too cavalier. It should be a directed action, and if you want to uproot a person who’s in superior cover, you should have to make a more significant investment than firing a rocket to… literally… hit the broad side of the barn. A second follow up shot should be necessary, same as with sniper rifle shots that aren’t headshots.

        This isn’t an overreaction at all, just a prudent change that I think would be beneficial for balance. Again, it’s not so much the AT launchers themselves, but the amount of damage a wall can take/transfer that I have issue with

        • http://twitter.com/Omega8Trigun Chris Stacy

           It’s called balance. If they weren’t able to destroy your cover, then it would be a mega campfest. When a guy shoots a rocket at you to blow your cover, you don’t have the advantage. That’s the counter to dug in targets. How do you know the rocket was in your general area and not right next to you? Can you know exactly for sure where he shot? No.

          How is it not a directed action? You act as if the explosives in this game are as powerful as ones in MW2 with danger close. He can’t kill you by hitting a wall 20ft away from you unless you’re already hurt. If you died from a rocket, it was either you already being hurt and the rocket did a bit of splash to finish you, or he landed an explosion 10ft or less away from you, and killed you from full health.

          It’s how the game is supposed to work. If you entrench yourself in an advantageous area that has destructible cover, prepare to explosives fired at you. That’s the point of destructible cover.

          • Tludt888

             Again, it’s not that I want it to be non-destructible… it’s that it’s entirely too inconsistent and unbalanced in my opinion.

            Buildings are just fancy concealment, might as well be a bush. They don’t cover you as much as they should. You’re right, it IS a balance issue… and yes… it’s how the game is supposed to work, that doesn’t mean it’s good… or right.

      • Tomsmith104

        I agree and try to use RPG’s at long range only to try and get a lucky shot on a sniper. However I will admit that when I’m hiding behind a wall about to get a sniper and someone comes round and surprises me I do have a tendency to fire it in their face.

    • Anonymous

      “Why isn’t HD destruction standard in all maps?”

      They say it right in the DICE blog post. Processing power, and probably a bit of networking as well. Once you remove vehicles and players, they’ve got more headroom to handle all the extra destruction.

      • Tludt888

         I understand that, to have the type of HD destruction that appears to be in play with Close Quarters requires a bit of processing power. The type being, literally everything can be chipped away/destroyed. But, what I was getting at, is that cover is too inconsistent in regular BF.

        Either a tiny jersey barrier can’t be chipped down below 50% by a tank round, or an entire floor can be demolished by one 40mm grenade.

        Point being, in Bad Company 2, the wall destruction was much more dynamic, as was the miscellaneous object destruction. I remember purposefully destroying some walls with a bit of finesse to create nice little sniper hides on Harvest Day and such. There is none of that in Battlefield 3, there’s either… this wall is fine… or this wall is completely gone. Granted, it wasn’t always like this in BC2.

        But I would have though a middle ground that is at least consistent could be found that wasn’t too demanding on performance.

      • Tludt888

         I understand that, to have the type of HD destruction that appears to be in play with Close Quarters requires a bit of processing power. The type being, literally everything can be chipped away/destroyed. But, what I was getting at, is that cover is too inconsistent in regular BF.

        Either a tiny jersey barrier can’t be chipped down below 50% by a tank round, or an entire floor can be demolished by one 40mm grenade.

        Point being, in Bad Company 2, the wall destruction was much more dynamic, as was the miscellaneous object destruction. I remember purposefully destroying some walls with a bit of finesse to create nice little sniper hides on Harvest Day and such. There is none of that in Battlefield 3, there’s either… this wall is fine… or this wall is completely gone. Granted, it wasn’t always like this in BC2.

        But I would have though a middle ground that is at least consistent could be found that wasn’t too demanding on performance.

    • VEX_VEHIX

      THIS!!

      “And that’s when it occurred to me. We have a golden opportunity here. When removing large and process heavy elements like tanks, and scaling down Battlefield to a tighter scale, we are given some extra Frostbite 2 oomph at our disposal. The engine has fantastic destructive capabilities, and with more CPU overhead, we could put it to the ultimate test.”

      Why dont you just fkn read, before ranting and bitching?! QUIT THE CRYING ALREADY!!

    • Outlawz

       Oh c’mon man. BF3 doesn’t even have the same amount of destruction BFBC2 had. I’m kind of sad they’re nerfing the blast radius against infantry. Totally unneccessary.

    • http://www.facebook.com/greg.lay.3 Greg Lay

      So you want to be able to completely destroy cover, but RPG’s shouldn’t take out a wall in one hit? Have you even seen the damage an RPG does to a 15 inch block of solid concrete?

  • Jrmeister28

    I already had ideas on how they would include rush in the close quarters dlc judging from the ziba tower vid. Mcoms will be placed on evry floor and attackers will go up floor by floor and take those mcoms. The last two mcoms could be placed on the rooftop or on a helipad but there has to be flanking routes everywhere unlike op metro. I wonder what this conquest domination could be hmmm?

    • Anonymous

      That would be nice. Instead they removed it.

  • Langley

    Oh come on guy’s the next DLC after this will smash our CoD theory’s into bit’s just have patience..

  • Aaronjshoemaker

    Well hell that just means Conquest domination and conquest are going to be exactly the same, the only difference being that the score is counted up rather than down like it is in the current conquest mode. So all they are gonna do is reverse the score counter and that’s gonna be our new game mode ???? lol Seriously wtf? I really wish they would do something new already like a base vs base game mode or something where you have to defend your base from attacks and blow up the enemies to win. But hey I guess it is all a dream…

  • Cyborg6971

    I dont care as long as the maps are fun so ill reserve my judgment until after i play them. I dont see why everyone has thier panties in a bunch. Dont buy it. If cod had brought a map pack with huge maps and destruction who would bitch about that?
    I would like to see a capture the flag game type with jets and choppers, on a huge map. I miss that game type.

    But go ahead and keep crying over it. Because none of you are in the buisness and if you were in the buisness you would try to find more and more ways to take market share from activision plan and simple. You dont like cqb fine. I want ctf, that has never been brought up and yet i’m not wetting my bed over it. Gamers this gen can go fuck themselves. In fact the y gen in a whole can bugger off. Little babies.

    • VEX_VEHIX

      EXACTLY WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING!!

    • VEX_VEHIX

      EXACTLY WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING!!

    • John

      Learn how to spell. It’s “business” not “buisness.” Fucking idiot.

      • Cyborg6971

        Sorry I suffer with dyslexia. We all can’t be perfect like you. Asshole.

        • John

          No, you really don’t suffer from dyslexia so shut up. You’re the asshole asshole.

          • Cyborg6971

            And you know me how? That’s right you don’t. If you don’t agree with what I’ve said fine. But to be the lame ass spell check guy in a thread is nothing to strive for.
            And you bring nothing to this thread. So quit being off topic and contribute something other than negativity.

            Your not special. You aren’t gonna finish first all the time and your soul mate isn’t going to he the hottest. You Judy have to accept the fact that your no better or worse than me.

            Ps I could give w shit less if I misspelled a word by switching two letters. So it shouldn’t bother you so much.

          • John

            Dude, all your “contributions” are bashing other people.  All you do is bitch at other people bitching and call them names.

          • Meat Popsicle

             Hmmm…

          • Cyborg6971

            And you have brought soooo much to the table.
            Now stop trolling me kid. And go do your homework.

          • Cra2yey3z

            John, shut the fuck up and become a english teacher since you like to troll around correctly people for mistakes. Nobody is as perfect as you i guess. He spelled it almost correct to where we know what he ment. Fuck off.

  • http://twitter.com/tMyers327 Tim Myers

    to me this “conquest domination” just sounds like any other domination, sector control, variant.  In all honesty I would assume that conquest domination is going to play a lot like sector control from medal of honor.  don’t forget dice made the multiplayer side of medal of honor, it wouldn’t surprise me if they used that game mode and play mechanics as inspiration for conquest domination.  

    What makes me extremely nervous is the spawn trapping issue.  If anyone played medal of honor they know that the game morphed into a who can spawn trap who first.  The thing working in bf3′s favor is there isn’t any score chains so thats good but i could see teams getting spawn trapped with rpg,320,fragsas.  Since the maps are so small its a lot easier to trap a team.

    Hopefully dice has it all worked out but based off of past experiences i have very little faith.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=667111272 Thom Carroll

    why don’t they take full on rush out and have extended squad rush, 4 Mcoms, 2 squads, and call it infiltration or something like that

    or a totally new game mode where theres 2 squads one attacking, one defending, and a bunch of NPC’s the defending squad are the main target and the NPC’s try to stop you getting to them and then a final standoff between the two teams. first team to be fully eliminated loses.

    • http://www.psvitahub.com Snake

      Not a bad idea my friend….

      And I REALLY hope they do not completely remove Rush from the map pack!

      • Anonymous

        FYI: They completely removed Rush from the DLC.

    • Purusam

       Great idea. We need some kind of Rush in this DLC and your idea is awesome.

  • http://www.nickartwork.com/ Loner

    Rush is a great gamemode that completely changes the style of the map, making it more linear, more straight-forward and therefore more intense. While Domination does bring some nice memories back from Unreal Tournament days, it doesn’t sound a whole lot different from Conquest. If that turns out to be true – we’ll end up getting less content than what B2K gave us.

    idea: What about a gamemode that would revolve around protecting a certain player on your team and/or killing a certain player on enemy team? Or a gamemode that would involve picking up a certain item on the map and protecting it from the enemy. If player who is carrying that item gets killed – he’d drop that item, giving enemy the chance to steal it.
     
     
     
    “HD destruction timelapse” did not impress me, to be honest. Not from the gameplay point of view at least. All the cover gets destroyed in the first few seconds, and for the rest of the video it’s just a hallway with a bunch of holes and nowhere to hide.

    • erautour

      Your certain item idea sounds like Sabotage from CoD. Imagine one MCOM in each spawn and instead of anyone being able to arm it, you have to have the bomb/item. It was fun years ago but it’s turned into a campfest. Since everyone knows where the item is they just camp it until an enemy tries to pick it up. 

      • http://www.nickartwork.com/ Loner

        Haven’t played Sabotage, so I can’t comment much on that. Either way, I think you misunderstood me somewhat, or maybe I just didn’t explain my idea clearly. :S

        Anyway, the idea is that only by holding that “certain item” the team would get points. Kills would either contribute much less to team’s victory or wouldn’t contribute at all. So the key to victory would be to have a player on your team carry the item while the rest of the team protects him. Look at it as Rush with a single “human mcom” that can move around the map. Attackers and defenders could swap places multiple times per round if they succeed at killing enemy carrier and snatching the item.

        I wish I could provide an example from another game, but the only example I can think of is Hold The Flag gamemode from an indie 2D multiplayer shooter called Soldat, which you probably never heard of.

        • Qabrousseau

          There was a game on halo were you had to hold a skull that kinda resembles this. I think this is a great idea

    • Klone

      I suggest you call your first idea V.I.P and your second one Football. Both good ideas, I’d play em.

  • ostrichbean

    wow

  • Aaronjshoemaker

    Ok here’s an idea I’ve had for a new game mode, you guys let me know what you think.

    Mode: Stronghold- base vs base combat

    Objective- Destroy the enemy base and Deffend your own before running out of reinforcements.

    Game: Both teams will start off in their own base on different sides of the map with roughly 500-1000 life tickets, the game is won by completely destroying the enemies base or wiping out all of the enemy forces. In between both bases would essentially be deadman’s land and would have an advantageous control point that would allow to call in bombers or something of that nature to help the team that is controlling it. Like on wake island in 1942.
    Both teams have buildings in their base that provide some sort of support ie, a radar station that provides the team radar on their hud, if that building gets destroyed then you lose that type of support, in this case radar on you hud. Same would go for tank factories, helipads, airstrips, boat docks, barracks for jeeps, etc,etc. So if they get blown up no more vehicles spawn for use. This will make the game very strategic. Each type of building that provides support would come in pairs of 2 to promote game balance. Teams will have a large variety of vehicles to start with and use at their disposal to attack and deffend, bases will also be heavily fortified with various turrets to help in deffense. Heavy deffenses will be countered by bomber or artillery control point in middle of map. For the most part that’s its, it could obviously be tweeked a little so it works well and has good balance but this is the guts of it.

    So what do you think? Would you like to play this?

    • Arendsb

      I think it could work, but it may be similair to capture the flag, in that I feel a majority of players would camp in “defense” and a small minority would be offensive. You know the game type:

      90% of players get long range sniper rifles or deploy mines/AT equipment.

      10% go assault the other base…

      The game takes hours to complete; UNLESS you included MCOMs in the picture. I always wondered why the MCOMS couldn’t be buildings or objects themselves. Obviously destroying a box at a real base has no meaning- why not make it:
      -radar towers
      -server room
      -HQ
      -airfield
      -etc…

      The MCOMs never made sense- they’re useless boxes

      • Peckavelli

        You must not be a team player. Just care about your own kill numbers??? With smaller objectives its harder for 1 person to score by themselves. I do like your idea though for another type of gameplay. They are trying to get people to put in their mics and play as a team. MOST DONT!!! ITS FREAKIN ANNOYING!!!!

    • Tomsmith104

      I think it would be brilliant to play but you’d have to have a way to stop 90% of the team sniping. Would probably work better for armoured kill or end game depending what’s in that when it gets announced.

      • Klone

        You could use geography to prevent sniping. Put a bend in the map between the bases, sort of like blood gulch on Halo.

    • KRONOS

      only one problem i don’t see how u could fit a radio tower in an office building =P

      • Arendsb

        ^^ like! Haha

    • Tombomb7

      I hope they come in pairs of two else what are pairs :)

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/pandaBear7109 pandaBear7109

    Pretty fucking awesome, definitely excited for this DLC. CQB ALL THE WAY BABY!

  • Meat Popsicle

    Would like to see a return of a Titan like mode a la BF2142, perfect combination of CQ & Rush…CQ first half of match, Rush the second half…maybe in BF2143???

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002367454310 Jonathan Stoffregen

    …but rush is my favorite mode D:

  • CoffinFiller

    I’d like to see VIP escort added in the future.  Like in America’s Army for pc.  1 life, no respawns.  Attackers objective is to kill the vip.  Defenders keep the vip alive and escort him to a safe zone for extraction.  Game ends when the vip is killed or the attackers are all eliminated.   

  • Pingback: Official Battlefield 3 Thread. - Page 375()

  • Anonymous

    I was thinking of a sort of Breach and Clear type of game. Where its 8v8/16v16, 8 inside of a building (hotel,cruise ship,skyscraper,ALCATRAZ etc..) and you and the squad have to breach and clear all rooms until you kill everyone one the opposite team. Maybe have a Night level when you need the flash lights/night vision. Maybe “terrorists” cut the power on a huge Cruise Ship. 

    Imagine the team work that is needed to complete this match. A mic would be more than needed! 
    Extra XP if no one on your squad dies. If you die there would be a sort of spectator mode. 

    I’m thinking of a sort of 1 life thing. Once you die, thats it. 
    So having a good medic in the Assault Class on your team would be crucial. 
    The Recon Class can maybe have a little UAV robot that can go underneath doors to see if anyone is inside. 
    The Engineer Class can open doors quietly. The Support class can . 
    And the Support Class to place c4 on doors to blow them up. 

    Right now I’m just typing everything that comes to mind. lol 

    What do you guys think? 

    I know it’s not the “Norm” but When I think of (Don’t Kill Me) Zombies in COD, That wasn’t the norm and it’s one of the most played modes. 

    But then again I’m not a Battlefield Vet. I started playing it on PS2 BF:Modern Combat. So maybe changing the game up would ruin it. I would love it though.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/KaRon-Page/1404337183 Ka’Ron Page

      HELL YEA!

  • Outlawz

    Are Close Quarters maps infantry only? Cos I swear that I seen a helicopter in the trailer. 

    • Anonymous

      Yes, small maps (smaller than some TDM maps) and infantry only. No vehicles, no Rush, no regular Conquest.

  • H’m

    Time lapse vid..meh, love my bf3.. But i think bfbc2 destruction was still better

  • Artdafoo

    Im gonna say it again, they should have a pistols only lobby for CQ. That would give it a more tactical feel.

  • Artdafoo

    Im gonna say it again, they should have a pistols only lobby for CQ. That would give it a more tactical feel.

  • Pingback: Battlefield 3: Close Quarters has no Rush mode, only “Conquest Domination” | VG247()

  • Pingback: Battlefield 3: Close Quarters has no Rush mode, only “Conquest Domination”()

  • Pingback: Battlefield 3: Close Quarters has no Rush mode, only “Conquest Domination” | I Love Battlefield 3()

  • Pingback: Battlefield 3: Close Quarters has no Rush mode, only “Conquest Domination” | Gaming RSS()

  • sweet

    Why don’t the lights get blown out (in the timelapse video)?

  • Pingback: Battlefield 3′ CQC Lead Designer Talks New Mode, Inspirations | I Love Battlefield 3()

  • Pingback: No Rush Mode for Battlefield 3: Close Quarters | PlayFTW! | Play For The Win!()

  • Pingback: Battlefield 3: Close Quarters - Has No Rush mode, Only Conquest Domination()

  • Pingback: No Rush Mode for Battlefield 3: Close Quarters | I Love Battlefield 3()

  • Pingback: No Rush Mode for Battlefield 3: Close Quarters | The Internet Game Database()

  • Pingback: Battlefield 3 Close Quarters DLC to Ditch Rush Mode? | SegmentNext()

  • Pingback: No Rush Mode for Battlefield 3: Close Quarters | BF3 Videos()

  • Jj060981

    CAPTURE THE FLAG needs to be added to this map pack! Best game mode on bf2! It was beyond fun and super tactical!

  • SuperBF-Fan

    What we need is Multiplayer Co-op.

    A Campaign, but with as many as 64 players. The results are destructive, addicting, strategic, and self-explanatory.

  • http://twitter.com/Alltomdjurfoder Alltomdjurfoder

    Whateva man!

  • jeremy

    Ive got an idea. Dice could create a new co op experience where you and three other guys play as characters from the story mode and fight against the undead. Players will have to rack up points to purchase new weapons off of the walls of the map and for the gambling man you could spend your points on a box placed randomly in the map that gives you a random gun. Dice could also fill the map with various traps and secrets oh and there could be a device that upgrades your guns all you need to do is find three special items in the map and presto a teleporter is activated. But lets go a little further and give this game mode a story right. Dice could keep releasing new maps for this game mode and hidden in these new maps are clues that add to the story. You keep addind and adding to the story and it finally ends with the main characters blowing up the moon or something. Dice please take my idea into consideration.

  • killncrazy

    How aboutwe. Bring backtitan mode from 2142 would be an awesome game modefor bf3

settings

close