- More points for PTFO (arming, disarming, taking out opponents nearby, etc.). I think this is a must, especially for the supportive tasks, such as taking out opponents nearby. Battlefield 3 has a lot of unsung heroes, such as the MCOM cover fire support, and the transport driver. It would be nice to see things like these get more points to encourage more 'role play'. Also, unless it is a well-balanced round in which the MCOM is armed and disarmed many times, very few in a round even get the opportunity to get arming/disarming points, despite their best efforts.
- Update the scoreboard to be more rush specific. This would entail listing more than just K/D, such as arms/disarms, defends, etc. This would be nice, but it is not a must. Those who are so focused on topping the scoreboard and looking good that this will sway them to play differently are hopefully few.
- Exclusive rush maps - I really like this idea. I know it is more costly to make more maps, but there is a difference in the style of pushing and flanking that is fun on rush versus conquest.
- Add more MCOMs per "section". This would mean that, instead of having two MCOMs at once, there is three or four instead. This could add to the intensity, making the teams spread a little more thinly (especially on 64-player servers, as most people seem to feel 32 players should be the max for the BF3 iteration of rush). However, I don't know that it will address any more core concerns than player count, although it may make better use of conquest-style maps, but that is just pure speculation.
- Change up the MCOM arming procedure, such as making it more active (requires a sequence of button pushes or actions rather than holding a button), or requiring two people to arm. These are interesting ideas, though I don't know if they will address the core of the matter. Instead, I think these might just make it more difficult to get it armed or disarmed, which many may not like.
- Get rid of MCOMs and use different objectives, such as parts of the map. I LOVE this idea! First of all, it would make rush more immersive. This could also mean that every objective has a different way of being taken out, which could give attackers more options to be creative, and defenders a bigger task than, lie at the end of this hallway with an LMG on a bipod. A common example used for BF4 is, if Siege of Shanghai has a rush mode for that map, the skyscraper is an objective. Now, taking out the objective is no longer a matter of sneaking in an infantry and then grenade spamming the armed MCOM. The attackers have a couple options, as they need either a recon to plant C4, or tanks in position to fire on all four destructible columns. The defenders can raise the bollards and defend their controls to prevent tanks from approaching the tower, as well as stopping sneaking recons. In my mind, that makes the rush gameplay sound more dynamic. This would also mean they can incorporate the ideas of "Levolution" into the objectives themselves. If the attackers succeed at this step of the map, they change the entire surface of the map from here on out. This can be incorporated in many more ways, both significant and subtle, so that every realistic objective has some impact on how the game/map plays out.
Another question to which I have seen no answers is whether or not Commander mode will be incorporated into rush, or if it will be conquest-only. I would be curious to see how Commander would be added to rush, if they choose to do so, and what impact that could have.