Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

## 'Anyone can spawn' vehicle mechanic

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Posts: 1,895

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

Sunday, December 25th 2016, 6:25am

I mean if you don't want anyone to actually enjoy using tanks that would be a great design choice.

The reason the landship is bad is precisely because it breaks with the battlefield design decision of giving the driver control of a powerful primary weapon.

Posts: 140

Date of registration
: May 16th 2012

Platform: PC

Reputation modifier: 7

Sunday, December 25th 2016, 7:34am

What tankmayvin said is the crux of the topic; it's less about seat locks or timers, and more about the 'anyone can spawn' mechanic negatively affecting the viability of vehicles like the landship and bomber that require the occupants to communicate in order to be used effectively, as it makes it dangerous for the occupants to leave their seats to perform tasks like repairing or swapping to the bomber tail gun. There are other ways to go about improving it, such as making 'anyone can spawn' outside the vehicle ala the C130 in BF3's End Game DLC expansion. At the very least, it can be left alone for everything else like the heavy tank and bomber, but it absolutely needs to go in the case of the landship.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "pTowel" (Dec 25th 2016, 7:40am)

Salt Miner

Posts: 3,494

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

Sunday, December 25th 2016, 8:53am

While I understand the concerns of higher level players and players who usually play in a group, and while the game is designed with those players in mind to ensure it doesn't have exploits and the balance works at the highest level possible, it's equally as important to consider that the game is also almost entirely based around random public servers.

The high-level-coordinated-player lens works well for one end of the balance spectrum, but using only that lens can never give a properly balanced game. If a tool has no use to the average, normal player, that tool needs to be looked at. The Landship is a stellar example of this, and this mechanic is one of the only things making it remotely viable right now.
Who Enjoys, Wins

Posts: 1,895

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

Sunday, December 25th 2016, 9:49am

### Quoted from "BleedingUranium"

While I understand the concerns of higher level players and players who usually play in a group, and while the game is designed with those players in mind to ensure it doesn't have exploits and the balance works at the highest level possible, it's equally as important to consider that the game is also almost entirely based around random public servers.

The high-level-coordinated-player lens works well for one end of the balance spectrum, but using only that lens can never give a properly balanced game. If a tool has no use to the average, normal player, that tool needs to be looked at. The Landship is a stellar example of this, and this mechanic is one of the only things making it remotely viable right now.
I think you're missing/misunderstanding my point here.

What I am saying is that the landship is still not a viable vehicle for general pub games even with teamspawning enabled because it's design precludes effective use without a communicating crew. A random clue of blues will never be able to bring the landships firepower to bear which means that it generally cannot hold it's own vs the A7V or similar.

So it's STILL bad and still not a balanced viable choice.

But now the one situation it is viable - as a specialized vehicle used by a squadded crew - has been elimited by the spawning change.

That is to say it's all around lose-lose except for the general armor and driver weapon buffs.

This post by "iFrekii" (Sunday, December 25th 2016, 1:10pm) has been deleted by user "yugas42" (Sunday, December 25th 2016, 9:35pm) with the following reason: rule 5

Posts: 32

Date of registration
: Aug 11th 2014

Platform: PC

Location: France

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

Sunday, December 25th 2016, 8:38pm

### Quoted from "BleedingUranium"

While I understand the concerns of higher level players and players who usually play in a group, and while the game is designed with those players in mind to ensure it doesn't have exploits and the balance works at the highest level possible, it's equally as important to consider that the game is also almost entirely based around random public servers.

The high-level-coordinated-player lens works well for one end of the balance spectrum, but using only that lens can never give a properly balanced game. If a tool has no use to the average, normal player, that tool needs to be looked at. The Landship is a stellar example of this, and this mechanic is one of the only things making it remotely viable right now.
I think you're missing/misunderstanding my point here.

What I am saying is that the landship is still not a viable vehicle for general pub games even with teamspawning enabled because it's design precludes effective use without a communicating crew. A random clue of blues will never be able to bring the landships firepower to bear which means that it generally cannot hold it's own vs the A7V or similar.

So it's STILL bad and still not a balanced viable choice.

But now the one situation it is viable - as a specialized vehicle used by a squadded crew - has been elimited by the spawning change.

That is to say it's all around lose-lose except for the general armor and driver weapon buffs.

So THIS ! God that change is annoying. The landship needed buffs but not a teamspawn mechanic. We used to play some Landship with my mates on Discord, either Tank Hunter or Squad Support, but now.. well if you enjoy having blueberries spawn in the spoon seats when your mates repair I guess it's still fine

Posts: 3,291

Date of registration
: Apr 26th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: Arizona, USA

Reputation modifier: 15

Monday, December 26th 2016, 7:17pm

### Beware! A long response awaits any who enter...

Balancing the game around public play is truly the only route DICE can travel with Battlefield 1. It isn't always a guarantee that communication occurs in every given round or that communication doesn't occur; it is an unreliable variable to include in a balancing scenario. It is hard to balance around teamwork because it isn't guaranteed in every round; it could be present or absent. Coordination experiences the same dilemma. This is the frustrating aspect of combined arms: teamwork, communication, and coordination aren't a certified mechanic because they are bound by player choice.

In a perfect world all players would be interacting with one another. In this example, every player is mic'd up and they all know precisely what their role is; what they must prioritize and what they should ignore. Squads of five would consist of 1 of every class and either an extra Medic or Assault depending on the situation. A squad of players would be limited to communicating solely with their squadmates while the squad leader would have the accessibility to talk with his squad in conjunction with the remaining squad leaders. Squad leaders would essentially act as mediators to relay information to the entire team.

That is how I envision the game would play out if every inconsistent variable of human input remained constant. As you can see, public matches cannot and will not ever behave in this manner. The factor of free will is much too magnanimous in public play due to the cold hard fact that Battlefield is an arcade shooter by design and not representative of a war simulator in any meaningful manner.

Introducing an armored vehicle that relies solely on communication with teammates to be remotely effective was, perhaps, a mistake on DICE's behalf. As a vehicle whose most powerful armaments are not linked to the driver, the Landship suffers heavily against its opposition when the crew is not communicating and, therefore, not used to its full potential, and yet is a menace when communication is alive and well amonst the crew. An important vehicle whose effectiveness is directly tied to an unreliable variable? That seems like a misjudgment in game design to me.

Its implementation is similar to that of BF3 and BF4's Transport Helicopter in the following aspects. The pilot only had control of the Helicopter while his gunners encompassed the offensive and defensive capacity of the vehicle. It was entirely possible for a good pilot to set up circle strafes for his gunners without communication, although it would have proved more reliable had he been in communication with them.

The same principle applies to the Landship. The driver has control of the Tank, and some minor armaments at his disposal, while his sponson gunners offer the primary offensive and defensive capabilities. By the same token, it is possible for a good tanker to circle around a target for one of the sponsons to retaliate and (if necessary or applicable) quickly rotate for the other gunner to get a shot in without communication, although it would prove more dependable if he were communicating with his crew.

The playstyles between the Transport Helicopter and Landship share similarities in that their main weaponry is stripped from the operator and provided for the gunners. The issue remains that the Helicopter's primary purpose was transportation and the Landship's is anti-tank and anti-infantry, so the Landship is a more valuable asset for obvious reasons. However, being much slower and bound to the ground, the Landship is more susceptible to incoming damage which makes the similar playstyle to that of the Transport Helicopter more of a detriment to its overall impact since it is not a transport vehicle.

In my mind, this can only be addressed by converting the Landship into a heavily armored transport vehicle akin to the AMTRAC of previous Battlefields (although I know this would not be implemented in any way, shape, or form and that I'll receive unrelenting backlash for even proposing such a change). I don't know of any other non-seat locking, non-set timer methodology of going about this issue.

The only way to mitigate or remove Blueberry spawns on a Landship from the equation is to restrict the spawning to squadmates so there is some semblance of potential coordination to occur. This way friends or players in communication can control who spawns in their vehicle. However if this system remains and is not altered in the future, a Lanship operator will need to be aware of who is in the sponsons and, if it happens to be players he isn't talking with, to take appropriate action and enable the gunners to deal damage. Just how a good Transport Helicopter pilot could enable his gunners to be as efficient as he could allow them.

I sustain that the 'anyone can spawn' mechanic be limited to transport vehicles and planes. Transports because that is their specific purpose; to rapidly cover ground or to offer a mobile spawning position apart from a squadmate, and planes because they spawn mid-air and tail gunners are necessary to ward off enemy combatants.
To Aim Assist or not to Aim Assist, that is the question.

### Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.75
AttractUserInputMultiplier 0.45
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom 0.5
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.85
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.1
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 1.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.34
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.2
SnapZoomPostTime 0.2
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 1.2
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0

### Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.0
AttractUserInputMultiplier 1.0
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom -1.0
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.0
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 0.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.0
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.0
SnapZoomPostTime 0.0
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput -1.0
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 0.5
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0
DisableForcedTargetRecalcDistance 7.0

### Source code

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

 AccelerationInputThreshold 0.98
AccelerationMultiplier 5.0
AccelerationDamping 4.0
AccelerationTimeThreshold 0.15
SquaredAcceleration 0.0
MaxAcceleration::Vec2
x 2.0
y 2.0
YawSpeedStrength 1.0
PitchSpeedStrength 1.0
AttractDistanceFallOffs::Vec2
x 1.0
y 1.2
AttractSoftZone 0.75
AttractUserInputMultiplier 0.45
AttractUserInputMultiplier_NoZoom 0.5
AttractOwnSpeedInfluence 0.0
AttractTargetSpeedInfluence 0.85
AttractOwnRequiredMovementForMaximumAttract 0.0
AttractStartInputThreshold 0.1
AttractMoveInputCap 0.0
AttractYawStrength 1.0
AttractPitchStrength 0.34
MaxToTargetAngle 45.0
MaxToTargetXZAngle 45.0
ViewObstructedKeepTime 0.0
SnapZoomLateralSpeedLimit 1000.0
SnapZoomTime 0.2
SnapZoomPostTimeNoInput 0.0
SnapZoomPostTime 0.0
SnapZoomReticlePointPriority 999
SnapZoomAutoEngageTime 0.0
SnapZoomBreakTimeAtMaxInput -1.0
SnapZoomBreakMaxInput 0.2
SnapZoomBreakMinAngle 90.0
SnapZoomSpamGuardTime 0.5
SoldierBackupSkeletonCollisionData *nullGuid*
CheckBoneCenterOnlyDistance 40.0
DisableForcedTargetRecalcDistance 7.0

### My "Contributions"

This post has been edited 2 times, last edit by "JSLICE20" (Dec 27th 2016, 12:49am)

Posts: 1,895

Date of registration
: Jan 12th 2014

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 13

Tuesday, December 27th 2016, 2:17am

### Quoted from "tankmayvin"

I don't think the landship compares much to the transport chopper minus the way the guns are setup.

### Quoted from "JSLICE20"

Its implementation is similar to that of BF3 and BF4's Transport Helicopter in the following aspects. The pilot only had control of the Helicopter while his gunners encompassed the offensive and defensive capacity of the vehicle. It was entirely possible for a good pilot to set up circle strafes for his gunners without communication, although it would have proved more reliable had he been in communication with them.

The same principle applies to the Landship. The driver has control of the Tank, and some minor armaments at his disposal, while his sponson gunners offer the primary offensive and defensive capabilities. By the same token, it is possible for a good tanker to circle around a target for one of the sponsons to retaliate and (if necessary or applicable) quickly rotate for the other gunner to get a shot in without communication, although it would prove more dependable if he were communicating with his crew.

The playstyles between the Transport Helicopter and Landship share similarities in that their main weaponry is stripped from the operator and provided for the gunners.

My response was a bit lengthy and wall of text-like, so I color coded corresponding aspects of what I believe represents the similarities in my reply as well as in gameplay.

### Quoted from "tankmayvin"

The Landship is much more like a "super amtrak" with the major issue that it also eats a valuable tank slot and provides no mobile spawn point advantage over the otherwise totally superior A7V.

Hence this:

### Quoted from "JSLICE20"

In my mind, this can only be addressed by converting the Landship into a heavily armored transport vehicle akin to the AMTRAC of previous Battlefields

### Quoted from "tankmayvin"

The A7V should totally retain the ability for team-wide spawning though, the only seats that really should be restricted are the two autocannons on the breakthrough and maybe the pair of frontal mgs - but that's very much a maybe.

Restricting squad spawns to the A7V is primarily to prevent randoms from spawning at opportune moments in time to mow down Dynamite, Limpet Charge, or AT Mine rushers and spawn bombing a capture zone in either Conquest or Operations. But now that I ponder it, all multiple seat vehicles were likely converted to the limitless spawn mechanic to assist in capturing or defending sectors in Operations.

As long as the Landship consumes a tank slot it cannot be balanced simply as an "amtrac", it must be equally as valid/viable as any of the other tanks at being a tank.

DICE really screwed themselves with the tank pool mechanic because it renders pretty much 3/4 of the vehicle slots totally non-viable for serious play.

I've stated this repeatedly, but the only tanks really worth spawning generically are the A7V Assault and A7V Breakthrough and general play strongly favours the Assault. The breakthrough is a specialized tank buster and relies heavily on good gunners for general combat.

The only other "good vehicles" are the FT Howitzer, FT flanker, and if you can crew it, the tank hunter landship or squad landships. All three of those vehicles are highly situational and really shouldn't be taken as a first spawn. I'd now argue that with all team spawning you cannot crew those landships and they are in the grey zone between situational and bad.

The arty truck is straight up totally inferior and should never be taken in any form. Ditto for the stock FT, mortar landship and that stupid flamethrower thing.

So that leaves you really with two "actual" tank choices, two situational choices, and 8 no's.

Good job on that vehicle meta DICE.