[Suggestion] 3 new empire specific vehicles: The Seigebreakers

I'd like to propose a set of vehicles that could add a new element to tactical combat and reward highly organized play. I call them the seigebreakers.

Pulling a seigebreaker
1. They can only be pulled from the warpgate.
2. They cost more than 750 nanites to pull, so multiple people's complete nanite supply is used.
3. Only a squad leader can pull one of these. They can access the nanites of everyone in their squad/platoon at the warpgate in a specific building where the vehicles are pulled from. Thus you can't join a squad and suddenly lose all your nanites: You have to walk to a specific building that pops up a notice of where you are and what it means.

Downsides of a seigebreaker
1. They have a lot of health, but they can't be repaired outside of the warpgate. Thus you can't stack engineers to keep them alive, and have to aggressively protect them. A wave of suicide-bombers will kill one easily.
2. Seigebreakers are not for direct damage dealing. The driver has no guns, and any turrets on it are Sunderer-level.
3. The buffs only affect members of the platoon. This makes them far less useful in a zerg rush.

So what would make these vehicles so worth it? Here's an example of three seigebreakers that use a Sunderer as a base.

Vanu Soverignty: Vehicle rush. Platoon vehicles passing within a rather large distance of this seigebreaker get a speed boost, raising their speed to that of a flash. This boost lasts one minute, or until the vehicle takes or deals weapon damage. A vehicle cannot receive the buff again until it goes 15 seconds without taking or dealing weapon damage.
New Conglomerate: Infantry rush: Platoon infantry that spawn from this seigebreaker get a speed boost that lasts one minute or until they take or receive weapon damage.
Terran republic: All for one: When deployed, platoon vehicles within range take 25% less damage from enemy weapons fire. However 50% of the original damage is spread among the other vehicles within range, excluding the seigebreaker. Thus each hit does 125% damage, but it is split 75% to the target and 50% to everything else.

Now these don't seem super amazing on their own. The inability to repair, need to draw from the warpgate, and requiring at least four people to pull one mean that you won't see many zerg rushes running with them. However these would be highly valuable in organized units that could properly defend and deploy them. The ability to get an armor column quickly between points reduces the chance for enemies to setup an ambush. Rapidly deploying soldiers to an area lets a sunderer sit much further back to provide the same benefit as an up-close one. A well-organized tank unit could be devastating using their collective health pool if they can protect their seigebreaker.

Each of these vehicles is powerful, but only situationally. Without protection they're a hostile fire magnet. I like that they reward highly organized play, because a well-organized platoon can get more use out of a single one than a zerg swarm gould get from five.

A few ideas for other abilities/seigebreakers

A blimp that can spawn empire specific fighters
A mobile factory that can spawn flashes
Flight ceiling: Creates a large field where enemy airplanes above a certain altitude lose speed, making them easier targets.
Medimax: A single max suit with no weapons but a medic gun and a shield replenisher.
Needler: Enemy vehicles within range take damage from small arms fire.
Radar: Spots enemies in an area around it when deployed. Fragile, having only the health of an average sunderer.

Would love to hear your ideas!

PLEASE NOTE: I am not even remotely saying "this should be implemented into the game as I envision it!" I just think this is a neat idea, and would like to hear how it could be made more neat.

Not in the near future

I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Teamplay should never ever require a squad, outfit or platoon.
At it's core, teaming up in a squad or platoon should happen because you had a good experience fighting alongside eachother and want to be able to find eachother quickly again and have some perks like squad beacons. It should never be a requirement for teamplay itself.

For example your blimp. You probably want it squad/platoon only. It should be accessible to everyone, and squad/platoon membership simply helps you with for example a larger radius to spawn there so you have easier access.

One thing that would make PS2 stand out and increase its life expectancy with a few years easy would be if they added a solid teamwork mechanic. One where any two players, regardless of randoms, squadmates, in different platoons/squads or a platoon/squad with a random, should be able to play together. And I dont mean "they fight alongside eachother" like we see Zergs do I mean "they actively do things that will support the other regardless of class or loadout". And if one dies, the remaining player can team up with the next player he runs into.

Does not mention how many turrets are on the vehicle in question.
Does not mention how many seats are in the vehicle.
Does not mention if there are rumble seats.
Does not mention the movement speed.
Does not mention how fast they move.
Does not mention how susceptible they are to different weapons.
Does not mention armor values or resistances.
Does not mention if you can spawn from it.
Does not mention health values, a "Lot of health" is context driven, while a lib might seem big to an infantry player, tomcat squads can easily remove them in an instant, likewise for skyguards killing ESFs and so on.
Does not mention what guns can be equipped.
Does not mention the ranges or values of many of the benefits.
Does not mention how many people have to be in the squad. A squad of two for example could pull one with no reason except just cause.
Cannot be repaired when the longevity of every other vehicle in this game depends on those repairs.
Is incredibly situational.

You could've just said "A vehicle that provides passive benefits by being a capital ship near players".
A lot of these bonuses are lackluster and are nearly pointless or ridiculous. Footzerging infantry? Vehicles that move as fast as the second fastest ground vehicle in the game? TR basically getting repair bus bait that would make them ridiculously and unfairly tanky?

I'm all for a flagship like the bastion fleet carriers, but providing a debuff just by being near the enemy is not something fun to deal with as the enemy.
Speaking of which, a lot of these debuffs are silly. Small arms fire suddenly effects all vehicles? There's a reason the godsaw has half it's damage on its AV fire and IT can almost 2 mag a galaxy from 1k meters. 3 Godsaws means you will never have galaxies be able to come close.

These are not supposed to be direct damage dealers and yet they can equip basilisks? If there's more than 2 bassys then you're dealing a good portion of damage, more than 4 then you're able to take on tanks, more than 6 and you melt almost everything, 8 and ESFs will not try and bob and weave near you, less than 8 and I wouldn't even consider this over 3 sunderers.

You really ought to refine your idea here. Steer away from the passive benefits that we do not already have or those of which are acceptable to have under the proper circumstances and those powers of which can be sufficiently countered fairly by the enemy team. Do not underestimate a capital ship that can spawn other vehicles. Galaxies are valued in the regard that they can be a mobile spawn and provide acceptable damage against ground forces. Just because it's big doesn't mean it shouldn't be able to be repaired. In fact if anything if it cannot take cover easily or have much armor, it should be easier to repair because of it. Just because it provides utility does not mean it shouldn't be threatening. Just because it provides a different benefit doesn't mean it should be regulated to just providing that benefit.

Also if you're going to call them "Seige breakers" then you ought to break a seige with them, but if they aren't a damage dealer and only provide a passive benefit, they are more "seige enablers" than breakers.


Not to cut so deep into your idea but this is literally so out there it isn't conceivable or understandable or relative to a concept.

any system that lets a squad or platoon leader spend other people resources without their express consent is a bad idea,

it's kinda like what some dumb people do in EQ2 public quests they form a PUG raid force and invite randoms and heroic groups then they use raid leader controls to meddle with the pre-made heroic groups and move people around and then come up with ******** "we need X in here for Y" when the PQs don't need any micromanagement of grp setups.

do you want a dumb platoon leader to spend your resources on useless crap when you wanted to pull a vehicle?

I think the devs abandoned all plans for new vehicles and maps in 2014.

Holy crap you people are negative.

I agree. That's why I said that you have to go to a specific place in the warpgate before the squad leader can access your nanites, and a warning appears on your screen when you enter that place letting you know the status.

As I said, this is just an idea, not a damn "this is how it should be implemented' technical document.

The core idea is "Vehicles that require multiple people's worth of nanites to pull, and require careful teamwork to make effective use of."

Take some notes from this guy.

He listed out damage stats, weapons, conditions, move speed, certs.

But the difference in your idea and his idea was that you got way too ahead of yourself.

Your idea was "Vehicles that require multiple sources of nanites to launch, and require teamwork to make better use of it".
We already have that, we call them liberators and MBTs, you basically took that idea and made it to one of the far off nth degree which made it so hard to relate to that no one could really understand what you envisioned.

Now think, just a bit, what is the basic type of vehicle you want to create, you said carrier, well carriers are big, should be skybound or landbound, should it move this fast, what kind of systems should it have, would this be considered fair across all factions.

You could've simply had your thread end at "How about vehicles that provide passive benefits while friendlies are near them".
But you took it in too many different directions that everyone basically had to give up on reading it and simply thought: "teamplay vehicle that required multiple people to pull" and then listed almost none of the reasons why you would want to pull it basically.

Thread recipe for disaster.

but again: