well those small turrets and large turrets better not share the same ammo supply because blue berries that get in my tank will burn my ammo before i can use it.

but, if one guy with standard AV can kill my tank, their is no point to using them

I still prefer the idea of an RDV actually coming out to pick up the vehicle.

They've already made their delivery process faster, and if they improve the AI of them, you could have the thing drop cloak, pick up your vehicle, take off, and cloak up within 15-20 seconds.

Since it sounds like a major buff to active hardeners is in the works, and you wouldn't have to worry about the cooldown if you're recalling your vehicle, you just activate those and then do the recall.

This looks pretty cool. It looks like Wolfman and his crew might actually be thinking the same thing as me, but who knows? With any luck it'll go something like this:
For the differences between small and large turrets, I envision ammo capacity being the defining factor between use on infantry and use on vehicles/structures. Small turrets do decent damage to infantry and have greater ammo capacity, making LAV and MAV the go-to infantry killing vehicles. Because these are lighter class vehicles, AV infantry can still take them on. Large turrets have respectable damage, making them kill infantry and harder targets alike. The thing that balances them is ammo count. Because large turrets will have less ammo capacity, most tanks will avoid targeting infantry because it would result in frequent resupplies and abandoning advantageous positions on the map. Of course an HAV could invest in ammo capacity modules, giving them a significant increase in ability to engage infantry without running out of ammo. However this is balanced because the ammo modules would take module slots, thus reducing the HAV's defenses and bringing it in line with the AV efforts of infantry.
The short story:
LAV and MAV kill infantry, infantry AV kill LAV and MAV.
HAV kill all vehicles, large coordinated infantry effort and HAV kills HAV.
Ammo count balances HAV use against infantry.

the removal of all tier, standard, advanced and prototype levels would be no more and dust wouldn't be dust

doesn't matter, that term is focusing on the entire game, not just this dying class

The current cool-down system is far more clunky and confusing than a capacitor based system.

Let's reverse things for a moment and give infantry movement a cool-down mechanism for comparison.

When you want to run you activate your sprint module, then deactivate it and wait for the cool-down before you can sprint again. How in the world is that easier to use or understand than stamina which is just another word for "body capacitor"?

Four quick observations, and one point of explanation .... I admit I did not read every post in this 20 plus page thread so perhaps the following four observations will be redundant.

#1 Is CCP planning to nerf ... err I mean rebalance the high rate of speed at which LAV's can tear across the terrain? Right now they can frequently outpace swarm missiles fired at them.

#2 Comparing an immobile stationary turret to a tank is laughable. If anything the turret should be the vulnerable destructive lord of the battlefield with range that goes redline to redline but is blocked by buildings and terrain. Then team cooperation and strategy would need to be employed to counter, control, or destroy them. Having a stationary turret run out of ammo is just plain dumb.

#3 Why can drop ships fly up out of range and simply vanish? Is this a glitch? If it's not please allow my clone in his drop suit to leap high enough into the air to get out of range when I get targeted also. Fair is fair.

#4 Why can a Massive HAV land safely on top of any building? It seems counter intuitive that the roof/ ceiling structure would be able to support them.

These are three vehicle fixes that need to be added rather swiftly imho.

1. Haven't seen anything on it but they are making it harder to murder taxi in 1.4 as stated here https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1210968#post1210968. Aside from saga II's and LLAV's you should be able to 1 or 2 shot LAV's currently.

1. Haven't seen anything on it but they are making it harder to murder taxi in 1.4 as stated here https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1210968#post1210968. Aside from saga II's and LLAV's you should be able to 1 or 2 shot LAV's currently.

2. Stationary turrets don't cost you anything so they shouldn't be better than tanks.

3. Dropships have the aerial redline which adds a little more rome. Were also the fastest vehicles when using afterburners. Not only that but any successful pilot has practice being the biggest target on the fields and develops thier own strategy to survive. Finding cover and blocking line of sight from immobile AV'ers is a pretty common tactic.

4. Why should only forge gunners, swarmers or snipers be able to take advantage of the tower tops? I think if its available to infantry it should be available to HAV's. As to why a building should be able to support it, keep in mind that these are people who have had thousands of years to work on technology and they started from intergalactic space travelers whos first goal was colonizing worlds.

I'll leave it at that.

I said nothing about changing LAV's just provided a link to what's happening in 1.4 which will address the murder taxi situation without nerfing LLAV's into uselessness. As far as HAV's on buildings it's less game breaking than forge gunners/swarmers on the towers because they can't aim down as steeply or track as well, or be revived by anyone with a needle.

In one of the loading screens there are both a dropship and two smaller aircrafts making bombing runs so CCP may add the lighter ships as another variation along with the future pilot dropsuit.

In my opinion assault dropships are mainly used solo because teamates seem to either run pass my dropships or just hitch a ride to the nearest CRU then jump out, leaving me with two empty gunner seats.

Adding cloaking would make vehicles a little over powered, because like the afterburner it could be easaly used to evade combat. I myself am a DS pilot and I can think of alot of ways this could be useful and frusterating. Another thing to think about would be exactly what kind of cloaking, visual or electonical. If visual then the vehicle would still have to show up on radars and be targeted by swarms. If electronical then the vehicle would be visible but it wouldn't show on radar or be targeted by swarms.

Flares or something similar would be a good idea but would it have a racharge or a set munition that could be regained via supply points.

EVE style cloaking seems impractical for ground vehicles since proximity of objects render cloaks inoperable, a cloaked dropship would be possible but the tradeoff of a period of drastically reduced mobility while cloaked might prove far more dangerous than relying on speed, shields, and good piloting to survive.

This sounds promising like something interesting; Caldari HAV=guerrilla warfare, Gallente HAV= Pain drain.
I still see one problem, ing gallente get more HP then they still have a bonus over caldari, especially if both are using railguns.
You guys kinda left a sheet over us shield tankers and I'm one of them who suffered, as one of the main tankersfor my Corp i was obviously a killing machine but what happens when devs start tweaking tanks in critical times; some of us tankers are left out in the cold to die and get scrapped by cowards with false hope.
My point of all of this is don't make certain things good then take them away.

shield has less resistance, and regenerate at 17 hp/s