Huh? How does wanting to be able to use a module in more than one very narrowly defined fit counter my claim to want to use a module in more than one very narrowly defined fit? Your suggestion is that modules be designed in such a way that only the LDS can field the very best and only in limited circumstances. But this merely paints over the problem of the LDS at the expense of the ADS while further pushing it into a niche market. The problem with the LDS is that it is both too generic and too specialized. It is too generic in that it lacks the proper modules and bonuses to use those modules and too specialized in that the person spending all their time in it in match has nothing to do a vast portion of the match.

In my opinion, the LDS REQUIRES far more than the extremely limited set of tools it is currently in possession of, namely it's CRU, scanners, and the less than useless remote repper/boosters. Without these tools, it can never really step out of the shadow of the ADS.

removing turrets This is directed to both Lanius and Judge. I don't believe that removing turrets and making dropships purely transports or purely assaults is the way to go at this time or indeed at all. I can totally see adding these types of vehicles in, each one vastly superior in its chosen role in comparison to the multi-role Dropships we currently field. But I believe simply pulling the teeth out of the LDS is the wrong thing to do for a multitude of reasons, the main one being:

Whether Pub or PC, much time is spent waiting to be and to feel useful when piloting the LDS. current player count in match really does keep you from flying with gunners at all times and without a turret for the LDS pilot, it can seem at times like you've contributed nothing to victory except not dying. Disregarding the usefulness/uselessness of the turrets, I believe most dedicated pilots derive no small amount of comfort from the fact that they can shoot at or shoot back should they need to and this is a further nail in the coffin of the LDS. But by giving it the base turret while simultaneously creating modules that replace it and gain substantial bonuses when fielded by the LDS, you provide very real incentive to pilots to skill into it while reducing the homogeneous nature of the current dropships.

I think the fundamental difference between our positions is that I am looking at what I feel needs to be added to differentiate the LDS from the ADS while you are looking at what you feel needs to be removed to achieve the same.

Sorry it took so long to reply to this.
My original point on this can loosely be interpreted thus: (assuming for the moment we're not fitting equipment) You can fit proto modules on a std. logi suit, but if you try it with a std. assault you start having to make tough choices, "do I use std. shield extenders to free up cpu or do I not fit a damage mod". This is rather akin to your stealthy heavy analogy.

I know it doesn't correlate precisely, but this is exactly what I'm trying to say with the statement "unable to fit it with a normal loadout". "Do I fit countermeasures or better armor plates?" You seem to be saying this kind of situation shouldn't exist in the Dropship, yet that's exactly the kind of tough choice already present in dropsuits. There is already an analog to my theoretical ECM, what stops an ADS pilot from fitting a MCRU or remote reps? I'm just trying to clarify that the logistics craft should have enough slots (since there's no such thing as airborne equipment), and enough cpu/pg to fit an area of effect type ECM. I should have elucidated my point a bit more up front.

I would be behind replacing the side turrets with a single nose turret, but if we keep the side turrets and have the passenger room still, why would I fly a transport? I'm looking for differentiation, but all the LDS is, is a beefier transport which still has the same offensive capabilities. Are you for a transport only DS, because if you chafe at the wait in a LDS imagine what the transport pilot feels, he has no MCRU. Should we then give all DS a nose turret? What separates them from assault craft then? Should we then have only assault craft?
It's just a slippery slope if we leave them undifferentiated. I don't want to cripple any ship or the users thereof.
Just out of curiosity, do you think there should be the 3 types of craft, and if so why would you use a transport?

I honestly have no problem with having all three types of dropship. As for a nose turret in the base transport, I wouldn't add one but would include the module type I spoke of in my own post of several months ago (https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=935374#post935374) that allows the side turrets to be fixed forward (barring a module, I could see them as alternate turret types that you specialized in like the various infantry weapon specializations).

I could see the transport truly living up to it's name by including an in-built RDV like tractor module and vastly superior torque that would allow it to move any manner of battlefield item to new and better locations. Don't need that resupply depot half a click behind the lines? Pick it up and move it where you want it. The Logi can't do it because the built in CRU drains power from available torque and the Assault spends its PG on acceleration. This could be balanced by having installations so moved be unusable until a certain period of time had passed and by having terrain requirements be met before activation could occur (not drop off mind you, just activation).

Removing the side turrets from the Logi while adding a nose gun would force blueberries spawning in to actually get out instead of clipping you with your own weapons while firing on allies and keeping you able to at least make a potshot or two in between dropoffs into hot zones

Finally, I have no objections to removing some seats from the assault so long as this corresponds with an increase in available ammo for the turrets (once ammo is implemented).

I think a good analogy of most peoples view of the dropships is:
Transport = American Huey, Logistics = American Blackhawk, and Assault = Russian Hind.
But I don't think we've actually come that far in the design stage. Instead, I think a better analogy is to look at the current lineup of DS as variants of a single type: The Bell UH-1 Iroquois or 'Huey'
Transport = UH-1H edit:(basic transport)
Logistics = UH-1P edit:(special ops and attack ops use)
Assault = UH-1M edit:(gunship)
Keeping this analogy in mind, I hope you can see where my line of reasoning is going. I think the differentiation between Dropships should focus more on differing stat bonuses combined with differing racial bonuses and less on making each DS its own beast. I think we need to nail down the interrelationship between racial variants and role variants before we start throwing in truly different models of Dropship that will increase that complexity by a wide margin, a complexity I only welcome if it doesn't break my Dropships or the game.