Lol. And the argument just keeps going and going and going............. :-) You guys are awesome. Never get bored with tank/av threads.

"Teamwork for thee, but no teamwork for me"

-Such is the motto of vehicle pilots

Av is really lacking right now.

We need EWAR, webifiers and EMPs would be a great. Something besides just damage, because that just starts the buff Nerf cycle.

Other aspects of AV need a nice buff. Proxies and remotes especially. Establishing a defensive line against tanks should be possible, even through hardeners tanks should struggle to cross these without infantry support.

All nice. But your scenario is open to many variables. including not have that DS get destroyed. Or should every team have a expert DS pilot? This is not a RTS where every team is gonna have all the pieces like chess. It's a lobby FPS. and that's where the changes made to this game revolve around. AV is not a "deterrent" in FPS games. Never was meant to. I agree that speed on tanks really needs to be looked into tho.

Lol @ your signature, name-dropping a game that doesn't have any vehicles at all. You make 0 sense.

It's not a lobby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't see the problem with squading with competent pilots. What problem do you have with that?

Lol. And the argument just keeps going and going and going............. :-) You guys are awesome. Never get bored with tank/av threads.

I haven't actually seen any valid argument from the tanker perspective yet. What I have heard so far:

You should adapt
you should use teamwork - lots of it
you should drive a tank too
you should adapt - again
I killed a tank solo, so they must be fine
tanks don't bother me, so they must be fine
Adapt! FFS

Problem is that all of these are just opinions and you can't convince someone that they're wrong when they're happy about it. I would love to hear a logical reason as to why tanks are currently balanced. If it's just your opinion, then everyone is going to poke holes in it and it will get you nowhere.

A single AV user versus a single vehicle user is not a simple equation: active vehicle modules, cooldowns; passive dropsuit modules; weapons; terrain, map layout, installations, ammo/loaded clip, etc. There are many things that can have a serious impact on how and when a vehicle is vulnerable.

Also bear in mind that both have significant advantages over the other:

HAVs:
+ Faster than infantry
+ More powerful weaponry
+ Periods of power
- Reduced manoeuvrability (less capable of traversing tight spaces, for example)
- Limited awareness (vehicle visibility is more restricted)
- Periods of vulnerability

Dropships:
+ Greatly increased manoeuvrability and speed
+ Periods of power
- Easy target acquisition (less cover for aerial vehicles, for example)
- Periods of vulnerability

Infantry:
+ Increased manoeuvrability (can access interiors for protection, for example)
+ Flexibility in engagement terms (ability to use environment, to generate ambushes for example)
- Inferior survivability
- Less powerful weaponry (makes engagement risky without stacking odds in some form)

This isn't comprehensive, and I'm not the most well versed in AV-vehicle balance but these are what I can see as intended principles of vehicle combat. But assuming these, it seems that a lot of discussion around balance ignores a lot of the environmental and situational factors which are supposed to play a part.

Blaster HAV caught your Forge Gunner in a relatively open field with active modules available? Then your Forge Gunner should probably lose.
Forge Gunner ambushes a Rail HAV retreating with modules in cooldown? Tank should probably blow up.

Did the tank get caught on terrain? Did it need to slow down and turn, limiting it's manoeuvrability? Did the AVer jump in close and stand still? There are a lot of things that alter the balance on a situational basis. Personally speaking, I feel that HAV speed needs tweaking (Gallente need slower acceleration, Caldari need slower top speed) and AV needs a slight buff to Swarms (damage needs to return to 330, range is good) while Forge Guns need to get a slight revamp to make non-Assault variants viable.

But that's me trying to be reasonable. I'll show myself out...


Edit:
For reference, I am primarily an infantry (Logistics) with a new focus on Assault Dropships (which is what I always wanted to be, but because of the gamestate when I first began did not skill into them) while I use HAVs (primarily Sicas) as my anti-armour. Judge that as you will, but I am trying to be fair in my assessments.