The current level of tank sustainability is, in my opinion, perfectly fine. You can now fit your tank to be a fragile, but powerful glass cannon or a highly defense-oriented mobile fortress designed to resist damage and keep you alive. A lot of players prefer the latter, giving rise to what infantry have termed unkillable tanks.

Whatever, it's a tank. If its owner has maximized the survivability of his rig and spent his SP appropriately, then who are you to complain? If we want the maximum defense possible, then your complaints about us being hard to kill mean we've done our job correctly.

Besides, Missile tanks are not going to rack up any obscene body counts. So what do you care if you can't swarm it to death?

And Rail tanks aren't going to rack up any obscene body counts either. So what do you care if you can't swarm it to death?

Also, Blaster tanks aren't going to...oh uh. Um...uh...

Yeah, about those Blaster tanks.

CCP, even with a lowly militia turret, blaster tanks are effective against infantry to the point of being a broken mechanic. Blaster tanks are average against other tanks but OBSCENELY POWERFUL against infantry. They stand no chance. It isn't fair in the slightest, and it isn't fun. If the driver sees you, you are dead, and that is that.

I hold no grudges against a rail gun or missile tank that kills me when I play infantry. That is proof of skill in the case of the rail gunner, and luck in the case of the missile tank. But Blasters are a different story entirely. By combining a tank's high defense with the most unbeatable infantry slayer in the game, it feels like nothing less than a cheap exploit, and it really needs to be looked at.

People are blindly calling for a nerf on tanks in general, when in fact, it is this very specific sort of tank (blasters) that is causing all the trouble. The blaster turret is problematic.

It is entirely too effective.