Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them?

What if you had to run a Pilot dropsuit to drive/fly a vehicle?
Do you guys think that would balance things?
You'd have to skill into the suit--to use advanced or prototype weapons or modules, you'd have to have an advanced or prototype suit.
And it'd be a light suit, so you'd be paper thin outside of your vehicle.
There could even be modules and equipment specific to the pilot suit, to provide a further ISK/SP sink.

Haha try this...

No. There are no drones and things are not as you claim. You cannot prove otherwise, thus you are wrong by your own logic.

Give it up, Atiim, you can't argue with someone who thinks that a magical teapot in the asteroid belt is worth believing in just because it cannot be proven to not exist.

*checks skill tree and market place*

Nope, no pilot suit. Take your babbling elsewhere please.

Both of those need to happen along with 1 seat per gun + 1 seat for the driver. IMHO, zooming around the ground of the battlefield should be the sole domain of the LAV (and perhaps the MAV when we get them). HAVs should take forever to get somewhere, but once they do you're in for a world of hurt if you're in their range.

Another thing, concerning the turret ranges. Ranges of Turrets should mirror the ranges of similar weapons of that tier. MLT Railguns should have the same basic range as a MLT Forge Gun (which IMHO should be called a Forge Shotgun since that is about all of the range they get). MLT Blasters should have roughly the same range as MLT HMG.

Even then, range should increase by size (or rather decrease by reduction of size). If the MLT 80GJ Rail has the same range as a MLT Forge Shotgun, then the Small Turret versions should have 1/4 the range of the 80GJ since it is a 20GJ gun.

Though this would also mean that the PRO 80GJ Rails would have the same range as PRO Forge Guns (which is stupid long range AFAIK), as well, PRO 80GJ Blasters would melt anything within 30m or so (not entirely sure on optimal of the HMG since I am only a tourist with it).

English, it is not impossible, it is called coordination. One guy skills up appropriately to be able to sit in the drivers seat of the tank and the other guy skills up appropriately to sit in the gunners seat. Who buys what and fits the tank has nothing to do splitting driver and gunner.

If CCP just made it so that you actually needed to have the skills to use something to use it, then it would be as simple as:

If I have skills for a HAV though no skills for any turrets, I can still buy turrets and fit them, I just won't be able to use them. They will be there to be occupied by corp/squadmates who are appropriately skilled. I will never be able to cycle to the turret seats unless I skill for them.

Conversely, if I have skills for Small Rail Turrets but I don't have skills for a HAV, if I hop into your HAV, even if it is empty, I will never be able to cycle to the drivers seat. If you don't have Small Rail Turrets and I am not skilled to use the turrets you do have fitted then I will just not be able to enter your HAV no matter how many times I spam circle.

Tie the seats that are open to you to the skills you have.

This would cut down on vehicle theft for one and for two it would also cut down on vehicle spam.

In response to your comment about the 80GJ Rail, what percentage of the HAVs PG does that 80GJ Rail take up? Is it proportional to the percentage of PG the Heavy needs to dedicate to his Forge Gun? It called balance, which should be more important than realism (as though 80GJ Rails and modified handheld mining lasers have any realism to begin with).

Ok, so English are you trying to tell me that you and Spkr don't play together enough for you two to coordinate and design fits that would compliment each skill set? Beyond that, are you saying that you run mostly solo and bring out HAVs only while running solo? You never squad up with anyone regularly who you trust enough to be a competent driver/gunner, whether they be from your corp or even just old friends?

Coordination and Teamwork are the name of the game, work together with people you regularly play with to train complimentary skill sets and squad together to OMGWTFPWN everything that stands in your way (since we all realize that 1 dedicated driver and 1 dedicated gunner > 1 guy splitting his attention between driving and gunning). It is the most intelligent way to handle HAVs and you know it. It will create the balance where they can have a somewhat softer tank and be killed with AV coordination. Vehicles are stupid OP at the moment and if you can't admit that, I just don't know what to say to that.

HAVs should require teamwork to become true threats on the battlefield. They don't currently, any jackass can hop into an HAV by themselves and run around owning infantry since CCP has buffed vehicles and nerfed AV as they have. I want HAVs to be able to become that true threat on the battlefield, though only for those who are willing and able to coordinate and work as a team.

If all you want is to kick puppies (which is what HAV v Infantry currently is) by yourself, you should biomass, uninstall and go gank unsuspecting haulers and miners in Eve.

I notice that you ignore my assertions regarding comparing Infantry and HAVs and continue to compare them without refuting my assertion that comparing them is the same as comparing kittens and adult male tigers.

Am I expected to believe that if you were in a match alone that you would have any open turret slots for bluedot noobs to get you killed with? You know as well as I do that 90% of the time (if not more) you play Dust, you've got at least 1 or 2 other people in squad with you. Are you telling me that you don't think Spkr or Estwood are "switched on and know what the **** they are doing"? Is that honestly how you feel about them? Even further, do you really not expect to ever play regularly with (and develop trust in) other people who might not be nearly so SP laden as the three of you are?

I can only conclude that you must be trolling as I know that there is no other explanation for how obtuse you are being on the topic.

Will you be happy when you and Spkr only have a handful of other tankers to play against? I bet CCP will love that, yeah, ~100 guys who might be spending cold hard cash for dev time and server space. Dust will lead a really prosperous existence then.

English, do you not wear a dropsuit inside that HAV? I am willing to bet you do, even if it is a bpo suit with nothing more than a bpo gun.

My point is this; you chose to spend 20m+ SP on something that amounts to a second dropsuit encasing your first. The assault with 20m+ sp invested in being infantry isn't choosing to invest sp in a second dropsuit with potentially the room for three. This is why he spawns in with only room for one in his dropsuit and absolutely zero potential to have anyone else to join him in that dropsuit. Tankers want that second dropsuit with that second set of weapons which is why you need to spend that extra SP on HAVs.

Infantry can't bail from their dropsuit when they get deep into armor, tankers can.

Infantry can't achieve 6000 ehp or more, tankers can.

On foot, infantry cannot achieve the speeds that HAVs can.

No single light weapon or even heavy weapon can achieve the raw damage output that HAVs can.

What is the drawback to being encased in that mobile battlestation/panic room?

I'd be willing to bet that HAVs are vastly more complex than dropsuits as well. Infantry are designed and intended to be able to solo. HAVs otoh, have the potential for multiple operators and accordingly have a higher potential to fulfill.

Dropsuits individually achieve their maximum potential with only one operator (this can be enhanced through teamwork, though this isn't 100% necessary for dropsuits to achieve their full potential individually).

HAVs are possessed of vastly more potential in many areas, in order for them to achieve their full potential, they should require multiple operators. The thought that a single operator can unlock a vastly greater amount of potential by themselves is silly and absurd. Since HAVs are force multipliers that bring much more to the table than 4 infantry can, I don't find it unreasonable for them to require 4 operators to achieve their full potential.

They aren't solo pwnmobiles and shouldn't be despite how much you want them to be. If you want to solo in your HAV, you should be restricted to the potential achieveable by any single infantry

English, there is an awful lot of conjecture in that post.

I notice that you bring up the breach fg as an attempt to refute my assertion regarding "raw damage output". Correct me if I am wrong, don't breach fg sacrifice RoF and clip size for alpha? Even you state that it is "nearly" the output of a rail. Nearly =/= achieve. Over the course of one minute who does more damage; a fully loaded rail or a fully loaded breach fg?

Though yes, overall I think that a crew served HAV on team would be balanced against a team that had no HAV that was up four infantry (one crew served HAV + 12 infantry v 16 infantry to be clear). I will address your conjecture no further than that.