name one game that does that....name me one, go ahead.

there is a reason why they don't.

DUST isn't like like other games out there and CCP is trying to do something unique.

This is a valid option that works for the LAV and the mechanics would be no different in the HAV.

The HAV is a frontline combat vehicle. The LAV is a transport/support vehicle. They don't work the same way. I don't think this stretches reason too much.

Besides, it stands to reason there should be at least one vehicle that you can use without having to get a whole squad together.

The idea is not to diminish the functionality of the HAV in a combat role. Nothing changes how lethal or well defended the HAV is, or how modules would be activated. The only change is that the driver of a HAV doesn't have the ability to fire while driving.

You do not need a whole squad to use a LAV. A solo player can drive a LAV and then switch to the turret if they choose. It doesn't have the effectiveness as if it was fully loaded with a dedicated gunner, but it is still viable.

The proposed change to HAVs would offer the same to a solo operator. The HAV would be driven into position where the player quickly switches to whichever turret they choose to use. Unleashing their barrage as per normal when they choose to move again they switch to the operator seat and maneuver accordingly. If the HAV is manned by more than one person the level of danger for targets only increases.

HAV operators would never have to leave their vehicle and would still have full control of modules. There is no downside save for the lack of "run and gun" by a solo operator.

I think the main problem tankers would have with cooperative tanking is blueberries hopping in and driving tanks off cliffs.

The idea is not to diminish the functionality of the HAV in a combat role. Nothing changes how lethal or well defended the HAV is, or how modules would be activated. The only change is that the driver of a HAV doesn't have the ability to fire while driving.

You do not need a whole squad to use a LAV. A solo player can drive a LAV and then switch to the turret if they choose. It doesn't have the effectiveness as if it was fully loaded with a dedicated gunner, but it is still viable.

The proposed change to HAVs would offer the same to a solo operator. The HAV would be driven into position where the player quickly switches to whichever turret they choose to use. Unleashing their barrage as per normal when they choose to move again they switch to the operator seat and maneuver accordingly. If the HAV is manned by more than one person the level of danger for targets only increases.

HAV operators would never have to leave their vehicle and would still have full control of modules. There is no downside save for the lack of "run and gun" by a solo operator.

The HAV is a frontline combat vehicle. The LAV is a transport/support vehicle. They don't work the same way. I don't think this stretches reason too much.

Besides, it stands to reason there should be at least one vehicle that you can use without having to get a whole squad together.

Seriously terrible idea, terible, wish i can -1, that would make havs completely useless
Unless of course you make it so it takes 2 peopleto move and shoot a ar

Nice try, but that would hardly make a HAV useless:

HAVs have a huge armor advantage over infantry. Without firing a weapon a HAV operator can still run over infantry to score kills. Once holding position it's a simple button push for the operator to switch to a long range option. Anyone playing a sniper already has to hold their position to increase their effectiveness in their role.

If you do have 2 or more operators in a HAV you now have the ability to double your threat.

At present the running line is that AV should have to work in a team to destroy a HAV, so your second point is essentially already the case. You need more than one person to attack a HAV well.

As for the concern that a single pilot can fly an assault dropships and attack. The front mounted turret is a small caliber compared to the large which is on the HAV, and the base hp is lower than that of the HAV as well. In addition to these points the momentum based flight means that DS pilots are more likely to make strafing runs rather than camping in one location.

I don't think the inconvenience of hopping seats is the same as being helpless.

Nice try kid
Eve, 1 person 1 ship
1 supercap 1 person
And then remotes would become fotm
And tanks would be comepletely useles, expeting me to allow a blue to shoot lolz
Nice try
It never should happen and if it did

I would request a god mode button when two people are in then you ***** and moan



Btw you cant turn a turret on a dropship and fly at the same time by your logic, but you just hate tanks so opinion=invalid

mobile murder fortresses

Nice try

Why does the HAV allow the driver to operate and fire the main cannon at the same time?

Perhaps an addition to satisfy both HAV operators and those who feel HAV operation should be a team effort would be to have a driver seat like the LAV.

A single operator would be completely protected as they currently are, but would have to switch seats to a turret to fire a weapon. Multiple operators would mean a dedicated driver and manned turrets, while solo drivers would have to stop moving and switch controls to attack a target. Retreat would then also mean switching back.

I believe this may offer a good dynamic.

Why does the HAV allow the driver to operate and fire the main cannon at the same time?

Perhaps an addition to satisfy both HAV operators and those who feel HAV operation should be a team effort would be to have a driver seat like the LAV.

A single operator would be completely protected as they currently are, but would have to switch seats to a turret to fire a weapon. Multiple operators would mean a dedicated driver and manned turrets, while solo drivers would have to stop moving and switch controls to attack a target. Retreat would then also mean switching back.

I believe this may offer a good dynamic.

Why does the HAV allow the driver to operate and fire the main cannon at the same time?

Perhaps an addition to satisfy both HAV operators and those who feel HAV operation should be a team effort would be to have a driver seat like the LAV.

A single operator would be completely protected as they currently are, but would have to switch seats to a turret to fire a weapon. Multiple operators would mean a dedicated driver and manned turrets, while solo drivers would have to stop moving and switch controls to attack a target. Retreat would then also mean switching back.

I believe this may offer a good dynamic.

We still need a tank that can be operated solo.

Just make it so you have Xhav's and Hav's.
Xhav's have 40% extra HP, and use OP's idea. Also they have 4/3 slot layout.

Hav's maintain their current speed, and operate decently solo.
Xhav's operate in a team and will stomp any Hav because it's bigger, and has more slots/fitting.

Hav's need fitting reduced, as to not be able to fit proto turret, an all proto modules on a base hull.
Hav's should have to sacrifice, a nitrous? Or what about a damage mod? Shield extender?

Xhav's would gain that lost fitting, and quite possibly have 2 large turrets. Or make it 1xl, 1l, and 1 S/M.

We still need a tank that can be operated solo.

Just make it so you have Xhav's and Hav's.
Xhav's have 40% extra HP, and use OP's idea. Also they have 4/3 slot layout.

Hav's maintain their current speed, and operate decently solo.
Xhav's operate in a team and will stomp any Hav because it's bigger, and has more slots/fitting.

Hav's need fitting reduced, as to not be able to fit proto turret, an all proto modules on a base hull.
Hav's should have to sacrifice, a nitrous? Or what about a damage mod? Shield extender?

Xhav's would gain that lost fitting, and quite possibly have 2 large turrets. Or make it 1xl, 1l, and 1 S/M.

Tanks should stay as one man vehicles. But tanks should be about killing other vehicles. They should have to rely on small turrets to protect them from infantry.

There should also be a LAV that let's you use the turret and drive at the same time.

Why does the HAV allow the driver to operate and fire the main cannon at the same time?

Perhaps an addition to satisfy both HAV operators and those who feel HAV operation should be a team effort would be to have a driver seat like the LAV.

A single operator would be completely protected as they currently are, but would have to switch seats to a turret to fire a weapon. Multiple operators would mean a dedicated driver and manned turrets, while solo drivers would have to stop moving and switch controls to attack a target. Retreat would then also mean switching back.

I believe this may offer a good dynamic.

Tanks are for killing tanks, or at least I think they should be AV focused, not infantry focused. Tankers should SUPPORT infantry, or in other words "SUPPLEMENT" not outright own them. Small turrets are there for AI purposes.

You aren't restricted on your suits like this, there is no reason a tank should be as well. But I agree, if it takes a team to kill a tank, it should take a tank team to kill infantry.

If tanks are AV focused - What the hell are they for?
That literally means that they are pointless outside of their own microcosmos. You wouldn't even need to call in another tank when the enemy gets one, because an enemy with a tank just means that one of their squad members suddenly stopped contributing meaningfully. That's why large AI turrets need to exist.

With infantry, I can be either AI or AV. As a commando even both. Let's disregard the imbalances that exist for the current AV situation.

I don't think you currently understand the advantage infantry have by lone-operated HAVs.

Currently, to see where you are driving, an HAV must have their turret pointed in the general direction. This allows people to sneak up behind HAVs and place REs, or AV nade them. Give HAV dual operation and you have a constantly mobile heavy weapon platform where turret tracking speed (which is relatively slow) does not hinder the ability to retreat.

I've had many HAV's screw themselves over because they panic and they reverse without swiveling the turret before hand and thus run themselves up a rock and they lose the vehicle. Allowing the HAV turret operator to be given only a single focus would be bad because then we'd have HAV operators controlling their vehicles much more easily. The HAV driver only has to worry about movement and HAV health while the HAV turret operator only has to focus on targets. Currently, the HAV operator has to focus on the HAV health, the targets, and where they are going. It would be better to leave as is so we don't lessen the load of responsibilities handed to a HAV.

No I am not a tanker I do the shady sands shuffle.

If tanks are AV focused - What the hell are they for?
That literally means that they are pointless outside of their own microcosmos. You wouldn't even need to call in another tank when the enemy gets one, because an enemy with a tank just means that one of their squad members suddenly stopped contributing meaningfully. That's why large AI turrets need to exist.

With infantry, I can be either AI or AV. As a commando even both. Let's disregard the imbalances that exist for the current AV situation.

I don't think you currently understand the advantage infantry have by lone-operated HAVs.

Currently, to see where you are driving, an HAV must have their turret pointed in the general direction. This allows people to sneak up behind HAVs and place REs, or AV nade them. Give HAV dual operation and you have a constantly mobile heavy weapon platform where turret tracking speed (which is relatively slow) does not hinder the ability to retreat.

I've had many HAV's screw themselves over because they panic and they reverse without swiveling the turret before hand and thus run themselves up a rock and they lose the vehicle. Allowing the HAV turret operator to be given only a single focus would be bad because then we'd have HAV operators controlling their vehicles much more easily. The HAV driver only has to worry about movement and HAV health while the HAV turret operator only has to focus on targets. Currently, the HAV operator has to focus on the HAV health, the targets, and where they are going. It would be better to leave as is so we don't lessen the load of responsibilities handed to a HAV.

No I am not a tanker I do the shady sands shuffle.

And what are tanks for, why to fight other tanks of course. I RARELY ever focus on infantry. Since this new build, my goal has been to kill tanks. I suggest that light turrets do the job of AI the best, so that a tank requires a team of people to take out infantry. But think about this, currently, a tank has to sacrifice Defense, in order to equip light turrets. So a tank that wanted the best AI would have to sacrifice D, putting him more on level with the infantry.

You are currently able to hunt tanks because tanks are good at killing infantry. Where do you think all those people that are risking their HAVs are coming from? Those are not NPCs. They do not spawn from thin air. They exist because they feel a reason to exist and risk their ISK.

Tanks are already restricted in how they contribute. Their only role is killing/area denial. Spawning and scanning is better done with dropships and LAVs. They currently appear in massive numbers because they are basically invulnerable and can easily slaughter infantry, not because they contribute to the match in any other way. I've seen matches lost because the team was tank driving instead of capturing objectives.

Now you are saying that they also lose that role and instead require a two man support team in order to kill infantry, which is the real support role due to the fact that infantry is the basis of the game. It also creates the unique situation that any useful tanks will be good at both killing infantry and tanks alike, because your AI turrets have to be manned in order to contribute to the team.
And good luck winning a match where six blueberries are driving two tanks.

Big turrets = AV means that tanks are only called in when there's already another tank on the field. But why the hell would that happen, especially with the turrets that are placed everywhere? In this vision, there wouldn't be tankers killing off turrets at the beginning of the match, which would actually weaken tanks in general and make their AV focus even more pointless. Seeing a tank would boil down to one of three situations - Blueberries that want to try them out and don't realize that they suck at AI, call in and instant recall of a railgun tank against a dropship or another HAV and a dedicated three-man crew that wants to farm infantry kills. You will not have sole tank operators anymore.
Allowing big turrets to have different roles allows tanks to be real support plattforms with specified niches. One guy with expensive equipment that has dedicated counters.
Balance the game around infantry, not around tank battles that don't have any reason to exist without infantry interaction.

And, dude, make up your mind. Your first half of the post is about customization of tanks for different roles. Your second half is about having all big turrets as AV. I can agree with one but not the other.

Do you want tanks to easily murder infantry???

Let's take the current rail gun for example. IT IS an AV weapon hands down. But on open map PCs where the points are open and exposed, a rail tank can hold that objective from a distance. Outside of that tiny niche, a rail tank struggles to kill infantry, but it's not impossible. Takes a bit of skill and luck. And just the other day, my buddy tanker blocked entry to an objective using his bulk so we could hack it. I then squashed the dude he blocked with my tank against his tank.

But anyways, you WOULD have sole operators in HAVs same as you have sole infantry and HAV's now. Sorry man but not everyone digs the team thing 24/7 (some of us are introverted). In all honesty, I don't think you fully grasp what it means to drive a tank. You make it seem as if no one would drive tanks if we moved more to an AV focus, but you fail to realize that many out there are LOOKING for tank vs tank battles. Winning or losing a PUB is pointless at this point. What we want are good battles within our own niche.

And dude, if you had a good tanker squad in a tank, they are only there to provide protected support. If they need to get out and deal with AV on foot or other infantry, they do it. You seem to think that once a blueberries in a tank, he's in there for good.

I would vote for the opposite approach:
Allow solo dropship pilots to use their guns in some way. LAVs can already run people over when run solo and are fast enough to evade attacks.

HAV solo turret operation is completely okay as long as it's fixed on a single target type.
Make the turret good at either infantry OR tank killing. And then force them to use additional gunners to attack the other target type.
This means that a tank as omnipotent as the current one would need three operators, but doesn't make them useless when run solo.

Dude, THIS is my idea.

I know I said AV focused, I know, my mistake. It seems to me that we are both on the exact same page. I suggested in my post on tank turrets of splitting the roles of say a blaster tank into AV or AI depending on the turret type. And when used, an AI is good at killing infantry, but it shouldn't be good against another tank, leaving them vulnerable, and giving purpose to an AV role tank.

At the same time, an AI tank needs to have some sort of disadvantage against infantry AV, as they are immune to small arms fire, and for an infantry to run AV they put themselves at a disadvantage to other infantry.

Way I see it, AV shouldn't have much of a chance against an AV dedicated tank, as damage is meant to supplement another tank. But in the same way, tanks should require infantry support to kill other tankers.

And if an AI large turret wants to supplement his AV or AI capabilities, he runs gunners. Same with an AV that wants some AI abilities while retaining AV capabilities.

This is clearly a misunderstanding, as I mistook you for the OP that wanted to split the roles of a tank to require 2 operators min. Looking back at your post I see that we are on the same page. What I mean with tanks being more AV focused, is that an infantry is at a rather large disadvantage when it comes to tackling a tank, where as a tank is immune to anything but AV. I would rather tanks not slaughter infantry so easily with an AI turret.

Currently, a blaster is FAR too strong against your normal infantry, and even AV infantry crumbles to a good blaster tanker. My point being, an AI turret shouldn't kill like they were on foot, because they have limited vulnerability as opposed to the infantry.

Sorry for the stress fella, I think we are arguing when we should be discussing how to go about different turret types, and what kind of drawbacks should be associated with said turrets. Same with modules, as well as adding positive attribuites, I would like to have some negatives to using them as well.

LAV are fast, mobile vehicles able to kill with just its speed and survive on it with some decent driving skills- making solo player without guns acceptable and the turret is weak compared to the speed and maneuverability
HAV are slower with much less maneuverability that barely kills with its speed and survives on its ability to take damage- needs offensive firepower to be effective, turret is strong compared to speed and maneuverability

scouts- fast and lightly armored
sentinel- slow and heavy armored

pros and cons least ye be underpowered or overpowered.

Seriously terrible idea, terible, wish i can -1, that would make havs completely useless
Unless of course you make it so it takes 2 peopleto move and shoot a ar

you do know that in the hands of a good driver gunner team this only makes HAV MORE POWERFUL
yeah you take it out of the hands of single pilots but at the same time you now have tanks that can drive without having to move their gun off target to safely navigate so that blaster is going to stay pointed at your face no matter what direction the tanks is moving with this it would be impossible to sneak up on tanks
tanks would also never have to expose their weak spot so yeah....
Blaster drive bys anyone?

True.

Counterpoint: Less infantry support. (Not saying it's a better point, just something else to consider.) Today, if one team has 4 tanks out, they still have 12 supporting infantry running around. If those tanks each needed a 2nd person to man the guns, there would only be 8 infantry in support. That's a big difference.

It's silly to even have a quota.
Vehicles should be limited by usabillity, not an artifical limit. Real balance is when people choose to behave as if a quota existed, because they feel that they'd be less effective if they didn't. Having a quota in the first place is a hack to hide balance issues.
I feel the same way about stacking penalties, but less strongly so because those aren't a hard limit.

And I definitely want vehicle locks and the ability to throw people out. Especially for solo dropships. I can't even ferry the retards to objectives because they decide to stay inside even if I hover for ten minutes.

You might think that the only nerf to tanks that this change would entail, is one of opportunity. You would ONLY see tanks being called in when the tanker had a known gunner/driver, as the chance for griefing (loss of control) with a system like this would be huge.

Modules would not be operable from the gunner's seat, that would be silly. So a 'solo lol' operator would be at a huge disadvantage to AV and other tanks, aside from being griefed or having curious newberries assume control of either seat.
So it would be a direct nerf to tanker (invested SP player) play style and experience.


This change would not achieve what you think it would:
To accommodate this change, the driver camera would have to be separated from the main turret. This would increase tank survivability via greater situational awareness. Any tank in "fire mode" with a dedicated gunner, would see the driver scanning for threats and pre-aligning to viable escape routes. Fleeing tanks would continue to fire, overall tanks would become better at tanking and killing.

I greatly suspect OP, that you have only considered the first idea i have mentioned or maybe the second. At the first of a change like this, yes we would see a decrease in tanks. Over time though, you would find that dedicated tanker teams would emerge, and that their tanks would be harder to kill and far more deadly than current solo tankers.

Are you aware for instance that the driver and turret operator skill sets overlap as regards turret bonuses?

if it stays the same or changes its not a real biggy for me, i have access to a large social subset, and i find myself undecided over which playstyle i might prefer... i have actually suggested this myself in the past.

edit: typo

Requiring double-teamed operational crews actually fits the style of the game.
Dropships are horribly unwieldy and hard to learn. Why not make tanks equally inaccessible?
I would be sad about losing solo HAV possibility (which should have specific target categories), but tandem tanks sound like a really awesome dynamic.
Now I wish that we'd have the possibility for both.

ADS is a solo profession until you have the fittings skills to fit more (of the decent meta lvl) guns to its sides-as well as keeping a decent tank. ADS is also anything but unwieldy. Standard DS, yes they are like steering blimps, but they are also easier to fit, so their lack of acceleration actually makes them better gun platforms for a team.

I think CCP needs to get onto a medium ground assault vehicle asap if there is going to be a separation of roles for the HAV. Give the MAV a large fixed turret or something, but do it so as not to disenfranchise a portion of the player base or destroy a playstyle.

...anything that encourages variety can't be a bad thing in a 'sandbox' style game.

IMO the greatest imbalance between vehicles and infantry is manpower. 1 person in a 60,000 ISK tank can easily take down almost any infantry with ease. If large turrets were AV and small turrets AI than it would give tanks a more defined role. This means if a tank also wants to be a highly effective AI weapon it would require more operators, which goes with the OPs idea of having seperate operators for the large gun and driving.

If it takes 3 AV infantry to effectively take down one tank than it should take 3 people to be the most effective tank.
16 vs 16
Currently 1 tanker requires about 3 AV (average)
1 tanker can also easily kill any infantry

1 Tank vs. 3 AV
15 infantry vs. 13 infantry

2 Tanks vs. 6 AV
14 infantry vs 10 infantry

14 vs 10 makes a big difference when it comes to killing clones.
It's a blanket assessment even though there are many variables, but the manpower to combat power ratio is off unless tanks require more operators.

an unmodified mlt tank does not need more than an adv swarm to be taken out from my experiences. And that is the only 60k tank i can think of.

I in no way mean to injure or insult, but asking for parity of manpower based on difficulty to kill is a crutch argument. If it takes 2 people to effectively take out a heavy suit, should we then say that heavy suits require 2 people to operate? How about an 1100hp slayer logi? If i fly a MLT DS with two gunners should it require more than 3 hits from a FG, and instead take 3xFGers to take out my MLT DS?


The only real reasons to insist on multiple operator HAV's is to limit their use, or to enhance gameplay associated with their use.

Such a bad idea

Who skills up what?, who operates what? who pays for it? who calls it in? etc etc etc


The only way i would accept a tank like this is if these conditions were met

1. This isnt enforced on all tanks and vehicles - If this is to exist which really it shouldnt then it needs to be a completely new speciality vehicle which is optional if you want to train it, that means that it will also have skills added to it which will have 1 skill for the driver and a secondary skill for the gunner

2. Vehicle locks - I want to lock my vehicle for my squad only, this means its only for my squad

3. Better PG/CPU/HP and slot layout - If this is taking at least 2 players to operate it then it needs an increase in base stats and slots since its a highly specalised vehicle, im not paying more to have a gimped tank which will be the same as a normal basic tank but requires more ppl to operate it

4. Driver keeps 3rd person camera - This is to ensure the safety of the vehicle, he is the driver for a reason, his sole purpose is to drive, he has no gun he needs no gun for he is the driver

5. No gun for the driver, not even a ****** small turret - Driver doesnt need it and will hinder the driver in operating the vehicle

6. 2players operate, minimum 2players to destroy it - TBH you can barely find 2ppl to work together now to kill a tank so needing 2+ is going to impossible for most players but infantry wants this vehicle more than vehicle pilots

7. The driver operates the majority of the mods - Hardeners/speed mods/boosters

8. Gunner operates DMG mods - He needs the gun so he needs the mods

9. Driver has the ability to kick out all gunners from his vehicle - if the gunner jumps out to hack a point and a bluedot jumps in the driver can boot him out

10. More skills added in the skill tree - Mainly for the driver, increase in turning speed and speed itself etc

...

For the sake of argument lets address some of these:

1. The addition of the MAV which as been talked about in multiple threads could offer a solo operated, single turret vehicle which would replace the current solo HAV.

2. ...that's a different thread

3. The base stats and slot layout should be the same. MAVs could have reduced slots/stats for their versatility as a solo vehicle and the current HAVs will only be more formidable with dedicated gunmen.

4. Yup. Exactly the same as the LAV

5. Correct again. Just like the LAV the driver would be dedicated to driving the beast and keeping it out of harms way.

6. This is already the case for HAVs. Its a task and a bit of luck for a single player to kill a HAV, therefore i'd say that this is already met. Most often its a team of AV to take down armor and I think that's fine.

7. Yup

8. Yup

9. I don't agree. It should be a liability like in any other vehicle.

10. More skills for everybody! :)

I think we need diversity where there are "entry level" vehicles which offer a taste of whats out there and then really reward those who choose to specialize.

The trick is doing so without making any one unit (man or machine) invulnerable.

Of course, but this is called "balancing", something tankers do not want. They want to keep speeding around in their mobile murder fortresses, shrugging off proto swarms and FGs like they're raindrops, like they're entitled to.

Why does the HAV allow the driver to operate and fire the main cannon at the same time?

Perhaps an addition to satisfy both HAV operators and those who feel HAV operation should be a team effort would be to have a driver seat like the LAV.

A single operator would be completely protected as they currently are, but would have to switch seats to a turret to fire a weapon. Multiple operators would mean a dedicated driver and manned turrets, while solo drivers would have to stop moving and switch controls to attack a target. Retreat would then also mean switching back.

I believe this may offer a good dynamic.

name one game that does that....name me one, go ahead.

there is a reason why they don't.

Such a bad idea

Who skills up what?, who operates what? who pays for it? who calls it in? etc etc etc


The only way i would accept a tank like this is if these conditions were met

1. This isnt enforced on all tanks and vehicles - If this is to exist which really it shouldnt then it needs to be a completely new speciality vehicle which is optional if you want to train it, that means that it will also have skills added to it which will have 1 skill for the driver and a secondary skill for the gunner

2. Vehicle locks - I want to lock my vehicle for my squad only, this means its only for my squad

3. Better PG/CPU/HP and slot layout - If this is taking at least 2 players to operate it then it needs an increase in base stats and slots since its a highly specalised vehicle, im not paying more to have a gimped tank which will be the same as a normal basic tank but requires more ppl to operate it

4. Driver keeps 3rd person camera - This is to ensure the safety of the vehicle, he is the driver for a reason, his sole purpose is to drive, he has no gun he needs no gun for he is the driver

5. No gun for the driver, not even a ****** small turret - Driver doesnt need it and will hinder the driver in operating the vehicle

6. 2players operate, minimum 2players to destroy it - TBH you can barely find 2ppl to work together now to kill a tank so needing 2+ is going to impossible for most players but infantry wants this vehicle more than vehicle pilots

7. The driver operates the majority of the mods - Hardeners/speed mods/boosters

8. Gunner operates DMG mods - He needs the gun so he needs the mods

9. Driver has the ability to kick out all gunners from his vehicle - if the gunner jumps out to hack a point and a bluedot jumps in the driver can boot him out

10. More skills added in the skill tree - Mainly for the driver, increase in turning speed and speed itself etc


I could think of more but frankly its a long shot anyways and infantry would cry alot harder if this actually happened

Infantry already cried for the ammo limits and vehicle changes even tho they dont use em and are now crying after the changes

Becareful what you wish for

I would rather see large turrets be shifted completely into the role of anti-vehicle. One man controlling a tank is fine, but a tanks infantry killing ability should come from it's sturrets.

The tank problem would literally go away overnight if large blasters were reworked into an AV role instead of AI.