First of all, credentials. I started playing DUST in Open Beta; my first role was forge-gun heavy (took me days to learn how to fire the damn thing guess I'm a scrub). I specced into HMG from there, seeing as it was a gun that fit onto my suit, and no-one else's (I suppose I thought that was cool, or something). I went from there to HAVs; started off in Gunnlogis. The shield hardeners confused me, so I went to the far more easily accessible Madrugar, and so I stayed for the next eight? months.
I ended up with about 12M SP invested in HAVs before I started really branching out into infantry. I'd really started to enjoy infantry play by the time 1.7 came by, and I was a bit fed up of tanking by then. Was about to start the proto grind, and then the respec came.
I dropped about 7M back into HAVs, and built a particle cannon Gunnlogi which I mathsed to be the AV King; turned out it was perfectly viable as an anti-infantry brawler. It took me about a week and a half to realise how broken tanks were; I only realised after discussing it with swarm users; my forge was still working, if it was perhaps not as devastating as it once was.
It's been nearly two months now, and I am now heartily sick of tanks. I think now is a good time to provoke some discussion on something that's been burning in the back of my mind for a long time now.


So, let's get to it.

HAVs are in a bad place; they always have been. No, I'm not talking about ephemeral balance between HAVs and AV; that's been going back and forth for a while, and will probably never be solved to everyone's satisfaction.

No, I'm talking about purpose. There is no purpose to HAVs. There never has been. A HAV is capable of, depending on fitting, obliterating infantry, or destroying vehicles. It takes about ten seconds to switch between the two, and the only difference between fittings need be the main turret.

This is a marked difference to other games, recall abuse aside. In, say, the Battlefield series, there are multiple sizes of vehicles; some are intended as anti-infantry, or transports, or support, all the way up to MBTs, who are entirely capable of eliminating infantry, but are not intended for such a role by dint of having as their standard weapon an anti-vehicle weapon.

In DUST, then, we have the following meta: LAV is used for ground transport, esp. Heavies, DS is used for rapid squad transport and to claim high ground (and sometimes as AI), and HAVs are for killing. Everything. It is simplicity itself to build an HAV for any purpose; even squad transport can be performed by HAVs more effectively than LAVs.
The primary weapon I see fitted to HAVs at the moment (and ever, in fact) is the blaster turret, because of its ability to decimate infantry and not leave oneself defenseless against other HAVs. It is the primary reason that HAVs are considered 'overpowered' at the moment.

Essentially, the perceived problem with blaster turrets is this: they are essentially an Assault Rifle x3. Their DPS is massive (the lowest of the HAV weapons, to be clear, but possessed of far higher damage per magazine, or per overheat), compared even to the mighty Scrambler Rifle. It is also, more importantly, encased in a relatively inexpensive, and, for infantry weapons, unkillable, vehicle hull.
(While we're on this topic, the railgun needs looking at too. Missiles are basically fine, relative to these two. A balance pass really should wait until after these two main offenders are restored to balance)

So. 1.7. Tanks are nerfed, but AV is nerfed more, so it seems like a general buff. (I'm serious; my old blaster Madrugar hit harder than these do, with permanent 32-47% resistance on 6k armour, plus 7k reps inside 15s. Current forge guns wouldn't scratch the paintwork.) HAVs are cheaper, so they're spammed, and over nerfed swarms, the most popular AV weapon, have been over-nerfed. This leaves us with the current meta.

That the best way to kill an HAV is with another one.

Now, I'm of the opinion that this is a good thing. Myself, I skilled into proficiency 3 forge guns + ADV heavy, so that I had a way of cost-effectively and consistently destroying tanks. This relegates HAVs to a single role, essentially: that of slaughtering infantry. If HAVs are less effective at destroying HAVs than are infantry, that is the only purpose they can have.

Alternatively, HAVs can be capable of destroying infantry, though less effective, generally speaking, than Joe Assault Rifle (and maybe duna can find another way of padding his KD), and HAVs can be primary AV.

I am in no way saying that it should be impossible for infantry to kill a tank; far from it. I am of the opinion that, assuming the first situation, infantry should be equally as effective at destroying HAVs, if not more, than other HAVs, and assuming he second, considering the lowered anti-infantry effectiveness of HAVs, that it takes two infantry to stand a good chance of destroying an HAV, but that a skilled, prepared and appropriately equipped player can solo-kill an HAV.
Presumably three would put the nail right in the coffin.

As it just do happens, the AV-HAV balance leans dramatically towards the latter as it is now.

If it should happen that HAV effectiveness against infantry should be reduced, it should be the case that an alternative vehicle is created (MTACs, perhaps?) with large anti-infantry capacity but poor anti-vehicle capacity, so that there is still a reason to use HAVs.

All I can say is that the presence of the large blaster turret makes HAVs little more than upscaled dropsuits.


Or perhaps you disagree?

P.S. Holy wall-of-text, Batman!