Tanks right now are fast, durable, and can deal massive damage to infantry.
Which two aspects would you like to keep? Because you're not allowed to have all three.

Tanks are balanced in PC

Generally anything can be OP in pubs

If tanks are in a much better place for a competitve mode then what happens when you nerf tanks for pub games? are they still balanced for the competitive gamemode?

Wrong.

Tanks can't ACCELERATE fast without fuel injectors.

They still have a higher top speed than LAVs without any mods. Even with stacked armour on a Sica or Gunnlogi (lower speed than Madrugar) they can move faster than Onikumas and Sagas. They take a while to get up to speed without injectors, but they CAN reach those speeds, and it's ridiculous.

2 vehicles max per team period.

I love the "4 to operate, 4 to destroy" argument.

TBH, you'd need minimum 1 to operate it, he just wouldn't be able to move and fire at the same time. So I guess you could technically say that you need two minimum to operate effectively, one to drive and one to shoot. Anymore than that would be totally dependent on if you chose to fit the small turrets.

This. Having the main weapon as a huge glorified AR is simply moronic on so many levels. If we didn't have them tankers would rely on gunners for close AP support, you now, have a need for teamwork, as AV currently need to be any sort of effective.

Tanks = perfectly fine

Large blasters on the current tank frames = game breaking for so many players it should be threated seriously, not merely by HTFU and adpt or die.

Did you ever hear anyone QQ about dying to a missile tank or rail tank as infantry? I have never heard any, its the blasters that pisses people off.

Perhaps its ttime for light weapons doing damage to tanks, l mean if they can shoot me with their AR, wwhy shouldn't my AR do dmage to them?

So even if you only had a driver and a main gunner it would still take 4 Proto AV to kill your HAV? lol, sad thing is I know you're serious with that despite the fact that it is a ludicrous demand.

Is the HAV Proto too or is it just a run of the mill Gunnlogi/Madrugar?

IMHO, if the HAV is anything less than Proto, against Proto AV it should take no more than 2 AV guys to pop the HAV.

Personally, I think that anywhere from two to four to operate effectively (ie drive and fire at the same time) would be balanced with a requirement of 3 AV of equivalent tier to the hull in order to destroy the hull. Remember, I am basing these comparisons on the assumption that the AV has no damage mods and the HAV has no hardeners.

If damage mods/hardeners are included, they should modify the base requirements though the base requirements should be calculated off of a "No damage mods/hardeners" assumption.

Another thing to take into account.

If you have a full-time driver and a full-time main gunner (not to mention the possibility of two full-time secondary gunners), both (all) of whom are dedicating their attention to their position in the crew and you still can't evade/kill three AVers of equivalent tier to the hull?

Well, if that is the case, you deserve to lose that HAV.

Tank crew should be 3, at least initially, because this is dead easy for CCP to implement. Give the driver the front small turret, move the 3rd person view to the top turret.

Now balance that against 3 AV infantry with roughly the same SP, spending about the same amount of ISK. That should be a 50/50 fight.

OK you probably did, fair enough. My point still stands though. The large blasters are the main problem with tanks. AP with the main turret should be skillfull weapon use, not the spray and kill everything in sight we have now. If we did get a locking mechanic for the small turrets, or something as simple as "for squad members only", do you then agree that the most effective AP guns should be in the form of the smaller turrets?

The ccombination of speed, durability and the awsome destructive power vs just about anything is a tad too much.

The real reason l believe for most of the QQ is the current scale of it all, its magnitude if you like. As a CQC slayer and infantry support player it really gets old to have to spend this amount of games hideing to tanks, its not fun and l am left with either hideing or use about 5 m sp for an somewhat effective AV fit. Or l can simply call in a militia tank of my own, all of which are bad for me cause llike to push objectives and slay reddots.

All in all tanks are way too dominant, they make life misserable for such a large part of this community and we have to ask ourselves if this is really what we want. You and so many others QQ about my use of protogear in pubgames, so l can flip it around and say why use a tank in pubgames? Think about those poor new players... And you''ll say "Duh, l'm a tanker, thats what l do, what do you expect me to do?" And l can say, l'm a logi, try putting the proto medkit, an insanely expensive to fit allotek hive and a proto scanner on an enhanced cal logi suit...... And the circle of QQ continues...

Solguess the only thing we can really agree upon is that militia tanks should be ne+òfed, this will make life a lot easierfor most players. The "true tankers" will have an easier time vs scrub tankers and so will the infantry too.That someone thats invested 20 m sp and spent 500k - 1 m isk on a tank is hard to kill we all get.

I don't claim to have the ansver, but something needs to be done, its simply not fun for the vast majorityof theplayerbase, and that can't be a good thing.

(Some bad writing here, sorry, l never should have gotten a tablet)

TANKAHIRO! WHERE IS MY PUBLIC APOLOGY!?

I think you still owe me one after i proved you wrong about rail guns oh so long ago, and i have been anticipating it with bated breath.