Really? A proto swarm launcher with prof 5 and 2 complex mods on a proto minmatar commando suit which adds extra 10% damage does less damage than an advance swarm back in 1.6 before all the nerfs to swarms, dmg mods and prof.

Swarms range should be increased to 250 meters and damage increased to 300

Its not anyway balanced. dedicated AV should always have the advantage over tanks in a 1v1 context, its what the role does.
Pro AV forgegun fit is expensive. over 250k isk each, its super weak vs all other infantry and it is the slowest moving largest hitbox most easily detected suit in the game that is vulnerable to all weapon systems. A proto av forgegun should have no trouble taking out a proto tank 1v1 if the forgegun gets first round hit and has the high ground. Proto swarms should take a maximum of 2v1 tank to have a almost guaranteed kill vs enemy tanks. Any more then that and the entire games match balance becomes unworkable.

Now either this means you reduce tank and av prices so tanks get used to dieing more and get rid of this KD invulnerable attitude. or you raise the price of the AV and tank fits and Largely raise the rewards for killing tanks so its work the extra effort. or you create a better system for tanks to be in the game, with cooldowns for calling in tanks during the match, and other features.

I want to put this bugbear to rest, because it's one of the stupidest fallacies that continues to rear it's ugly head in these discussions.

CCP has stated multiple times that they do not balance around isk.

At most potential effectiveness for isk scales logarithmically with perfect tactical choices and perfect strategic application.

To explain, since some of you are unfamiliar with the reasoning. Balancing around isk or any other number leads to an arms race that quickly reaches a static balance of an ultimate min-maxed solution. For a truly dynamic meta, you need a rock-paper-scissors type balance where increased strength, effectiveness, flexibility or other advantage comes as the result of an ultimate and non-negotiable weakness or limitation.

For a positive contribution to the discussion; I would support more options, other than raw damage, for infantry AV. Deployable area denial along the lines of prox mines. Say AOE stasis webifiers to stop a retreat, or energy neutralizers to deactivate hardeners/reps; Movable tank barricades to deny access and limit mobility; and those deployable personal shields CCP promised back when cloaks were first talked about. How about expanding hacking to not just taking nullcannons, but to also raising and lowering barricades?

@Takashiro Kashuken: I do like the idea of having capacitors in Dust, as well as more varied modules to increase the diversity of vehicle fits on the battlefield. I also very much the idea of stasis webifiers, and neutralizers at the hands of infantry. All skills should indeed have bonuses.

@Harpyja: I think we have fundamentally different views of what large blasters should be like. Also, I commented on your earlier post as well on the previous page.

And indeed we do.

You mentioned that small turrets should be purposed for AI instead. I don't really see how that will work, considering that it's the turret type that determines what it's good for, not its size. Its size only determines which vehicles can use that kind of turret and to what degree of effectiveness.

The turret types are as follows:
Blaster
Railgun
Missile
Autocannon
Artillery
Beam Laser
Pulse Laser

The turrets with high RoF are italicized. These are the turrets that will have an easier time hitting infantry than the other turrets. There's nothing that you can do about it. I'd be very interested to know how you can make their different sizes have different roles, because to me, it's the turret type that determines its role, whereas turret size determines fitting ability and effectiveness.