once we retrain to hotdrop troops and kill the operator/RE the turret they will be back here demanding some kind of force field while manning turret

it takes 9 XT-1 small missles to destroy turret, if it only takes 16 after an EHP buff i could get behind that but another buff to make the turret shoot straight up/90 degree, plus an EHP buff is what bothers me most. this would effectively render dropship useless vs turret and force pilots into a tanking role when we already struggle to eliminate turrets each map. the biggest issue the CCP is not acknowledging is %30 of turrets are located in redline- those are the turrets we struggle to destroy because we have to fight the redline juvenile redline at the same time as we fight the turret. if the turrets get buffed then they should remove half of them and remove them from the redline.

Turret angle is fine, it does not need to be increased, otherwise they won't have a weakness with a strong AI and power. The only safe place for a dropship to be is way up in the sky, where we are completely useless when turrets can lock onto you from every direction.

Nice replies, and nice debate from everybody.
When I'm not operating a Dropship (main concern transporting mercs safely to a spot covered by red-hacked turret installations), I am, err, umm,... hacking and manning installations to, um, use AGAINST HAVs and Dropships.

I want to think (THINK) that my position gives me insight on both points of view.
I also want to believe that, no matter what role you play as, if the adjustment CCP makes to the current Installations opens up an opportunity for you to VALUE that installation more---AND at the same time poses a new risk or difficulty to acheiving a goal related to that installation... then it's an adjustment in the RIGHT DIRECTION (even if it will make you curse more and throw your PS-controller across the room more than prevous matches).

So, grabbing randomly from some of the stuff you've posted here,
if the Railgun installation can eviscerate an incoming DS with just a few hits, but barely has time to make those hits if a skilled DS operator like Baggins can quickly approach beyond the rail-installation's gun ELEVATION-limit... THAT's GOOD. The elevation of the rail-gun installation should NOT be changed to allow 90-degrees vertical aiming because that would make it less difficult for turret-gunner to acheive his goal. On paper, it will look as though the installation-player has been given a harder job than the DS-player... but IN THE ENCOUNTER, both opponents actually have a target they are drooling to reach, a VALUED device they think they can reach it with, and each player has ONE immediate obstacle has to become good enough to overcome in order to succeed (DS driver must develop skill to jag/weave his way up to a lethal installation---the installation-operator must practice getting perfect lead on a DS in the short period before his gun-elevation limit is reached).

If a lone merc walking out into an open gap between two buildings after just spawning from a CRU, suddenly gets sniped by a hacked missile installation sitting on the hill---that's GOOD. On paper, it feels unfair because no one is getting WP for it, and it's taking hurtful advantage of your momentary carelessnes. But in the encounter, it makes the same sense as the enemy RE or the red-sniper you didn't know about: they are limited, but annoyingly effective, means of denying your travel across the map.

When the DS driven by Baggins reaches the enemy's redzone and (with the help of a skilled door gunner named Aungm) wants to convert red dots into red ooze,...but the area is littered with three or four installations---but one is a railgun installation that can't elevate high enough and has shield/armour thin enough to destroy with 9 XT-1s---but the other two are Blaster installations whose shield/armour is too tough for the DS to waste time on---but they can only be lethal to Baggins if he drifts into into the airspace where both installations can overlap their fire... as frustrating an experience as this is to have at a redline... IT'S GOOD. Redlining the opposing team should be an acheivable goal, and a player ought to be able to get a vehicle over there and loiter---but it should not be something he can acheive on a whim. So they DON'T need to reduce the number/placement of installations stationed at the redline (it's supposed to be the staging area for the team, so it rightly should feel like the most combat-secured piece of the map). Tebow's view is right that the installations shouldn't be so invincible that the vehicle HAS to shoo away constantly. My own wish is that installations not be so wimpy that they are rubbed out faster than dropsuit Newberrys.

See the flip-flopping set up in this? It's not one of those "balance" creations. It's "imbalance", doled out sequentially to both opponents, so both have to eat an unfair handicap during the encounter. And it would work.

The vehicle-driver needs to be able to loiter and redline enemy DOTS (that's the victory), but since it IS the enemy's redline, there should be a hard obstacle she has to to grind-down or tactic-through before she can own the enemy's terrain.

The Gun-Installations should be the game pieces players VALUE and WANT TO USE to create that obstacle for the enemy.
And that "use" isn't about stats on paper---like most of Dust 514, it's really about influencing what behavior and actions we players perform when in the match.