Now I will not disagree there does needs to be a root role or general idea of what is it supposed to do.

A sense of 'agency' if you will.

It would be confusing as heck if you gave me a full auto shotgun that fires slugs a role that could possibly interfere with heavy rifles. It is more confusing if you deploy a tank to a field and it doesn't feel like a tank at all. I mean back in the old day the general term of a tank (and to great extent even today) refers to any armored vehicle not just the more familiar MBTs.

So what sort of tanks do on the field and their purpose? There is not a good strong out outside of anti-vehicle role which overall it does poorly at against flying aircraft. With so few potential targets the HAV feels a bit roleless. MAVs could be the solution along with additional turret types and map obstacles that only heavier firepower can destroy such as search towers or gates allowing infantry to gain access to shortcuts that even the tank may not be able to utilize.

So back to the OP's concern about the ADS?

What role should it play? Verticality is an important factor and great advantage in this game but lately with the changes a sniper rifle is superior to discouraging roof play (though I never seen the previous ADS discourage rooftop play that much)

What would be the main role?

So far I seen alot of pilots ask for one way relationships. This very is unhealthy aspect and played into the previous ADS godhoo as the counter relationship is excruciatingly underclassed for the task.

However the relationship as it stands now is a simple one at best. There is no lockon signal, there is no targeting signal, players don't render that easily unless you hopped into the ADS as a sniper. (which is really kittened up part) Ground Infantry don't have deployable bubbles. The sound engine is not up to part allowing ADS to sneak up on them without a single audio queue, and ultimately sensors are screwed up. Vehicles are typically stealth in this game to a frustrating point.

Yeah right now our HAVs are a bastardization of a light armored fighting vehicle and MBT (though technically modern MBTs makes 'scout' tanks useless. )

For the sake of video games though

Medium Turrets
Scout HAVs
then shift our current HAVs into MBTs

As far as tanks go, I disagree that they should be AV only. Let's be honest, what exactly is there for them to kill? If we had MAVs and jets and what have you, I'd understand having them be AV only, but as it stands, they have LAVs (laughably unused save for expendable transport) drop ships (which only rails and missiles truly threaten) and other tanks (which, if there are no vehicles, why call one out at all?)

I think large blasters should be reworked as AP large turret. However, the old blasters from 1.7 were (insert proper descriptor) OP. I would thus reduce their damage and reduce their max dispersion. In this way, they can now more easily attack infantry, while being more vulnerable to other tanks. But that's just me.

But I agree with True. All vehicles are just kind of here. They have no defined role beyond slaying.

I am all for this idea of a coaxial turret. My thoughts are only because there are next to no vehicles for tanks to destroy beyond each other, so having one that was better at AP would give missiles and rails an actual reason to go and kill it. As it stands its basically world of tanks with swarms and forges thrown into the mix.

Let me clarify.

and ADS SHOULD NOT BE A BOMBER, FIGHTER, GUNSHIP, STRATEGIC BOMBER, OR ATTACK CHOPPER.

It should by all accounts be an assault dropship.

I am thinking more along the line so an armored and armed chinook.

Would love RDV lift ability for Dropships. Assaults being hardy enough to carry an MAV or HAV maybe.

Actually, the role of tanks are to score easy kills off of fresh-out-of-the-acadamy scrubs, **** off the infantry, and generally wreak havoc.

Pre-Empryean Soldier Tech doesn't' stand a candle to our stuff. Our HMGs turns Sparrow Class Dropships into Swiss Cheese.

It'd be opppppppp doe cuz dat scount be up in dar doeee