The problem with vehicles, Is that there really has never been a true discussion that doesn't end up going the complete wrong way. Kind of like the way this post is turning out. Speaker does say some important things in his OP. He is expressing his opinions based on what he sees, experiences & shares with others. So, Of course, What he says will be tailored to his experiences.

You should all focus on the core of the issue: Vehicles being sub-par.

Not the physics of the game. Not whether or not Speaker has his lore right. Not past nerfs.

What can be done now? I will say vehicles have had their fair share of nerfs. So, No more nerfs.
I know the LRG Turrets need work before CCP decides to release our old tanks.

Also, People need to remember, The AV vehicles face now are going to be OP due to the fact all the vehicles only have up to STD hulls. That's PRO Tier Vs. STD Tier. So, Of course it isn't going to be easy anyways.

I do think ADSs got WAYYYY too much of a nerf. I think the afterburner is the only thing CCP should have nerfed. The turrets skill stacking, To me, Wasn't that big of a deal because the pilots who could do that were incredibly small in the community. Plus, To even effectively stack in the first place both the pilot & gunner had to have millions of SP specialized into Cal ADS/Gal ADS skills & small turret skills. Even if stacking was a major concern, CCP should have removed just the stacking & not nerf the RoF for the pilot.

Shields still need work. Collisions & uneven terrain can remove your shields almost better than AV. I still think every Caldari vehicle should get more passive resistances to Caldari Rails, Because its Caldari tech. I mean, Duh. Come on. Same should go for the Gallante & their blaster tech. But, I suppose this will have to wait until CCP reintroduce the Gal rail & whatnot.

Tanks. Okay, I can make fits to take on AV, But they suck Vs. other tanks. I can make Destroyers which are spiked. Sponge tanks. I can make tanks that have two mini cannons plus one LRG PRO Turret. That's basically it for fits.
It does feel like AV is overpowered, But I really feel like its cause I'm in a STD Hull while I'm being swarmed by PRO AV.
Now, If this continues when I get my Sagaris rollin', Then there will be a problem.

The only major issue I could even think that is broken, Is Jihads. I mean that crap can cause your Ps3 to freeze. Not cool.

For LAVs, I mean, I don't use them very much. Would like to see LLAVs about giving support to other tanks, But I feel like there just isn't enough players in one game to do that. It takes one noob army to compete against 1 squad of organized effort. So, I think the more I see them in pubs, The more chances our team has at losing if the other team has good players.

I miss my Eryx. :( & my Sagaris.... :(((((

Nerfing Shielded HAVs in not a solution. I think what should be better is buff armor HAVs.

I know you play with armor. So, I know you want armor to be good. I play with shields, So of course, I want them to be effective. I know how you feel.

The only issue I have with shields is the boosters don't work very well for HAVs in PC. The slightest nudge can dud them out.
The uneven terrain can rip your shields to nothing sometimes. That's not very nice. I can still even get armor damage sometimes if hit with something that has heavy Alpha. Shields have depleted recharge & recharge rates that take a moment to engage. Armor has passive all-around repair & shield recharge. Armor tanks also don't have to sacrifice most of their survival abilities to put on other modules like DMG mods, CRU, Scanners or Fuel Injectors. That's why armor was always the popular blaster. Don't have to trade all of your health for other things. I do think Armor HAVs could use some PG.

The LRG Blaster needs a skill for dispersion. It really is a circle of prayers after the first two shots. Plus, In PC, One of the things that was so enjoyable & fulfilling was when there was an enemy blaster covering an objective. What did your team do? Dial 911 for your Rail tank. The escalation was great.

Also, I just thought that Cal & Gal could get resistances to their own tech, Because when & if CCP reintroduces more of the Race variant turrets, You would come up with some specialized fits for targets. You wouldn't go try to remove a Caldari Rail tank off the field with Caldari Rail. You'd get a Gal Rail. Just thinking about more ways to put the "Special" back into Vehicle Specialist. Of course, This wouldn't even need to be remotely considered until those turrets were out. Wouldn't be fair, For the selection we have now already favors Caldari.

Then why wouldn't you agree to buff armor HAVs if they feel even more underpowered against shields? They wouldn't be OP verses everything. Both HAVs would be equal & still be challenged by AV.

Shields have to be strong or there is no point in them being in the game. They don't have passive or active reps & they only have a first level of health security. Second being armor, Which it has none. Plus, Of course, Other modules nerf Shield fits because most useful modules go into high slots. I've seen really good armor fits take on shield tanks. The problem I see a lot is AV does a lot of damage to armor & Armor HAVs have a nerfed recovery system. I think CCP should buff armor hardeners or a higher repair that is active, Not passive. Like I said, Armor tanks are useful because you don't have to sacrifice Low slots to add on high slot modules. They can still tend to their second layer of health while having extra damage, Speed or scans. I think armor HAVs could use a PG buff.

This is all from what I've seen & heard. I'm not an armor master. I can put together decent armor tanks & I do have them -- However, I've always sided with shield, Regardless of any buffs/nerfs.

I get the math, But without those Passive/Active modules being released, Its not going to work. CCP would have to go back in re-do everything for HAVs & plus they still have to re-do LRG Turrets. I'm just trying to come up with things that they can implement without drastically changing base models. I agree with you, That there must be balance. I agree with you that a shield tank would still be effective under your model -- Presuming CCP fixed the booster bugs & terrain bugs & made it where not all of 90% of our useful modules are not for high slot use.

Also, I think we need to see what the reintroduction of modules we will get will effect the vehicle meta. Some worries me, Some sounds great.

Currently we have a problem with HAVs that can be summarized as "If tanks are only designed to destroy other tanks, then hy do we need tanks at all right now?"

...

No

Op tanks are fine av is fine armor hav needs some love but its fine. Tanks are area denial if your assaulting your doing it wrong. Tanks dont assault heavily fortified defenses. Why? Infantry is the deadliest thing to tanks in real life. Because they arent built for that

My view on the Tank vs. Infantry balance.

Large turrets should have little to no infantry slaying power. Suppressive abilities at best (Via splash damage that makes it harmful, but not lethal to any infantry that isn't an idiot.)

To counter, small turrets need to be more effective vs. infantry, so that we can see a pilot+Gunner as an effective combo.

In BF3, you never saw a good tanker without a gunner. The top gun was vital for deterring infantry from pull out SMAW after SMAW in an effort to take you down.

It was the gunners responsibility to get rid of C4 runners and to protect the tanks sides and flanks while engaging vehicles.

This is what I want.

You should add to that although armour tanks have a theoretical higher top speed, the shield vehicle ability to accelerate faster and turn far outshine whatever the armor tank may due if it was in a drag race lol.

Whether or not one approves of that sort of fitting it is hardly invincible. Perhaps your right that no ship would use all rep however when armor hardeners are crap people move to the next way to survive a conflict. Sadly with AV the way it is pilots will likely go to extremes to survive. Losing two half a million tanks is more costly than running multiple advanced or in the hands of a veteran player quality proto suit fittings.

Comparing Dust Vehicles with BF vehicles is a terrible conversation to have. Mainly because BF has a FAR better vehicle/infantry balance, and they actually have a role. Armor is fantastic at suppressing targets by destroying cover and letting the top mounted gunners sweep the field with HMG fire. In BF, Armor and Infantry SYNERGIZE with each other to form a very deadly fighting force.

Onto Dust though: What role should heavy armor have? The first role, of course, is ANTI-ARMOR. These things are made to ruin every other vehicles day. Their SECONDARY role is anti-infantry. They SUPPORT infantry advance, they don't spearhead it. And they shouldn't.

Onto Turrets: I'm fine with Large Rails instapopping infantry. I'm not saying we should remove that aspect. Anyone who lands a direct shell kill in BF DESERVES the kill, same in here.

What I'm mainly talking about here is the Large Blaster and Large Missile. Large Blaster needs bigger, more powerful blasts with slower ROF. Like a 12 round clip or something with large, slow moving rounds that HURT. They receive minor splash damage but they get their old accuracy back. Since its a large, slower moving round, it will be possible to hit infantry, but it shouldn't be a shooting gallery.

Yes, we have coaxial turrets. Personally, thats a terrible decision on the tankers part. You already have one on your tank, just put someone in there to gun it. You'd be better off running some guided shells or staff shells.

However, if Dust players want a co-axial Blaster or Rail, I say let them have it. Make a module slot that activates and lets all turrets track on one target. Would be interesting, to say the least. Hell, make it a trademark for the enforcer or something.

Anywho, about Large Missiles. I've always loved these things. Personally, I think they need a larger clip, less damage, and more splash. They should be good at assaulting entrenched positions by sustained missile barrages from a distance. Now, you aren't going to be killing them (If they're smart enough to move out of the dead zone), but you can support infantry via suppression. It is the best form of offense against armor tanks due to the large sustain damage from a distance. They can just keep throwing missiles down range and pummel through even the tankiest tank through sheer damage in the clip.

In my mind, the blaster should be the DPS king, Rail is the burst king, and Missile is the sustain king. All of them are primarily anti-vehicle weapons, but have limited Anti-infantry capabilities.

To round out vehicles, I would also want to include a form of MAV that specializes in anti-infantry operations (Much like the IFV from BF), which would in turn be weak to armor.

So, you could have an armor fighting force if you wanted to, but it would require multiple vehicles with roles that overlap. IFV for infantry, and HAV's for armor. IFV would probably feature a Mobile CRU, throw in a Logi LAV and BAM you have some sick Vehicle action on the battlefield.

But that's probably asking for too much out of dust...