The only way infantry should be able to take down a vehicle without AV is by climbing in and killing the crew.

That being said, it should take a crew for a vehicle to be effective. No more 1-man armies in HAVs and ADSs

People can talk about moment to moment stuff till their blue in the face, but I think the only way I'll be satisfied is if vehicles have a much clearer and obviously defined role on the game. Like Dropsuits, I think in many ways vehicles suffered from an identity crisis and never felt like that had a specific role they needed to fill. It was always "Well I blow stuff up".

Problem is that a lot of other things blew stuff up, so it ultimately turned into the argument of "Well why does he blow stuff up better than I blow stuff up?! I want a buff so I can blow him up better than he can blow me up." And if we're going to go back to a situation where that argument dominates the whole conversation, then don't bother at all.

It needs to be "Oh ****, we need someone to bring in an HAV because to get the objective we need something done that ONLY that HAV can do". And at the same time the HAV pilot needs to be saying "Oh ****, I need the infantry to do something that ONLY the infantry can do so I can complete the task they need me to do."

They need to be distinctive roles that have no overlap, no means to "fake it" and perform infantry roles with a vehicle and vice versa. So yeah, we can talk about capacitors and multi crew and bobble heads for the dashboard all day....but if the design ultimately leads to "Who blows up **** better", then I'd rather have nothing at all.

Vehicles deserve to be designed so they fit in well with the rest of the game, interact with a purpose and are as complex or simple as required to make them fit and be a valuable part of the game.

As long as they aren't built half-assed just because "tanks are cool" I'm for vehicles. But they need to be designed as part of the greater game and exist in tandem with and supporting the infantry game, not existing despite the infantry game.

So long as they're built with a purpose, with a role that isn't "Tanks are cool, we should make some" I'm for their re-inclusion into the game.

They also deserve eject button and locked driving seat.

I'll be the first to admit that balance has always been touchy between AV/V, but I attribute that largely to CCP pulling resources from the project and using an unpaid, untrained focus group to gather balance information.

Aside from that though, much of it was infantry players simply flat out refusing to adapt to the match. I feel like that could have been eleviated slightly if CCP had just added in deployable turrets, ya know, like the menu said was possible since the game was in beta

You are trying to defend tanks by saying everyone should just have gotten in the tanks, that everyone should have just skilled into the FOTM tank of the time. It is that kind of thinking that is the problem. You don't fix problems by simply allowing other problems to exist.

Infantry shouldn't have to call in a tank of their own to deal with a tank.

In fact, if I recall correctly, if the opposing team called in tanks first, then they could prevent your team from using your tanks, by blowing up RDVs etc.

It was broken a$$ gameplay. It wasn't balanced. Its not about not being able to deal with something, it is about the fact tanks had no real roles, and saying that the role of a tank is to face off against another tank, and nothing more sounds like a pretty crap role. If that is the case, then go play WoTs and be done with it.

Infantry is the central point to an FPS, and if vehicles cannot be included in a meaningful, balanced way, they should not be in the game. Period.

Perhaps that is why they are focused on fighting in space ATM, so they aren't hemming themselves in on the terrestrial side.