THE LANCER IS THE WORST WEAPON EVER !

Unless he has flares.

You see. The striker's broken, it has been broken for awhile, and still is. I has tracking issues, rockets still go through solid surfaces etc. Agree, I'm an idiot for bringing it up. But in a state Striker is intended to be, these two would be pretty similar. You can't make two pubbies with Strikers concentrate fire on one target any easier than two pubbies with Lancers. And without concentrating fire in a target rich environment, these two will get killed very fast without inflicting noticeable damage on enemy. That is the whole point of these two weapons.

.....Someone forgot about Pounders..

I got an idea to improve lancer! Since its horrible for AA if you dont fire lancer just look at air for 3s they get a warning! if they dont hit "f" it instantly hits the plane for 2500 damage... (the F can only be used 1 time every 45s else they automatically hit for 2500 damage)

How does the Lancers charge work. I was playing in the VR room - firing at tanks. It took a full clip (8 shots) to destroy a lightning, charging to 3 for each shot. However if I only charged to 1 per shot (giving 24 shots) - the lightning was still alive after I had emptied my magazine.

Does charging a single shot to 3 provide more damage than 3 x 1 charge shots. Anecdotally - that certainly seems to be the case

The odds that two random pubbies with Strikers will end up shooting at the same ESF are pretty high, because everybody's using them. The odds that two Lancers end up shooting at the same tank don't matter, because two Lancers isn't dangerous; ten Lancers is. Oh, and hardly anybody is using them.

I love my VS Lasher, shut up!

Do you ever play TR?

Any TR with a brain knows you are FAR better off carrying Decimators than Strikers. Strikers are weapon you grab IF and ONLY you are (a) near a Sunderer or (b) trapped in a Spawn Room... you do not carry them with you in the battlefield, they are useless in actual combat.

Charge 1 = 150 dmg
Charge 2 = 375 dmg
Charge 3 = 750 dmg

stop whining vanu, you have a portable ion cannon

Id say the lancer is just situational, like most rocket launchers are. Dumb fires are sudden and bursty but can be used effectivly against infantry/MAXs if you practice a bit. They're worthless against air and are great against close ranged armour. Lock-ons are great for killing air or anything that moves fast. (yes i know ESFs have gotten good at dodging them) they take time and warn the tank so they're better for medium ranged armour fights and worthless against infantry.

The Pheonix is a cross between lock-on and dumbfire. It gets the sudden bursty ambush as well as the more accurate guidance of a lock on. However it takes time to fire and land a shot like a lockon.

The Striker is a pure lock on with all the pros and cons of one, making it great at medium ranges and fustrating the heck out of all armour, both air and land.

The Lancer however is unique. Its a dumbfire sniper. There's no warning and the near hitscan accuracy makes it excell at extreme ranges to the point enemies cant even retaliate. Only extreme speed armours are likely to survive such as ESFs and flashes at long distance. The weapon also has a spam mode, turning it into a classic dumbire for close quarters. The weapon's weakness lies in the fact that it cant really hurt infantry, isnt very effective against air unless they're moving slow/still. The damage is also low, making for less effective burst. However the ups are the near hitscan and insane range with no drop. The weapon can easily and suddenly take out the wounded vehicles that flee, it can out range any weapon and effectivly hurt/destroy it, scaling much better than any other rocket due to its accuracy, speed and range.

So in conclusion, the lancer is made for a particular extreme range role but can work at lesser distances as well. Due to its incredible pin point and very sudden burst damage, it scales incredibly well compaired to other weapons that either warn their opponents like lock ons or can be more effectly dodged like regular dumb fires. It can halt entire enemy lines before they're even aware of opponents and unlike turrets, are always mobile and able to be in harder to reach spots. Lancer's are great at picking off a target and basically ensure that no matter what, even if you dont get the kill, lancers WILL make sure enemy armours go up in flames. It is for these reasons that singular opperated lancers arent as strong because multiples will always guarantee a kill compared to lock ons getting smoked or dumbfires dodged.

You don't always need a lancer, but when you do, someone will die.

It's extremely rare that I get killed by a Decimator. I don't even have to account for them most of the time; just not sitting around in a vulnerable location close to the enemy is sufficient defense against them. If I see one coming, I move and it misses. That's the drawback of comically slow moving dumbfire rockets. Strikers are actually dangerous, and dodging them doesn't work.

Speaking of junk weapons...I just tried my dual Falcon MAX for the first time in a long time.
I didn't realize they took away 100% of the splash damage from Falcons. Boooooo Hiiiisssssssssss.

Yes. My understanding is:
1) 150 Damage
2) 375 Damage (~187 damage / round)
3) 750 Damage (250 damage / round)

This would be uselessly low, but most vehicles have a 1.5x or 2.0x modifier versus the Lancer damage type before armor is applied. So 750 Lancer damage on a Prowler or a Lightning is actually 1500 damage. I.E. Same as a normal lock on G2G missile.

Now that I have the thing, I may actually find a Lancer squad. Which I think ranks a 7.34 on the cryptozoological improbability scale now that the novelty has worn off. The scaling logic has always been self defeating in that the less Lancers you find, the less reason you have for getting a Lancer yourself, which is one less reason for everyone else to get it, and so on and so forth. I think the charge mechanic is still awkward (and better yet, buggy). It's more fun to zap single shots but ineffective to the point that I don't know why it's included (other than leaving cool lazor beams everywhere). It's not bad anymore, I just don't like it much.

On the other hand, there are Harassers now so projectile velocity uber alles it is!

You don't fight in/around buildings much, I guess... heavies use them way too much and too often, generally as a close quarters weapon too.

And, you really don't want to get caught in an urban/forest setting with a Striker... or even hilly terrain; the Striker is strictly an air deterrent and Esamir weapon, outside of that, if you're getting killed by them it was likely a lucky last shot after something else got you first.

I'll gladly take your lancer. hand it over.

....you think the Lancer is the worst weapon? I haven't seen a -better- weapon for finishing off those smoking/burning vehicles that are in panic mode and rushing for cover. No need to lock on, no need to guide a missile in. Just aim and fire fire fire fire fire fire to finish him off.

Best weapon in the game for finishing off those Cowboy Harassers that run for it when they smoke too.

ROFL you overestimate the effectiveness of the Lancer at greater range. Lets see you reliably land shots at 500+ meters like you seem to think a lot of people are capable of doing. Sorry but you are wrong. Look at the accuracy stats for the Lancer, which are super low. Now factor out all of the point blank shots and you are going to get an accuracy of like 10-15% for those longer range shots! It is much more effective to wait for them to get to close range... oh wait... now that is in the range where the Striker and Phoenix do well.

The fact of the matter is, a group of people with the Lancer is still less effective than that same size group of people with the other weapons. Purely going by the number of people using the weapon, the damage the other ESRLs do, far FAR outweighs any benefit you think you'll gain from "range." Which would you rather have, a weapon that shoots 700m but does 10 damage, or a weapon that shoots 500m but does 15 damage? I know it'd be easy to wait the extra 200m and do a TON more damage, plus being able to effectively engage aircraft as well.

Yet people scream when Higby makes an offhanded comment about VS weapons needing to be OP before they'll use them. Another classic example.

The Lancer is the best RL in the game in my opinion. Can hit any target at its render range. I main NC but alt VS/TR and have just about every RL on my heavies. Vehicle zergs are a lot harder to deal with as NC if you don't have a vehicle zerg of your own. NC rocket launchers and MAX AV don't have the range of TR/VS. Any smart squad pushing against NC will have a couple of snipers in a flanking position easily picking off AV turrets while pushing with armor.

Defending Quartz Ridge or Indar Excavation as VS from an armor push is a breeze when VS pull out their Lancers. Poor tankers don't even know what's hitting them if the HA's don't render to them.

It's difficult to hit ESF on the move though not impossible - hovering a Lancer shot or two will put the willies up them and make them move on. Liberators and Galaxies aren't that hard to hit, though.

Everyone, may I introduce the worst Lancer user ever.