Matthew Higby @mhigby9h Lancer going to get reduction to charge time, range increase, decreased dmg falloff, ability to hold charge at level 3 for a few seconds Matthew Higby @mhigby9h @Monglor yeah, varying the projectile speed with charge level is something that we've been talking about.
Won't judge until I get my hands on the fixed "Glancer". Wish they would also remove the firing delay. The projectile still has traveling time, so there's no need for an artificial delay between releasing a trigger and the gun firing. "I once shot myself in the foot when I fired my gun and holstered it before the bullet came out "
Why a launcher made for long range armor sniping would have damage falloff is beyond my comprehension.
The devs were so worried about this weapon being OP that they over nerfed it even before releasing it. It's kinda funny that they are making changes to it considering that Higby said that the Vanu need to L2P with it because it's fine. I guess when they looked at the sales figures for it, and it was under performing compared to the other launchers, they realized that they needed to buff it or no one would buy it. I've seen very few of them being used in outside the VR.
I sometimes tend to overreact to things... Guess it was the fear, that SOE let it be in its current state without further improvement.
I have to say I trialed the Lancer, and while those are definite improvements its still pretty limited due to zoom limiting its effective range. Plus any slight movement at all, and you'll miss. Its so far from the portable Saron everyone thought it was going to be. Still changes are something, but I wonder if they'll be enough?
Yeah I agree. Yet I have to ask Higby whats the point in pre-nerfing a VS weapon thats going to be OP in the hands of skilled players, while they generously throw a lock-on ez mode rocket launcher in the TRs hands.
"Nerf it before releasing" ha ? ... Sounds like Twigby's doing to me. Wouldn't expect anything more from him imo. Took them 3 months to fix the lasting movement bugs with Magrider's movement (which they caused), when it's underperforming even today. Stats / graphs never got to be released to the public, letting the issue sink in obscurity.
Effect-wise, what exactly is the difference between "really high" projectile velocity and the ability to continuously aim en-route? I don't think there is much of a difference in the end-result. (hitting the target) It would also seem like 2-hitting infantry using the Phoenix is acceptable assuming that's what they intend to do with their future patch, whereas 2-hitting infantry using the lancer is seemingly not acceptable for some reason. So let's just assume 2-hitting is not ok - seeing as the lancer deals differing damage to two targets, it is presumably possible to have differing damage falloff for the two damage values? If so, how about making the Lancer 3-hit infantry beyond say, 300m? (phoenix effective range - "2hk is ok here") With these things in mind, I think we can safely conclude that having a CoF at all for the Lancer for the purpose of preventing infantry sniping makes no sense - as such this cannot be the reason for having a CoF. So what is the reason for the CoF? If they want us to be ineffective against tanks at range, damage falloff is the solution - it's at least infinitely less infuriating than missing a target because of something you have no control over. I did some testing in the VR training area(aimed center-mass on a prowler), and whatever the current ADS CoF is, it needs reduction to be able to hit targets reliably at 450m+ ranges. (depends mostly on angle, if you are on level ground it's harder, I was aiming from a cliff ~~450m away - and if the target had been a lightning this would be much harder due to their lower profile, and if the tank is partly obscured you can't aim center-mass, this will increase the miss rate due to the CoF by a ton) Lastly, they intend to extend the range from the current 500m limit to... whatever they have in mind - it would make sense to reduce the CoF further assuming they want us to hit stuff at those ranges. (otherwise it doesn't matter much if they increase the range) Or am I perhaps missing something here? (beyond tanks)
They could increase the range to 1000m and it wouldn't change anything unless they give it high zoom optics... Hoping that is included as part of the 'range increase'. Even if it did get higher zoom optics though, without a straight up buff to the damage I don't know why you'd want to shoot at targets past 500m. The driver has 30 seconds to see the massive projectile trail and get out of the way. Only use really will be extending the kill steal range (which the Lancer really excels at).
I'd be pretty content with a 1.5x 'zoom' optic. Even if they reduce the CoF to normal Infantry weapon levels, being .1, more zoom just shows you by how much you miss.
