Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Lance vs Lucifer

51 posts, 1571 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 3 (51 records)
sort

57 days ago
What is the reason to build a lucifer over 2 lances?

2 lances have higher burst damage than Lucifer.
2 lances can be cloaked.
2 lances can move, even over water, kite and assault the enemy.
2 lances are cheaper than Lucifer.
2 lances are immune to impalers, since they can move and shoot even backwards and need no power to function.

It seems to me that Lucifer is a trap for new players.
+13 / -0
You can't lose all your lucifer to a single likho run.
Lucifer is naturally elevated beyond even the lance
Lucifer out range lances

In general lances are far better, but in super porc-fronts where everything is terra-and-dirtbagged to hell, with possible anticloak spam of firewalkers and tremors, and hover can't move or get a clear shot, lucifer is better.
+2 / -0
57 days ago
I rarely use them, though do think they occasionally have a niche use. I tend to think of them of like a short range, but more powerful cerb.
+0 / -0


57 days ago
In practice if the terrain allows hover then you should use Lance. If the terrain does not allow hover you should get a Cerberus (because that Lucifer will be often blocked by terrain).
+0 / -0

56 days ago
but can lance go into armored mode?

seriously. lucifer or cerb? => never lucifer.
+0 / -0
Lucifer just can't compete with the Cerberus. They cost similar amounts but one does AoE and has much more range and most importantly can be buried to ward off Impalers and tac nukes.

It might be worth building if it cost 1600 or so. Or was like the Future Wars version which has DPS increasing as it focuses on a target (letting it be a specialized detri counter).
+3 / -0

56 days ago
I can't remember the last time I've seen a Lucifer being used successfully, except in very niche porc scenarios.
+2 / -0

56 days ago
I'd be a fan of a lucifer that went into its shell automatically, and was generally harder to kill. Ideally all units get used.

I have seen lucifers get used when there is a lot of excess resources and constructors on the front.
+1 / -0

56 days ago
THE PROBLEM IS LANCE !

#BOOOAAATS !
+3 / -0

56 days ago
I don't actually care for static defenses, I just want lance nerfed and less wasted metal on my team.
+4 / -1

56 days ago
What would make the Lucifer "good"?
+0 / -0


56 days ago
I don't think we want to see a buffed Lucifer.
+3 / -0
56 days ago
So it seems like the best answer is nerfing Lance and Cerberus, or altering in some way. I'd approve of this anyway, as they reside in the "S-Tier" of their respective categories, to the point of rendering other units pointless or unbuildable.

Of course, GoogleFrog has a very good point. A Lucifer buffed to the point of more general usability would have many of the same issues as Lance, or make it a static Lance to begin with. On the other hand, I could definitely see the sense in buffing Lucifer in non-offensive measures.

  • Speeding up seclusion into its armored form
  • Reducing cost.
    quote:
    It might be worth building if it cost 1600 or so.
  • Increasing HP.

Right now, Lucifer's uses are incredibly niche and often useless compared to Lance. I can recall one game I spectated months ago on Real Europe, where Galamesh had a Lucifer that was very good, but that was definitely not the norm.

quote:
I'd be a fan of a lucifer that went into its shell automatically, and was generally harder to kill.


For buffs on the offensive side, I think Lucifer would be best altered to have a much higher range(on par with Cerberus, higher or lower.) However, with the alteration of increasing reloadtime, possibly buffing damage slightly, but leaving it as is otherwise. I think this would mesh far better with it's armored form as is, giving it time to fire from a farther distance, making it harder to kill faster. This, I believe, would increase it's livability, and by extension ability for it to make cost. As well, this would serve to distance it from Lances, which would have even higher DPS over Lucifer, but lack range in comparison and be much more counterable, as Lucifer can be terra'd up as well. This would also contrast Lucifer more with DDM, though that isn't really needed. Lastly, it would make it more suitable in some situations over Cerberus, which would add a welcome third addition to the escalation that is essentially Lance/Silo/Cerberus.

However, I do believe nerfing and/or altering Lance and Cerberus would be a better option, and for Lance, needed in the first place.
+3 / -0

56 days ago
In general there doesn't seem to be a need for more or better static defense. I play the lobsterpot, where the winning strategy appears to be seizing the resources, then avoiding silly mistakes while building something super. Attacking defense is painful, generally a metal donation.

I do want something to shift the rather predictable escalation we see in trench warfare. The king is the tacnuke silo. Cerberus is great, until someone tacnukes it. Lucifer seems expensive and fragile, direct line of fire being a major issue compared to cerb. I like the desolator, but most likely it gets taken out without a head-on engagement. I feel there is little incentive to build powerful static defenses. My teammate NOrankskuggtheother has some amusement (and success) with taknukes, but I dislike how they feel. Everything else seems to fail (in our lobsterpot trench warfare world). Would be best to have uses for all the units and buildings.

I would like to see DRP get a shorter range and lower price, slot in above a cerb. Dominate part of the map.
+0 / -0
56 days ago
change its name back ffs. you just have to shit on all taht is cool do you?

penetrator was ok.

people just wanna have fun away from their domestic dispute.
+1 / -0


56 days ago
AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
quote:
I don't think we want to see a buffed Lucifer.

I think a buff that gave it fast armor-up (under a second) and gave it a setting to automatically do it when attacked when there's nothing in range for it to kill would give it a point without being too degenerate.
+3 / -0


56 days ago
If Lucifer could cycle armour in a second then shouldn't it automatically pop up and down to take each shot? I'm worried that this would look silly, and it would also seem to make it stronger against things that should defeat it.
+1 / -0

56 days ago
I didn't actually realize lucifer had a closed setting until I read it in the docs. I remember it from TA, folding in and out, but had assumed (without bothering to check) that it had been removed. Why build a static defense that requires open/close to be micromanaged anyway? Sometimes of course a stinger or gauss on hold fire is clever, but thats an exception to the rule.

IMO, the fold-out delay is part of the charm, and a fine way to nerf a strong weapon. One vote for doing it.
+0 / -0


55 days ago
quote:
If Lucifer could cycle armour in a second then shouldn't it automatically pop up and down to take each shot? I'm worried that this would look silly, and it would also seem to make it stronger against things that should defeat it.


I got a unit AI gadget that auto closes popups under 33% hp / disarm and returns them to normal at 66%. Could use that.
+1 / -0

55 days ago
Huh, I just tried out the disable and sure enough it really does close. Neat. Maybe it'd make sense to give it some healing factor like gauss?
+0 / -0
Page of 3 (51 records)