More rebalancing!

[Zarel]

If you look at those two threads you are linking to, you will see that I gave specific feedback on your plans brought up within them, so yes, I have heard of it. I just didn't get the impression that there were enough changes between them to balance out T3 and vtols yet, but admittedly that was just an impression.

Sorry, I skimmed through the first few pages and didn't see your name; and it seemed like you had no idea I had done anything to T3 at all.

My point was that T1-2 minus vtols, has already gone all the way into a stable release and plays well. I thought it would take about as long for you to get T3 and vtols to that level, given that you are doing this in your free hours.

Weapon balance doesn't take that long to get "close to right", which is what I believe it's at right now. In any case, as of Rebalance 0.4.1, I do believe T3 weapons are balanced. PL might undergo some refinements, but otherwise it should be fine.

The diversity already inherent in this subclass seems to point to the contrary. And keep in mind we are still just talking about diversity over a family of weapons (not a single uber weapon iow) and only in the damage reduction system, not range, refire, weight or all the other things that make missiles unique and specialized versus the other weapons types.

Yes, but no need to pull it to extremes. "Rich people have money! Therefore, we should give them more money!" That doesn't make sense at all.

Actually, I don't think there is a reason skirmishing should not work on cyborgs. Cyborgs seem only moderately quick and no more flexible than other units. MRL is an indirect fire weapon in the artillery family, that's like calling a platform with a howitzer a main battle tank.

Well, cyborgs don't look very flexible because of the game engine. The game lore describes cyborgs as only possible by the Synaptic Link technology, which allowed it to have faster reflexes, which I interpreted as being able to more easily dodge missiles.

MRL is only an indirect fire weapon in terms of trajectory. Because of its range, its use is more like a direct-fire weapon.

It does when the weapons are in the same line for the most part. But pod rockets have a very different look, feel and operation from lancers and their replacements. That's my fourth reason for giving them their own line as a primarily anti-cyborg direct fire missile for skirmishing and fire support.

We already have a good early-game medium-range anti-cyborg skirmisher, it's called HMG. If we make pod rockets AP or arty, we lose what the pod rockets are meant to be: An early-game medium-range anti-tank skirmisher. They handle very differently from lancers, but they're fundamentally the same concept.

[3drts]

As far as T3 goes, the scourge has been changed the most.

Right now it has an ROF of 40, and a damage of only 342 when fully upgraded
Compare to lancer/TK, doing 300 damage, and 18/27 ROF
IMO, the scourge is too low damage, and too high ROF.
I think it should function like a high tech lancer- fire a powerful high damage salvo, and then take a while to reload.

Originally it did something like 570 damage, and 16 ROF (upgrades didn't work) - when the upgrades worked, as with the lancer, it was perhaps too powerful. I noticed the lancers base ROF was lowered to 7 from 10

Perhaps the same should be done for the Scourge- high damage, low ROF.
This could come with a buff to railgun ROF, such that gauss effectively replaces cannons, and scourge replaces rockets.
Gauss already had a damage and range reduction, so I think there is room for a ROF buff

Personally I'd like to see its range back to 2048 - so all T3 direct fire weapons have the same range.
Rail/needle range = flashlight range
so why not:
Gauss range = pulse laser range
Missiles I suppose could have a longer range than both, but following the original end T-2 stats:
MG range (assault gun) = Cannon range (HPV) = Rocket range (lancer/tk/bb)
substituting lasers for MGs, rails for cannons, and missiles for rockets, why can't we have this arrangement again?
I know 1.10 was not balanced- but I think it had more to do with weapon damage and ROF than weapon range.
LC sucked because of its ROF and damage, not range, same for flamers (I think they were intended to have the burning effect after the initial hit be more powerful, early in the campaign, a viper getting tagged by a flamer was basically dead unless you got a repair unit to it asap- but in multi that burning effect quickly becomes marginalized)
I thought the ranges were fine (except for MRL)

Also, in keeping with the "shoot and scoot" of the lancer, I think the TK should be given a more damaging attack, rather than a higher ROF - right now I notice it launches a salvo of 3 missiles not 2 like the lancer, so that it effectively does have a more damaging attack with similar ROF.
3 rockets seems weird... how about 4 rockets?
As far as I can tell, the weapon models make it look like each could launch 4 rockets at a time.
Could we adjust the rockets to fire salvos of 4 (and modify damage+ ROF appropriately), while missiles only fire 2 more powerful attacks - and thus take less penalties from armor.

As for the VTOL balance, may I suggest: all weapon damage = 2x the vehicle weapon damage.
Rockets/missiles: 1 salvo - rockets a salvo of 4, missiles a salvo of 2(with missile accuracy being much higher than rockets - hopefully combined with my above rocket/missile suggestions).
All cannons: 4 rounds
All Lasers: 8 rounds
All Rails: 6 rounds
All Mgs: 20 rounds

Or make capacity for non rockets/missiles based somehow on the base weapon ROF - ie if a cannon can fire 4 rounds in 20 seconds, the vtol gets 4 rounds.
if the MG fires 40 rounds in 20 seconds, the VTOL gets 40 rounds,
Thus you'd have VTOLs with essentially 20 seconds of "staying power", doing 2x the damage of their ground counterparts.
And from there, balance the "seconds of staying power"

btw, right now Im playing 2.2b - and pulse laser hard-points kick arse, its all I build now- awesome AA defense, and good enough vs tanks.
Im not sure giving PL the ability to target aircraft was a good thing.
I expect PL spamage on tanks and hardpoints if the game ever gets to T3, spamage of scourge cyborgs(since they now do 100% damage to vtols), and abandonment of AA.
But this is just what I expect

[Zarel]

As far as T3 goes, the scourge has been changed the most.

Right now it has an ROF of 40, and a damage of only 342 when fully upgraded
Compare to lancer/TK, doing 300 damage, and 18/27 ROF
IMO, the scourge is too low damage, and too high ROF.
I think it should function like a high tech lancer- fire a powerful high damage salvo, and then take a while to reload.

So do I. That's why it has a ROF of 23 and a damage of 569 when fully upgraded.

I have no idea where you're getting your numbers from. 2.2b1? That has a really old version of Rebalance.

Originally it did something like 570 damage, and 16 ROF (upgrades didn't work) - when the upgrades worked, as with the lancer, it was perhaps too powerful. I noticed the lancers base ROF was lowered to 7 from 10

Originally, it did 300 base damage, 16 base ROF. I remember this very well. (I don't remember its upgrades being broken - Warzone Guide's 1.10 table doesn't have T2/T3 research yet, so the lack of upgrades there means nothing).

Perhaps the same should be done for the Scourge- high damage, low ROF.
This could come with a buff to railgun ROF, such that gauss effectively replaces cannons, and scourge replaces rockets.
Gauss already had a damage and range reduction, so I think there is room for a ROF buff

Gauss doesn't have a damage reduction. It's still 300. Its ROF has been increased from 7 to 10. Its range has been "reduced" on paper from 16 to 14, but in-game both their ranges are capped at 12 (except Scourge towers, which are capped at around 14-15).

It's kind of funny that everything you've suggested has already been implemented. This is why you read the Guide before suggesting changes.

Personally I'd like to see its range back to 2048 - so all T3 direct fire weapons have the same range.
Rail/needle range = flashlight range
so why not:
Gauss range = pulse laser range
Missiles I suppose could have a longer range than both, but following the original end T-2 stats:
MG range (assault gun) = Cannon range (HPV) = Rocket range (lancer/tk/bb)
substituting lasers for MGs, rails for cannons, and missiles for rockets, why can't we have this arrangement again?

It's good to have more variety.

I know 1.10 was not balanced- but I think it had more to do with weapon damage and ROF than weapon range.
LC sucked because of its ROF and damage, not range, same for flamers (I think they were intended to have the burning effect after the initial hit be more powerful, early in the campaign, a viper getting tagged by a flamer was basically dead unless you got a repair unit to it asap- but in multi that burning effect quickly becomes marginalized)
I thought the ranges were fine (except for MRL)

I dunno, the burning effect is harder to balance. I think Troman taking the easy way out and just increasing damage was a decent idea that makes flamers more general-usable.

Also, in keeping with the "shoot and scoot" of the lancer, I think the TK should be given a more damaging attack, rather than a higher ROF - right now I notice it launches a salvo of 3 missiles not 2 like the lancer, so that it effectively does have a more damaging attack with similar ROF.
3 rockets seems weird... how about 4 rockets?
As far as I can tell, the weapon models make it look like each could launch 4 rockets at a time.
Could we adjust the rockets to fire salvos of 4 (and modify damage+ ROF appropriately), while missiles only fire 2 more powerful attacks - and thus take less penalties from armor.

Tank Killer has fired 4 rockets since 2.1...

As for the VTOL balance, may I suggest: all weapon damage = 2x the vehicle weapon damage.
Rockets/missiles: 1 salvo - rockets a salvo of 4, missiles a salvo of 2(with missile accuracy being much higher than rockets - hopefully combined with my above rocket/missile suggestions).
All cannons: 4 rounds
All Lasers: 8 rounds
All Rails: 6 rounds
All Mgs: 20 rounds

Or make capacity for non rockets/missiles based somehow on the base weapon ROF - ie if a cannon can fire 4 rounds in 20 seconds, the vtol gets 4 rounds.
if the MG fires 40 rounds in 20 seconds, the VTOL gets 40 rounds,
Thus you'd have VTOLs with essentially 20 seconds of "staying power", doing 2x the damage of their ground counterparts.
And from there, balance the "seconds of staying power"

Not a bad idea.

btw, right now Im playing 2.2b - and pulse laser hard-points kick arse, its all I build now- awesome AA defense, and good enough vs tanks.
Im not sure giving PL the ability to target aircraft was a good thing.

And here I thought 75% was a good damage percentage. Maybe I'll push it down further. I'm guessing you're just playing against AIs, which is why it's so good against tanks.

I expect PL spamage on tanks and hardpoints if the game ever gets to T3, spamage of scourge cyborgs(since they now do 100% damage to vtols), and abandonment of AA.
But this is just what I expect

Yeah, I should push down some of those multipliers.

[3drts]

I have no idea where you're getting your numbers from. 2.2b1? That has a really old version of Rebalance.

Yep, 2.2 beta, I was playing it vs AI's (1 ai left and surrounded by PLs) in windowed mode as I wrote the post.
You said Tk's fired 4 missiles, I was only seeing and hearing effects for 3.

If Gauss doesn't have a damage reduction, it must be that the upgrades have been changed.

Can you explain the range being "capped at 12"? Is this because of vehicle sensors? does assigning to a commander get around that range limitation?

[Zarel]

You said Tk's fired 4 missiles, I was only seeing and hearing effects for 3.

You only hear effects for 3, because of how the sound system works, but if you look closely, there are 4 rockets. Take a screenshot if you don't believe me.

If Gauss doesn't have a damage reduction, it must be that the upgrades have been changed.

Oh, they were reduced in 2.1, and hadn't been changed back in 2.2b1 yet. They're back in Rebalance 0.4.1 and trunk, though.

Can you explain the range being "capped at 12"? Is this because of vehicle sensors? does assigning to a commander get around that range limitation?

Yes, it's because of vehicle sensors. No, commanders don't get around that limitation.

[zydonk]

I've started a new game with the latest rebal mod (041 with 213). I'm using GreatRift, which allows definitive early defence and later extensive attack and therefore a can be good test of the mod in sk.

As luck would have it, I messed up one area of my opening defence, so that I am getting hammered pretty badly on one flank. This means a lot of ad hoc researching to bring up specific weapons. Turns out to be a good test! I could get the weaponry I needed as I needed it (even glad to get TK when I did), while the fighting remained intense and sustained. But I would like to make a number of observations after two hours of play.

1. Stumped when the lancer bunker did not turn up as expected. Took me a while to notice the lancer tower. Never use towers as a rule, they are neither one thing or another. Anyway, stuck lancer towers behind the original mg bunker defence and it was as if I had the lancer bunker after all. Point is, it is not a rebal if the new weapon can be made to behave like the old.

2. Same point with the pulse. I usually hide the pulse emplacement behind some stronger struct, now I merely hide the tower instead. But here, I still think that the pulse should (like the mortar and arty) be vulnerable as a empl.

3. Liked the quick dev to the cyclone aa, but I don't think it is a good idea: too easy. I only ever used the hurricane in emergencies, trying o/wise to work through the dev to the cyclone and hoping to get it before the VTOLs became a real nuisance.

[later]. I have switched over to a smaller map (RiverCanyon) where play is more open. One hour in and the play is open and pretty intense, so the rebal is working well in sk (I found Troman's rebal most unsatisfactory in early stages of game). Only thing is, setting up mg bunker / lancer tower combo uses a lot of precious space, so that's another nono for that tower.

Incidentally, re above exchanges: I think the scourge rof is too high. Given the power of the weaponry and droids in the end game, good balance is crucial here. The strength of the scourge lies in its range and target-lock; it shouldn't be too powerful beyond that. Maybe this has been changed. I should shut up and just finish some games.

[Tiberian]

1. Stumped when the lancer bunker did not turn up as expected. Took me a while to notice the lancer tower. Never use towers as a rule, they are neither one thing or another. Anyway, stuck lancer towers behind the original mg bunker defence and it was as if I had the lancer bunker after all. Point is, it is not a rebal if the new weapon can be made to behave like the old.

2. Same point with the pulse. I usually hide the pulse emplacement behind some stronger struct, now I merely hide the tower instead. But here, I still think that the pulse should (like the mortar and arty) be vulnerable as a empl.

that is a very good strategy, why are you discounting it as a rebalance problem?

[Terminator]

IMHO I recomend goback to Original 1.10 balance & add this current balance as a MP MOD.

[Zarel]

1. Stumped when the lancer bunker did not turn up as expected. Took me a while to notice the lancer tower. Never use towers as a rule, they are neither one thing or another. Anyway, stuck lancer towers behind the original mg bunker defence and it was as if I had the lancer bunker after all. Point is, it is not a rebal if the new weapon can be made to behave like the old.

This was the subject of the last rebalance thread.

Lancer bunker was removed because it was too powerful. Sticking lancer towers behind MG bunkers isn't that effective - you can fire over the bunker; the AI's just too stupid to do that. So the new weapon doesn't behave like the old.

Oh, and, towers have longer range.

2. Same point with the pulse. I usually hide the pulse emplacement behind some stronger struct, now I merely hide the tower instead. But here, I still think that the pulse should (like the mortar and arty) be vulnerable as a empl.

There are some balance problems with pulse hardpoint, which I'm addressing, but the tower's fine. I don't understand what your problem with it is.

3. Liked the quick dev to the cyclone aa, but I don't think it is a good idea: too easy. I only ever used the hurricane in emergencies, trying o/wise to work through the dev to the cyclone and hoping to get it before the VTOLs became a real nuisance.

It's always been like this. I've been considering pushing Cyclone further back, though.

[later]. I have switched over to a smaller map (RiverCanyon) where play is more open. One hour in and the play is open and pretty intense, so the rebal is working well in sk (I found Troman's rebal most unsatisfactory in early stages of game). Only thing is, setting up mg bunker / lancer tower combo uses a lot of precious space, so that's another nono for that tower.

What's wrong with that? It allows for more interesting strategy, etc.

Incidentally, re above exchanges: I think the scourge rof is too high. Given the power of the weaponry and droids in the end game, good balance is crucial here. The strength of the scourge lies in its range and target-lock; it shouldn't be too powerful beyond that. Maybe this has been changed. I should shut up and just finish some games.

~12-20 rof is still too high? I guess. It used to be 16-40, and I've been considering pushing it down further, but that would make its damage insanely high. It can already kill practically any tank in one hit... :/

Unless you're suggesting to keep its damage output the same, in which case we'd need to decrease lancer and TK ROF or no one would ever use Scourge, but that'd weaken it too much, so I'd need to weaken every other weapon, etc, etc... It would just be messy.

IMHO I recomend goback to Original 1.10 balance & add this current balance as a MP MOD.

Has been suggested a ridiculously large number of times. I'm not going to reply to this in detail again, but:

- People often suggest reverting 1.10, but then making a few tweaks, and a few more, and suddenly it's another rebalance.
- 1.10 was pretty bad. Granted, in some ways it has more stability and better Windows support than WRP, but the balance? Terrible. No one used anything except HC and lancer (and their respective upgrades), and some late-game artillery. VTOLs were usually banned in multiplayer because of how imbalanced they were.

[Deus Siddis]

Sorry, I skimmed through the first few pages and didn't see your name; and it seemed like you had no idea I had done anything to T3 at all.

Yeah, I tend to post later on in these threads, trying to avoid the initial commotion.

Weapon balance doesn't take that long to get "close to right", which is what I believe it's at right now. In any case, as of Rebalance 0.4.1, I do believe T3 weapons are balanced. PL might undergo some refinements, but otherwise it should be fine.

There's still the vtol's to do though, I think you said someplace.

Yes, but no need to pull it to extremes. "Rich people have money! Therefore, we should give them more money!" That doesn't make sense at all.

Or in this context "There are 10 weapons strong against armor! We can't let there only be 9!" Which of course also doesn't make any sense at all either.

Anyway, it is not about excess, it is about symmetry, which makes the game's very complex research tree a little easier for people to understand and remember.

Well, cyborgs don't look very flexible because of the game engine. The game lore describes cyborgs as only possible by the Synaptic Link technology, which allowed it to have faster reflexes, which I interpreted as being able to more easily dodge missiles.

I remembered getting the impression from in-game cutscene that powered infantry armor about requires the synaptic link interface just to be able to stand up and walk without falling over. IOW, it makes cyborgs practical in combat, not masters of it. Besides, vtols might have a chance at dodging vtols, but not the tinman, not any man even.

MRL is only an indirect fire weapon in terms of trajectory. Because of its range, its use is more like a direct-fire weapon.

That's its own failing, the indirect fire makes it somewhat less effective and sensical as a skirmishing weapon, its limited range leaves mortars as the only really viable artillery weapon in T1 and the other weapons in its line are heavy artillery missiles with extreme range. Simply put, it makes no sense the way it is and makes the tech tree more confusing because of that.

We already have a good early-game medium-range anti-cyborg skirmisher, it's called HMG.

When it comes to skirmishing, the problem with the heavy machine gun is that it is heavy.

If we make pod rockets AP or arty, we lose what the pod rockets are meant to be: An early-game medium-range anti-tank skirmisher.

Only because Troman pushed out the lancers to around T2, in part because he wanted to make room for pods by giving them more of T1 alone, instead of giving them the role they could actually be good at (cyborgs, light vehicles). Lancers used to be and should have remained the T1 anti-tank missile option.

They handle very differently from lancers, but they're fundamentally the same concept.

And the way they handle is nothing at all like how a real anti-tank weapon functions, which again is very confusing. When you spread out your firepower over a great number of rounds instead of concentrating it into one or a few, you loose armor penetration, which is the thing you need the most for an anti-tank weapon.

Because of this, I had no idea they were anti-tank for all these years until just recently.

[3drts]

2 things:

1) Towers... the original manual said they have long range as a "pro"
Do they actually have a longer range than a bunker using the same weapon? I just assumed the mg tower had a HMG (does it just have the gfx for one, or is that the actual weapon it uses in game files?), and thus was longer range than the machine gun.... the manual didn't go too deep into weapons or bodies or anything (I think it only covered viper, cobra, python and scorpion), and had some outdated information - such as bodies being able to mount weapon classes (ie the scorpion can mount weapon classes 1,2, and 4, or something like that).
So I ignore the manual.
I assume a tower or bunker both reference the same lancer weapon "LtAT", which has a defined range...
So how do towers have longer range? is 1 tile worth of range added? Does a tower fire at what is defined as long range whereas others fire at what is defined as optimum/close range?

2) MRLs - they are useful for their indirect fire ability, even if they aren't useful as artillery - much like a soldiers grenade is useful for indirect fire, but is far from artillery.
Right now, early in the game, if someone walls off a pass, and sticks a MG tower behind the wall, you must first destroy a wall section to get to the tower with direct fire weapons.
A MRL can fire directly at the much weaker tower, it can also target trucks behind the wall, etc.
Indirect fire is useful, even if you can't attack from the other side of the screen or farther.

MRLs have serious firepower, even in 2.0.10 (after the upgrades affected them) - for fun I increased their range to 2048 and played the campaign with them that way... so they actually functioned like artillery.... they were far too powerful.

They have the firepower to be frontline units, and there is room for a frontline unit that uses indirect fire- so much room in fact, that perhaps there should be a T-3 equivalent to MRLs (indirect homing anyone? I'm imagining a scourge that fires its missiles up at a 45 degree angle - sort of like the real life - man portable Javelin AT missile)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDlbOh9C-Z4

I think the consensus is still that indirect homing artillery is too powerful, but an indirect homing attack on a frontline unit for engaging targets on the other side of walls and such with the same range as Scourge/PL/Gauss I think would be fine

[Zarel]

1) Towers... the original manual said they have long range as a "pro"
Do they actually have a longer range than a bunker using the same weapon? I just assumed the mg tower had a HMG (does it just have the gfx for one, or is that the actual weapon it uses in game files?), and thus was longer range than the machine gun.... the manual didn't go too deep into weapons or bodies or anything (I think it only covered viper, cobra, python and scorpion), and had some outdated information - such as bodies being able to mount weapon classes (ie the scorpion can mount weapon classes 1,2, and 4, or something like that).
So I ignore the manual.
I assume a tower or bunker both reference the same lancer weapon "LtAT", which has a defined range...
So how do towers have longer range? is 1 tile worth of range added? Does a tower fire at what is defined as long range whereas others fire at what is defined as optimum/close range?

Any weapon can fire at the minimum of weapon range and sensor range.

Nearly every tank and structure, except towers and sensors, have a sensor range of 8. Lancers have a weapon range of 9.

This means that most lancers can hit things 8 tiles away, but lancer towers can hit things 9 tiles away.

This is a Rebalance feature: In the original game, they all had a range of 8 tiles.

This also stops applying the minute you get your first sensor upgrade, because then all lancers will be able to fire at a range of 9 tiles.

They have the firepower to be frontline units, and there is room for a frontline unit that uses indirect fire- so much room in fact, that perhaps there should be a T-3 equivalent to MRLs (indirect homing anyone? I'm imagining a scourge that fires its missiles up at a 45 degree angle - sort of like the real life - man portable Javelin AT missile)

I'm considering that. I think that's what Angel Missile is meant to be, actually. Only with extremely long range. The late-game weapon ranges are kind of ridiculous.

There's still the vtol's to do though, I think you said someplace.

VTOLs are much more complicated. Weight matters more, and you have to consider that they have to go back to reload, which means factoring in their reload time, their distance, and their speed, which affects their DPS. You also have to consider how much ammo they can carry, how many attack runs they make, etc, etc, etc.

The problem with VTOLs right now, is that they seem simultaneously too strong and too weak right now. If you have AA, it's too strong. If you don't, it's too weak. I'm thinking of making AA less effective but more common.

Or in this context "There are 10 weapons strong against armor! We can't let there only be 9!" Which of course also doesn't make any sense at all either.

Anyway, it is not about excess, it is about symmetry, which makes the game's very complex research tree a little easier for people to understand and remember.

What symmetry? We don't need another AP skirmisher, we have one already. We do need an early-game AT skirmisher.

I remembered getting the impression from in-game cutscene that powered infantry armor about requires the synaptic link interface just to be able to stand up and walk without falling over. IOW, it makes cyborgs practical in combat, not masters of it. Besides, vtols might have a chance at dodging vtols, but not the tinman, not any man even.

It's enough of a justification. We don't need anti-infantry rockets. Lasers and machineguns are anti-infantry weapons; this is a trope that applies to pretty much every RTS.

That's its own failing, the indirect fire makes it somewhat less effective and sensical as a skirmishing weapon, its limited range leaves mortars as the only really viable artillery weapon in T1 and the other weapons in its line are heavy artillery missiles with extreme range. Simply put, it makes no sense the way it is and makes the tech tree more confusing because of that.

Why does the indirect fire make it less effective as a skirmishing weapon? It can fire while moving, and it's accurate enough to hit cyborgs while moving. What can't it do?

When it comes to skirmishing, the problem with the heavy machine gun is that it is heavy.

It's only heavy nominally. It's pretty light, at 600 weight. Light Cannon is 1000 weight, and it's often used as a skirmishing weapon. HMG is light enough to go at max speed on pretty much any body/propulsion combination, iirc.

Only because Troman pushed out the lancers to around T2, in part because he wanted to make room for pods by giving them more of T1 alone, instead of giving them the role they could actually be good at (cyborgs, light vehicles). Lancers used to be and should have remained the T1 anti-tank missile option.

Why? I like it better this way, and they're meant to be this way.

And the way they handle is nothing at all like how a real anti-tank weapon functions, which again is very confusing. When you spread out your firepower over a great number of rounds instead of concentrating it into one or a few, you lose armor penetration, which is the thing you need the most for an anti-tank weapon.

Pumpkin intended them to be anti-tank. Check the weapon description: "Best against: tanks"

It's not enough armor penetration against structures, but it's good enough armor penetration against early-game tanks.

[Per]

IMHO I recomend goback to Original 1.10 balance & add this current balance as a MP MOD.

Not going to happen, but feel free to make a 1.10 mod.

[Deus Siddis]

Not going to happen, but feel free to make a 1.10 mod.

If someone in the community puts together a 1.10 mod with its new collision system and whatever else, I think you folks in the dev team might want to seriously consider releasing it with the next stable release line, just so these 1.10 purists will have their candy and no longer feel the need to throw themselves into the gears of future balancing efforts.

[elio]

and we should name it the 'Lancer Mod'

Zarel, is the newest version of your rebalance already in trunk?

regards
elio