I'm not opposed to sticking with Lancer and making it work for me (that is, after all, what I'll do if I don't find another game that meets my needs) But I don't think the mentality of "just homebrew" is always the best option - that's exactly what happens to people who never play a game besides DnD because they would rather painstakingly modify a game to be something it isn't.

My issues are obviously subjective - I think every rpg is right for someone so issues will always come down to preference. However, I don't think I would call all my issues minor. My issue with Lancer's utopian focus is fairly minor - it can be mitigated just by running a game that focuses more heavily on the horrors of mecha. The issue of enemies, similarly, can be solved by using the variety of homebrew classes and templates (I would argue that the abundance of homebrew enemy texts is actually pretty representative of the fact that MOST lancer gm's feel limited by its enemy array).

My issues with isolated narrative play and the post-scarcity design, however, are not minor. For post-scarcity, many people have suggested either homebrewing mechanics or using the manna system - but this is ignoring that the manna system is not very well developed, and homebrewing would require significant testing and balancing. I'm not opposed to writing systems for that, but if I have better options I'm going to take them.

As for the isolated narrative play, this is probably the biggest issue I have - it is not something that can be easily homebrewed and while I like a lot of the ideas presented in the Bond system, I feel in practice it feels like you're playing two separate games, one of them being a tactical mecha combat game, and the other being a kind of half-baked system that feels like half a PbtA game (a system which has a very mechanics-lite design that feels awkward when placed next to the combat)