(Editted.) If the 140 isn't possible, then perhaps a more consistent falloff mine at the price of 20% ult charge requirement?

Edit: Since Geoff latest post here

Says that 140 is not possible, then perhaps a shift in lower consistent mines is possible?

Since the damage is lower now, then having a consistent falloff damage is possible? Since certain heroes also have a consistent AOE damage, and making it more of a finisher tool would be good.

There’s two type of falloffs so far.


1 m = 120
2 m = 80
3 m = 60


3 m at all range = 70 or 80 (If this were to happen perhaps lowering the CD on mines from 8 to 7 seconds would be good since it’s no longer doing the huge amount of damage of AOE it used to do?)

Mainly, this is to lower some of the problematic aspect of double mining, but keeps its utility. One large issue was the mines super charge the gain rate of how Junkrat got tire very fast, but by increasing the ult charge requirements, it solves the value of how much charge he got per mine.

Right now, getting Junkrat buffs is good but he just needs a little more fine-tuning before reaching a viable spot.

1 Like

I like what you’ve written, the trap thing is interesting, I’m curious why you think it should only be nades that have increased trap damage. Trap landmine combos are part of his regular play, I think someone in a trap with a landmine close by should die, as the traps are pretty obvious. Now maybe they could make them harder to detect or something, haven’t really thought that through.

Anyway thanks for the post, it seems that a lot of junk mains are not happy about what just happened, myself included.

I was talking about the mines doing extra damage to trapped targets and only mines. The idea of increasing damage to trap is also possible, since bumping mines to 70 would require the trap be bumped up in return from 80 - 130. Which I think would be too much to some.

Making mines do extra damage to trapped targets allow it to retain the combo, but on its own, doesn’t do that much damage.

Ah I see, my apologies i misread what you had typed. Again thanks for the comments, I’m hopeful that the devs are looking for calm non hyperbolic junk feedback, and this fits the bill.

What do you think about his nade size? I see people requesting that be enlarged, but personally I think his nade size is fine right now. It required changing my gameplay, but I get more direct hits now than I did with the larger nade size. Not saying it wouldn’t be cool to have a larger size, but I feel it would come at too much of a cost and it’s not worth it; but that’s just my opinion.

Some players do want the projectile to be reverted, but I think the main complaints is that sometimes the nades just phases through. It happens from time to time, not all the time but just enough that it’s noticeable. If they fixed that, I think most complaints would go away.

My angle is that I can live with one of Junkrat inconsistencies. Be it either the mine or nade, but having both of them together makes it very awkward and frustrating to play. I think if Blizz fix one of these, it’ll be a much better position for Junkrat over all.

Which is why I suggested making the mines weaker but consistent damage, so long the primary is 140 as it would at least make kill confirming more consistent.

1 Like

I would rather revert the projectile size nerf and then have the 10% ult increase. Leave his damage alone. I want to feel at least somewhat consistent with his primary fire.

They leave it alone.

no i mean revert the impact damage back to 40 and also revert the projectile size back to .3 then add the 10% ult charge increase.

Yeah, Geoff said that 140 is off the table. So consistent mines is probably the only alternative left.

1 Like

just stahp nerfing his ult charge geezus. thats weak sauce fix and u know it.just make his cc with mine better(directional instead of lifting u up even if ur belllow the mine)