[Review] [Engi] Blunderbuss - Corporeal Damage

[Crumbs]

To Dansari - Sorry I thought my post was locked or something so I couldn’t post, also didn’t think I was allowed to make proposals so I didn’t reply and was waiting for them to open up again


- The issue
Blunderbuss aoe engineer skill, it’s a spammable instant cast frontal cone aoe.

- Why it’s an issue
The skill deals physical damage alongside a rotation that is supposed to be corporeal/spirit damage. The magus’ version of this skill already works this way, except in spirit damage. (Aoe engis debuff Corp, aoe magus debuff spirit) Physical damage without an Armor debuff is pointless and deals very minimal damage, this ability is rarely used bc of it.

- Solution proposal
Convert the ability to deal Corporeal damage, same damage and every other property, just make it Corp. This way it works off our Corp debuff. Like it already does for magus

Also not sure whether to add this in here, but frag grenade is a very weak skill that deals with the exact same issue as Blunderbuss, can this also be fixed to be more online with magus’ version? I’ll make another proposal if I need to

[dansari]

No worries bud I'm just clearing through stuff.

[dansari]

Moving to discussions.

I have heard competing opinion that Blunderbuss is fine as it is, so I'd like other engies to speak to the usability of Blunderbuss and frag grenade as they stand today.

[peterthepan3]

in regards to frag grenade, it is the exact same as Pandemonium (assuming it is doing corp damage, as it should - will verify later).

blunderbuss imo shouldn't be a magical damage ability: that is what grenade is for. Engineer should retain its role as a PRDPS: rifle for ST, and tink for pbaoe.

Instead of changing damage type, why not propose adding some innate WS/armor pen - tied to a tactic high up in Tink?

agree with Dan, would like to see some high RR engis chime in here.

[Sedok]

Despite the discrepancy in the AoE rotations, I've never felt Blunderbuss's damage type was major inhibitor, or even really a problem in the first place. Yes, it requires WS to have decent damage (a stat which you will forgo in a Gren/Tink setup), but its not the main skill I've used in those situations (I run with a SM, so I'm using Static Discharge instead). Engineers also have another hard-hitting AoE in their rotation, Strafing Run, so any dps lost in the discrepancy is going to be made up and then some by SR. Also, if the damage type is changed, what's the difference between Blund and SD? That one does more damage in a front cone, and the other does it all around but with 5 second CD?

[Karast]

Frag is physical atm not corp.

As far as blunderbuss going corp. It is not a bad argument to make since engi suffers greatly from the current armor stacking meta.

There is no AoE armor debuff on order side and even with the maximum WS stacking you still face 60-75% armor mitigation on most front line targets, which is what you hit with blunderbuss. In a warband situation it takes heavy, often times full, mitigation.

In the past the argument against making it corp was M2 unshakable focus, but with that morale gone the damage scaling is no longer an issue.

Even with improved damage the ability is still limited by its 35 AP cost, and high front line dodge values from HTL. If you want to spam blunderbuss you are really forced to take an AP tactic, and as a career that has many must slot tactics you really have to give something up to focus more on dps. More than likely a utility tactic like trench fighting, well oiled machine, or pierce defense. You can't fit everything into one build.

Another positive note would be this would give tinker a bit more reliable AoE, and might push engi's from a mainly utility role, to potentially a more dps focused role, which is largely left to BW atm.

It feels like a step in the right direction. But if testing shows it to be too strong. The AP cost could be further increase to the 45-50 range, or the stat scaling slightly reduced.

[Mcgotrek]

Engineers also have another hard-hitting AoE in their rotation, Strafing Run, so any dps lost in the discrepancy is going to be made up and then some by SR.

SR has a knockback and should therefore be used when needed and not in a static rotation without thinking.

I agree on Karast that with the armor talisman meta, we need a change to the skill, either like Peter said, keeping it as a physical based but with armour pen. or making it corporeal based.

[Ramasee]

https://imgur.com/a/uVaWHgV

The base weapon skill of an engineer is what hurts blunderbuss and fragmentation grenade. With current gear, its also a bit hard to push to a high value without significant sacrifice (usually ~310 before talismans/renown if you try). And the armor debuff (10% according to .ab changelist) is 13pt into rifleman.

However, it is a weapon ability and benefits from weapon dps unlike pretty much all of the tinkerer and grenadier tree abilities. If the damage were to be changed from physical to corporeal, this contribution from weapon dps would definitely need to be removed to retain balance. Also I echo what Sedok has written; why would you even bother with static discharge under most circumstances with the proposed blunderbuss changes?

Blunderbuss is used as a filler when you have no devices to deploy or grenades to throw. The other use I've seen for it is when you are bombing in 24 man warbands. But during that you are a support dps providing corp debuff for your bright wizards and pierce defenses for your slayers, and of course mr magneeto! So the amount of damage you are putting out in that situation doesn't matter as much as those debuffs.

Fragmentation is a different matter, but I will wait for a balance moderator to give the go ahead on conversations on that ability in this thread.

[dansari]

We can talk about frag grenade

[dansari]

The base weapon skill of an engineer is what hurts blunderbuss and fragmentation grenade. With current gear, its also a bit hard to push to a high value without significant sacrifice (usually ~310 before talismans/renown if you try). And the armor debuff (10% according to .ab changelist) is 13pt into rifleman.

ab changelist is wrong, at least pretty sure - that change was reverted and instead the damage was increased.

viewtopic.php?f=42&t=23036#p257102