Author Topic: Junker viability and builds  (Read 91754 times)

Offline Dementio

  • Member
  • Salutes: 135
    • [Rydr]
    • 43 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Junker viability and builds
« Reply #60 on: January 30, 2015, 01:22:57 pm »
Trifecta on Junker: Gunners is bottom deck, hull engi is front gun, balloon engi is side gun. Everybody is only a few steps away from their position.
Fires on bottom deck? Hull engi can easily go down there and it really isn't hard to get that hull repair sweet spot going. The hull engi on a Junker is even closer to the hull than on most other ships, making the armor repair even quicker and easier. Going to bottom to chem and back up isn't that much of a walk either and more than a chem spray is not required, which lasts long enough for half the engagements.
Most Junkers with the previous mentioned loadout have a 3rd engineer anyway, they can chem all they need to.

What I don't like is how vulnerable to engine damage it seems to me, and balloon destruction too, of course. Can never have the guy shoot the side gun...

But yeah, Mobula OP.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2015, 01:27:02 pm by Dementio »

Offline Kain Phalanx

  • Member
  • Salutes: 1
    • 31 
    • 45
    • 11 
    • View Profile
Re: Junker viability and builds
« Reply #61 on: January 30, 2015, 01:37:03 pm »
Yeah, see, I've never heard of anyone telling the main engineer to man the front gun.  With a premade savvy crew I'm sure your strategy works but it's needlessly convoluted most of the time.  Gunner gets front and top guns, buff engi downstairs, main engi on hull, balloon and turning engines with assistance from pilot.

Offline BlackenedPies

  • Member
  • Salutes: 134
    • [Duck]
    • 30 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Junker viability and builds
« Reply #62 on: January 30, 2015, 01:59:15 pm »
Oops Daniel beat me to it.
In competitive Sammy would sometimes jump on the mortar....and miss every shot. (Or so I've been told)

The big problem with having the main engi on top is that the hull is too far away from everything else. With the main engi on the front they can repair the hull and help downstairs.

Triefectas are easy if you have guns with 60 degree arcs like banshees. Artemis have 65 and it can be done with 55 like flaks and carros. Generally your left side is for range and right side for close (pyra has right side blind spot). Close range doesn't need trifecta because if you're dancing the front gun may not be in arc.

The hull sweet spot isn't difficult and it's essential. I always put my most experienced crew on the hull for this reason. If you're worried about fires have the bottom deck engi bring chem. The general consensus is that the only gun that needs a gunner on a junker is a mine. If you have any other guns on the bottom its better to have a buff engi, and they can carry chem and buff downstairs and buff and repair the hull.

In my opinion the only light gun that should ever have a gunner is the mine launcher (some say hades too). If you buff while you reload your gun will stay buffed and give a winning advantage.

Other junker setups may work in pub matches but will fail against good crews. Junkers take practice to crew and pilot effectively. The junker is the best defensive ship and competitive matches have demonstrated that it excels against all except mobulas and balloon pops. Mobula OP

I can think of alternative crew positions, but none are as effective or efficient as meta. The junker isn't a very self explanatory ship.

Update: forgot to mention that the flamethrower does benefit from a gunner, or more specifically it doesn't benefit much from being buffed.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2015, 02:04:27 pm by BlackenedPies »

Offline Sammy B. T.

  • Member
  • Salutes: 154
    • [Duck]
    • 23 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Junker viability and builds
« Reply #63 on: January 30, 2015, 02:02:36 pm »
If you're not using trifectas, why use a junker? Without a front engineer you're just a crab pyramidion with an odd balloon.


Also your "gunner" (main person shooting your most important guns) should be lower deck as those are the most secure guns in terms of being called away to do other things. Top guns often have to be passed up due to repairs.

And I didn't miss eeeeevery shot.

Offline Alistair MacBain

  • Member
  • Salutes: 23
    • [GwTh]
    • 22 
    • 45
    • 19 
    • View Profile
Re: Junker viability and builds
« Reply #64 on: January 30, 2015, 02:05:22 pm »
One hit in a whole clip isnt much better sammy :P.

And yeah ... A junker is strong due to its trifecta. Not using a trifecta either at close or long to midrange renders you to a crappy pyra.

Offline Kain Phalanx

  • Member
  • Salutes: 1
    • 31 
    • 45
    • 11 
    • View Profile
Re: Junker viability and builds
« Reply #65 on: January 30, 2015, 02:38:54 pm »
You can hit hull, balloon, both turning engines, and run back to hull right as mallet cooldown ends, so it's not too far from everything else until something breaks.  In that case, the pilot and/or gunner can help if needed.  Trifectas are not easy on the junker in practice.  You have to angle your ship just right and sit still to avoid awkward diagonal movement.  It's not just a matter of arcs.  The Galleon, Mobula, Spire, do trifectas effortlessly, so no, a trifecta is not much of strength for the junker.  The Pyramidion is also capable of it.   The hull sweet spot, a gimmick, should not be essential to a ship's success.  I, and I believe the original poster, are not discussing highest level play so I don't care how useless you might find the gunner class or some supposed one only viable build.

If you're not using trifectas, why use a junker? Without a front engineer you're just a crab pyramidion with an odd balloon.
Oversimplification.  There are clearly advantages and disadvantes to Junker compared to Pyramidion without concern to trifectas.  I shouldn't have to elaborate.

Offline Kestril

  • Community Ambassador
  • Salutes: 24
    • [Sass]
    • 33 
    • 36
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Junker viability and builds
« Reply #66 on: January 30, 2015, 02:51:08 pm »
The triple-art trifecta is actually pretty easy to use in practice.  I'd say the junker does a trifecta better than the galleon, as it can keep its guns on target more easily with the amazing yaw rate.

So I don't see how you're saying the trifecta isn't a strength for the junker?

Offline Alistair MacBain

  • Member
  • Salutes: 23
    • [GwTh]
    • 22 
    • 45
    • 19 
    • View Profile
Re: Junker viability and builds
« Reply #67 on: January 30, 2015, 03:10:04 pm »
You need to be able to pull that trifecta off when playing on a certain lvl.
If you simply outdps your enemy you dont have to bother with other things. I mean a trifecta will always outperform a bifecta. Thats why you cant outdps a mobula. 3 or even 4 guns are better than 2.
Sure there are other things but trifectas are SO valuable. You shouldnt even consider not using them.
And your perfect mallet cooldown path will fail immidatly when your enemy gets your armor down. Cause then your just a bid of dead metal in the air.
Have your main engi on front and he will be able to react to a armorkill and might get the rebuild If gunner or second engi are aware they would also get 2 on hull and are even saver.

Offline Kamoba

  • Member
  • Salutes: 175
    • [♫]
    • 30 
    • 34
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • Robin and Magpie Leather
Re: Junker viability and builds
« Reply #68 on: January 30, 2015, 03:14:37 pm »
Junker versus metamidion with equal level crews, the junker wins hands down as the armour will outlast that of the pyramidion, however as mentioned before it also depends on circumstance, if the enemy is packing balloon hitting power the junker has to utilise its versatility and in many cases this boils down to range.

If we are not talking high level play but pub matches, then I agree with Silverst when he says a front Artemis is not a good choice because more often than not the front engineer will become too focused on shooting and ignore orders to repair often leaving other crew to over work...
Again circumstance.

The junker is a very versatile ship and with a good crew and captain very effective, and I firmly believe any advice from a member of the duck clan should not be taken lightly as they are the masters of this ship. (I been watching old streams where I can :) )

As for pyramidion trifecta, yes easy to get but it leaves you open to a ram from the enemy which will knock your front guns off arc and keep enemy in arc, very dangerous.

Mobula trifecta, yes very easily accomplished but the mobula has other weaknesses such as an even bigger target than that of the Junker.

As always circumstances. :)

Offline Kain Phalanx

  • Member
  • Salutes: 1
    • 31 
    • 45
    • 11 
    • View Profile
Re: Junker viability and builds
« Reply #69 on: January 30, 2015, 03:19:55 pm »
You need to be able to pull that trifecta off when playing on a certain lvl.
If you simply outdps your enemy you dont have to bother with other things. I mean a trifecta will always outperform a bifecta. Thats why you cant outdps a mobula. 3 or even 4 guns are better than 2.
Sure there are other things but trifectas are SO valuable. You shouldnt even consider not using them.
And your perfect mallet cooldown path will fail immidatly when your enemy gets your armor down. Cause then your just a bid of dead metal in the air.
Have your main engi on front and he will be able to react to a armorkill and might get the rebuild If gunner or second engi are aware they would also get 2 on hull and are even saver.
A simple repair path failing when something breaks is far less ridiculous than having your main engineer shoot things instead of repairing, or repairing slowly.  Furthermore, while trifectas are of course superior when available without downside, bifectas are sufficient as evidenced by the prevalence of Pyramidions.
So I don't see how you're saying the trifecta isn't a strength for the junker?
It's a possible strength, but not a unique one.  The particularly silly thing is that the Pyramidion, which the Junker is usually compared to, is also capable of a trifecta and is easier in terms of crew positions.  The Galleon has 3 guns pointed in the same direction.  Its maneuverability is moving into a different argument.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2015, 03:24:24 pm by Kain Phalanx »

Offline BlackenedPies

  • Member
  • Salutes: 134
    • [Duck]
    • 30 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Junker viability and builds
« Reply #70 on: January 30, 2015, 03:39:36 pm »
Trifectas are quite easy on a junker if you use guns with good arcs. Two very simple trifectas are the triple artemis and triple banshee. When the front gun reloads, the main engi chems the gun and chems the hull. Hull takes priority over shooting.

Having a dedicated repair or buff engi is not efficient because you're losing firepower and the parts are too far away. Stuff will break. The armor is very important and any lost time repairing it can be fatal. The junker has the lowest hull health in the game.
Repairing the armor from the front is not a gimmick, it's necessary to making the junker work. Once you practice repairing it, it will become second nature. Stand by the side and look up.

In casual play you will eventually end up fighting good players who try to win. I want you to have the best chance of success, and the meta set up is your best chance. When you fight an experienced ship and have a gunner you will lose. Fighting easy opponents should be practice for when you get a challenge. Otherwise you will not be prepared.

Update: pyra bifecta works because the pyra is easy to crew. Their prevalence in pub matches is because they're very easy compared to other ships. In reality the pyra is a weak ship that is easily countered. Pyra trifectas are possible, and one of my favorite ships is the triple mine pyra. But when engaging with a pyra you are usually only using the front guns.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2015, 03:45:45 pm by BlackenedPies »

Offline Kain Phalanx

  • Member
  • Salutes: 1
    • 31 
    • 45
    • 11 
    • View Profile
Re: Junker viability and builds
« Reply #71 on: January 30, 2015, 04:21:02 pm »
Just because the hull trick is necessary for your crew layout to work doesn't mean it's not a gimmick.  I have also not said that I find it hard.  It's simply another complication to teaching a crew that can largely be avoided.  The only parts that are too far away are the turning engines, and only if they have broken or the hull is about to break.  In those cases, the gunner without an arc can fix them, or even the pilot if there's no control anyways.  I agree that the armor is especially important and that's why your advice applies more to yourself with your main engineer shooting stuff instead of repairing.  And in the case that turning engines are broken it's your loadout that suffers crucial firepower loss because your top deck engineer is no longer on side guns.  So your only killzone is the small arc where the front and bottom guns overlap and that's only when your main, hull engineer is firing.

Offline Byron Cavendish

  • Member
  • Salutes: 89
    • [TB]
    • 21 
    • 31
    • 45 
    • View Profile
    • The Brotherhood
Re: Junker viability and builds
« Reply #72 on: January 30, 2015, 04:35:08 pm »
Yeah, see, I've never heard of anyone telling the main engineer to man the front gun.  With a premade savvy crew I'm sure your strategy works but it's needlessly convoluted most of the time.  Gunner gets front and top guns, buff engi downstairs, main engi on hull, balloon and turning engines with assistance from pilot.

Really? That's how most comp. crews of run their junkers for at least two years.

Offline DJ Logicalia

  • Member
  • Salutes: 191
    • [♫]
    • 35 
    • 45
    • 45 
    • View Profile
Re: Junker viability and builds
« Reply #73 on: January 30, 2015, 04:45:19 pm »
Yeah, see, I've never heard of anyone telling the main engineer to man the front gun.  With a premade savvy crew I'm sure your strategy works but it's needlessly convoluted most of the time.  Gunner gets front and top guns, buff engi downstairs, main engi on hull, balloon and turning engines with assistance from pilot.

Really? That's how most comp. crews of run their junkers for at least two years.

Yeah, since the front gunner can hit the hull, it's very common to have an engi (I don't call it the "Main Engi" normally front engi or something).

Offline Kain Phalanx

  • Member
  • Salutes: 1
    • 31 
    • 45
    • 11 
    • View Profile
Re: Junker viability and builds
« Reply #74 on: January 30, 2015, 04:50:55 pm »
Really? That's how most comp. crews of run their junkers for at least two years.
I've been away for at least 2 years and I don't run with comp. crews, so yeah, really.  I also don't believe it to be that good, but that's not necessarily my main complaint.  The setup isn't intuitive and I see people mimicking aspects of it without giving any direction.  Like I said, I don't know what I'm supposed to be doing when I get on other people's Junkers because of this.