Jump to content

Onslaught - tenacious hordes


Recommended Posts

I don't find this category to be any more difficult than any other one, but I do find it to be extremely tedious waiting for 1300 enemies to come my way. What do you guys make of this category? Make it more difficult but with, say, 600 of them, or is it fine where it is?

They also seem to attack a lane at a time so it's quite easy to counter them.

Edit: In lieu of Knudsen's comment, this was really my point - it takes too long for the wave to get completed. Not because it's tough but because of how they come at you. So I endorse his solution of having them attack simultaneously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't mind the number of ememies. The only thing that annoys me, is how long a horde wave takes, compared to every other combination of ememies. 

I only have expierence from Liferoot nm4, but there seem to spawn 200 from one lane, the 200 from next and so on.

Maybe if they spawn in all lanes it would make it semi difficult, and if all 1300 mobs spawn in the same timeframe as other ememies, would work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are kidding me right?

1300 enemies is a fair number. In DD1 before survival was revamped we had waves of up to 15-20k enemies.

I still think Onslaught needs one more thing to hit the sweet spot and that's the ability to start at the previous round you cleared. That way if you don't have much time, but want to farm for some end game loot you can do so at your leisure.

Far more rewarding then spinning a wheel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to see less waves.. it's 45 waves to get a reward, it used to be 15 or less on most maps. I think only sky city went over 15 and it gave cats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I did a King's Game survival (Jester build) it took me up to 6 hours if I remember correctly. Sometimes I started on friday evening, had to take a break for going to sleep and finished saturday morning. The number of onslaught waves make me think this would be a thing again. I know the afk timer will prevent this... but honestly: I would never endure such time consuming survival/onslaught runs again. This is he only thing I really preferred at DDE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 most maps were,30 on shard maps and 35 Tav Defence, but you could start on 23 if you had the power and jester upgraders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Fozzie quote:

25 most maps were,30 on shard maps and 35 Tav Defence, but you could start on 23 if you had the power and jester upgraders.

No 15... The first reward for most of the game were the good ones anyway, giraffes are honestly not worth it really. Sky city you only ever needed to hit 25 because the giraffe doesn't compare to a cat copter anyway. Also you don't start on wave 1 on maps past foundries, so it's not 35 on tavern defense it's 27 if I remember right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@KnowsNoLimits quote:

You are kidding me right?

1300 enemies is a fair number. In DD1 before survival was revamped we had waves of up to 15-20k enemies.

I still think Onslaught needs one more thing to hit the sweet spot and that's the ability to start at the previous round you cleared. That way if you don't have much time, but want to farm for some end game loot you can do so at your leisure.

Far more rewarding then spinning a wheel.

I seen up to 35k mobs per waves in survivals... we lasted over 10 hours, taking turns to go to sleep while some were staying to make sure defs were getting repaired.   :P

And in this game I found onslaught so boring I got a very hard time keeping focus after 6-7 rounds and just quit erg...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@KnowsNoLimits quote:

You are kidding me right?

1300 enemies is a fair number. In DD1 before survival was revamped we had waves of up to 15-20k enemies.

I still think Onslaught needs one more thing to hit the sweet spot and that's the ability to start at the previous round you cleared. That way if you don't have much time, but want to farm for some end game loot you can do so at your leisure.

Far more rewarding then spinning a wheel.

you cant just compare the numbers. and why do you think he is kidding when he points out a flaw in onslaught? i think the same about you in some threads ;)


the flaw is that the hordes round is much easier compared to every other round, and it takes much longer.


fullack to the abillity to start at a previous round

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Nelly quote:

you cant just compare the numbers. and why do you think he is kidding when he points out a flaw in onslaught? i think the same about you in some threads ;)


the flaw is that the hordes round is much easier compared to every other round, and it takes much longer.


fullack to the abillity to start at a previous round

Thanks. Someone who gets the point. The point is clearly about how tedious it is as compared to how challenging it is. People saying "Hey I once spent hours and hours and hours killing a trillion enemies" is hardly an argument against tedium. Make a game fun by making it challenging, not by making me wait longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@BestProfileName quote:


@Nelly quote:

you cant just compare the numbers. and why do you think he is kidding when he points out a flaw in onslaught? i think the same about you in some threads ;)


the flaw is that the hordes round is much easier compared to every other round, and it takes much longer.


fullack to the abillity to start at a previous round

Thanks. Someone who gets the point. The point is clearly about how tedious it is as compared to how challenging it is. People saying "Hey I once spent hours and hours and hours killing a trillion enemies" is hardly an argument against tedium. Make a game fun by making it challenging, not by making me wait longer.

i agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna be brutally honest here, survival is one of the few things NONE of the DD titles have gotten right.

  • DD1's survival is in essence a tedious AFK-fest. It takes SO LONG to even get past a single wave, and you could 100% AFK once your defenses were upgraded. If you had a lupine bow + genie, you could easily upgrade everything to 3 stars in a single wave. Heck in King's game you'd just have to get lucky with the tiles and you wouldn't even have to upgrade. 6-8 hour sessions were not uncommon, and most of the time the payoff would be zilch.
  • DDE's survival was a tedious AFK-fest, just with a smaller time frame of a static 60 minutes. But once again you basically build your towers then sit there for an hour. It's an improvement off of DD1's survival in terms of time investment, but not even close to ideal.
  • DD2's onslaught is arguably the worst of them all. First off, the rewards are utter garbage, and golden eggs are difficulty-agnostic. This means the easiest difficulty is encouraged, not the one that challenges you. And since there's no end to onslaught, we have DD1's tedious AFK-fest only without any real motivation to enjoy its gameplay.

Want to know a game that did survival right? Left 4 Dead. You are actively engaged the entire match, and rounds last less than 10 minutes. Every second you stay alive is a big deal, and I would love for DD2's onslaught sessions be on par to a regular mission. In other words, scale the enemies in such a way that guarantee we lose within 30 minutes, and reward us based on the number of minutes we lasted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@gigazelle quote:

Gonna be brutally honest here, survival is one of the few things NONE of the DD titles have gotten right.

  • DD1's survival is in essence a tedious AFK-fest. It takes SO LONG to even get past a single wave, and you could 100% AFK once your defenses were upgraded. If you had a lupine bow + genie, you could easily upgrade everything to 3 stars in a single wave. Heck in King's game you'd just have to get lucky with the tiles and you wouldn't even have to upgrade. 6-8 hour sessions were not uncommon, and most of the time the payoff would be zilch.
  • DDE's survival was a tedious AFK-fest, just with a smaller time frame of a static 60 minutes. But once again you basically build your towers then sit there for an hour. It's an improvement off of DD1's survival in terms of time investment, but not even close to ideal.
  • DD2's onslaught is arguably the worst of them all. First off, the rewards are utter garbage, and golden eggs are difficulty-agnostic. This means the easiest difficulty is encouraged, not the one that challenges you. And since there's no end to onslaught, we have DD1's tedious AFK-fest only without any real motivation to enjoy its gameplay.

Want to know a game that did survival right? Left 4 Dead. You are actively engaged the entire match, and rounds last less than 10 minutes. Every second you stay alive is a big deal, and I would love for DD2's onslaught sessions be on par to a regular mission. In other words, scale the enemies in such a way that guarantee we lose within 30 minutes, and reward us based on the number of minutes we lasted.

I have to disagree about DD1's survival. The only way you would have 6-8 hours sessions is if you started from wave 1-30. You had the option to start at the highest wave you cleared. My survivals lasted no longer then 2 hours as I started around wave 19-20, because that was exactly when the best loot would start dropping.

King's Game survival, NMHCMM and I had Afk's with me, but I was constantly moving around searching for loot and flash healing with my Summoner if need be. I used Afk's to boost the number of drops and scale the difficulty.

The only map you didn't want to start so high was Talay Mines. If you did that your defenses would get destroyed no matter your stats. God bless that map for being so brutal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone confirm or deny something for me about DD1 survival.

Was it not the case that you had to start a certain amount of waves before the "Reward wave" in order to receive the reward? So if you started directly on the reward wave or 1 - 2 before hand you would not obtain it?

This is the only thing confusing me otherwise I'd be all for having people starting at their last highest completed wave in DD2 and going on from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@gigazelle quote:

Gonna be brutally honest here, survival is one of the few things NONE of the DD titles have gotten right.

  • DD1's survival is in essence a tedious AFK-fest. It takes SO LONG to even get past a single wave, and you could 100% AFK once your defenses were upgraded. If you had a lupine bow + genie, you could easily upgrade everything to 3 stars in a single wave. Heck in King's game you'd just have to get lucky with the tiles and you wouldn't even have to upgrade. 6-8 hour sessions were not uncommon, and most of the time the payoff would be zilch.
  • DDE's survival was a tedious AFK-fest, just with a smaller time frame of a static 60 minutes. But once again you basically build your towers then sit there for an hour. It's an improvement off of DD1's survival in terms of time investment, but not even close to ideal.
  • DD2's onslaught is arguably the worst of them all. First off, the rewards are utter garbage, and golden eggs are difficulty-agnostic. This means the easiest difficulty is encouraged, not the one that challenges you. And since there's no end to onslaught, we have DD1's tedious AFK-fest only without any real motivation to enjoy its gameplay.

Want to know a game that did survival right? Left 4 Dead. You are actively engaged the entire match, and rounds last less than 10 minutes. Every second you stay alive is a big deal, and I would love for DD2's onslaught sessions be on par to a regular mission. In other words, scale the enemies in such a way that guarantee we lose within 30 minutes, and reward us based on the number of minutes we lasted.

I like the timer idea, but it would have to be really hard, with good rewards. I would like this as a new game mode, along with a reworked survival and/or onslaught. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Argick quote:

Can someone confirm or deny something for me about DD1 survival.

Was it not the case that you had to start a certain amount of waves before the "Reward wave" in order to receive the reward? So if you started directly on the reward wave or 1 - 2 before hand you would not obtain it?

This is the only thing confusing me otherwise I'd be all for having people starting at their last highest completed wave in DD2 and going on from there.

Correct, if you wanted a survival pet reward (like propeller cat in sky city) you had to start two waves (or more) before the wave that rewards it to you. In the case of the propeller cat, you had to start at wave 23 in order to be rewarded at wave 25.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Woxiess quote:

I like the timer idea, but it would have to be really hard, with good rewards. I would like this as a new game mode, along with a reworked survival and/or onslaught. 

I don't mind the timer idea either, but I want it to be literally impossible to hit the end of that timer. Survival should be about how long you last, not about how long you can AFK. If individual survival sessions last longer than 30 minutes each, that's not going to hold a player's attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@gigazelle quote:

Gonna be brutally honest here, survival is one of the few things NONE of the DD titles have gotten right.

  • DD1's survival is in essence a tedious AFK-fest. It takes SO LONG to even get past a single wave, and you could 100% AFK once your defenses were upgraded. If you had a lupine bow + genie, you could easily upgrade everything to 3 stars in a single wave. Heck in King's game you'd just have to get lucky with the tiles and you wouldn't even have to upgrade. 6-8 hour sessions were not uncommon, and most of the time the payoff would be zilch.
  • DDE's survival was a tedious AFK-fest, just with a smaller time frame of a static 60 minutes. But once again you basically build your towers then sit there for an hour. It's an improvement off of DD1's survival in terms of time investment, but not even close to ideal.
  • DD2's onslaught is arguably the worst of them all. First off, the rewards are utter garbage, and golden eggs are difficulty-agnostic. This means the easiest difficulty is encouraged, not the one that challenges you. And since there's no end to onslaught, we have DD1's tedious AFK-fest only without any real motivation to enjoy its gameplay.

Want to know a game that did survival right? Left 4 Dead. You are actively engaged the entire match, and rounds last less than 10 minutes. Every second you stay alive is a big deal, and I would love for DD2's onslaught sessions be on par to a regular mission. In other words, scale the enemies in such a way that guarantee we lose within 30 minutes, and reward us based on the number of minutes we lasted.

To add to this, the enemies come out from each lane initially, then just one at a time. So you sit there just babysitting one set of defenses until you moved to the next. The current hordes have the same problem. Just a line of monsters that four players gang up on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Racthoh quote:

To add to this, the enemies come out from each lane initially, then just one at a time. So you sit there just babysitting one set of defenses until you moved to the next. The current hordes have the same problem. Just a line of monsters that four players gang up on.

I'm willing to wager that's actually a bug, just not one that has ranked terribly high in priority so it hasn't been addressed. I bet it has something to do with the fact that there's a cap on the number of enemies that can be alive at a time, and it tries spawning several hundred at once in every lane. Since it can't do that, it finishes spawning everything in one lane, then moves on to the next "spawn queue", then repeats until all enemies are out. I do agree, it makes things both annoyingly long and boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...


@KnowsNoLimits quote:

You are kidding me right?

1300 enemies is a fair number. In DD1 before survival was revamped we had waves of up to 15-20k enemies.

I still think Onslaught needs one more thing to hit the sweet spot and that's the ability to start at the previous round you cleared. That way if you don't have much time, but want to farm for some end game loot you can do so at your leisure.

Far more rewarding then spinning a wheel.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dd1 did have bigger waves, but they came alot faster and was cleared a lot faster, in dd2 hordes are not one bit challenging instead are just purely annoying. i have nm4 onslaughts that last me 6 hours and finally get to wave 30, while 3 hours will do the same.
hordes need to be lessen'd as they serve no purpose in difficulty just pure annoyance on par with someone taking 15 minutes to explain even though u know how to rake leaves from your yard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

idk about dd1's waves taking 6 hours to complete though most it took me was 4 hours to clear maps that required 35 waves. which is reasonable ish. but yea what KnowNoLimits is right, there was no active gameplay during this time, just afk after upgrading to a degree u can then just sitting around.

hordes is still a big mistake on dd2, no challenge brought on by it all just time consuming to the point makes ppl want to quit playing

infact so time cosuming ppl have come to call onslaught borslaught case of the hordes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...