Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

Author Topic: should we just nerf the Onslaught?  (Read 7044 times)

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4148
    • View Profile
Re: should we just nerf the Onslaught?
« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2024, 03:35:49 AM »

I also don't understand why XIV Legion changes stuff around to be different than Low Tech Legion, but Low Tech Onslaught and Dominator are just straight up worse iterations statistically than their orange counterparts.
Because they came first and Legion XIV was a later addition.

Killer of Fate

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 687
    • View Profile
Re: should we just nerf the Onslaught?
« Reply #16 on: March 09, 2024, 03:51:08 AM »

Onslaught is fine, its great armor is worthless if something doesn't kill things for it, as is shown in the video you posted. It's just too slow to finish things off.
The video was also an easy blockade. The blockade I fought was 4 detachments, a resupply, and the elite Armada, and they spammed Dragonfire Pegasus. Unfortunately I don't remember how many I beat, I didn't write that down, I'm pretty sure it was 4 or 5 Pegasus with two or three Conquests.
Such a fleet would have killed multiple Onslaughts, if not beaten him.
XIV could use a DP increase, somewhere between 2 and 5.

Only two capitals feel like they need buffs and that is the Retribution and the Odyssey. The Odyssey just needs a shield efficiency buff. The Retribution just needs, a lot, it's really bad.
Well, I guess the Astral could stand to lose 5 DP, it's a bit fat for what it is.
The only capital that feels like it needs a nerf is of course the Radiant.

I don't think it would matter if the Persean League fleet was larger. If my calculations are correct, the Onslaught's armour in that video is most likely above 3k, that paired with the firepower of Mjollnirs makes the ship pretty much impossible to duel. With Flak Cannons also effectively shooting down all DEM missiles, including Dragons, which are the Persean's League way of dealing with the high armoured enemies like the Onslaught. Which is why they're bad at dealing with these kind of enemies. Cause Dragon sucks.

Whilst true that Missile Specialisation+ increases the missiles durability and whatever, but with the recent buff to the Point Defence Mastery+, the strength of that skill is easily negated with extremely powerful flak cannons that also stack with ITU.

Whilst its true that the Onslaught's kill potential is small on paper. The fact that it can actively vent with ease during combat as long as not threatened by strong missiles. Though it usually is, but it can just be more ballsy overall. Burn Drive is strong at giving mobility. And the range of all its weapons is high enough to threaten any sort of typical high tech ship or a frigate that enters its perimeter. And if it dares to venture further to try to damage the Onslaught, it will take it so long to retreat from its firing range, that it will take damage.

Have you ever tried to kill an Onslaught with like a Fury? Or maybe just a frigate or a destroyer? It's a nightmare. On the other hand once you flank the Conquest, its squishy enough and has such poor shield durability, that it will have trouble venting hard flux. And will just easily die. In fact, I would be able to deter a Conquest with a Dominator. Not kill, cause Dominator is too slow, but deter. Which, like... If you put up a Dominator against an Onslaught. Good luck.
Logged

doll

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: should we just nerf the Onslaught?
« Reply #17 on: March 09, 2024, 04:14:14 AM »

The onslaught is literally the worst ship in the game, right?
I don't think there's another capital that any cruiser with a movement ability can kill so reliably without lowering shields or using missiles.
It's turning speed is so bad that you can rotate it like a cog with ships with 1/5th the mass too so you can literally approach it from the front if it's the player piloting.
I think most high-tech heavy destroyers would win a 1v1 with an onslaught. It's even the only ship that properly informs the AI how to beat it because it zones them out of it's effective area with built-ins so they understand to go around.

40 DP for 4 medium weapon mounts and no shield. Just incredible stuff. I think that this is a ship that is literally only capable of fighting starbases and other capitals. I can't even imagine taking this thing into a fight against .91 remnant.
Logged

Killer of Fate

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 687
    • View Profile
Re: should we just nerf the Onslaught?
« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2024, 04:24:35 AM »

Capital ships are slow to point at stuff in general and if you get too close, you can keep circling them till they die. But they are usually stronger than cruisers at dealing damage, at the cost of having less versatility, worse mobility, etc.

If you are having trouble utilising your capital ships, I recommend you try using officers with Impact Mitigation+, Helmsmanship+. Crew Training, as well as other combat readiness aspects, because CR increases the ship's mobility, thus turn acceleration. And max turn rate maybe? Unsure.

You can also try protecting your ship with escorts. Which may or may not include carriers. Which are usually awful, but if it comes to deterring enemies, that's one thing they may sort of be good at, cause fighters can phase through a capital ship's fat ass. And also fire through it. Claws for example can paralyse or at least annoy a ship into retreating. Allowing the Onslaught to reset its range on it. Which is important.

Capital Ships tend to be reliant on not killing but simply exhausting their enemies. Which is why their peak operating time is so effective. And why fighters are so garbage usually. Especially bombers like Cobra. Cobra sux, but Star Wars: The Force Unleashed is pretty good.

oh, who am I kidding. I *** love Cobruhs.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2024, 04:29:39 AM by Killer of Fate »
Logged

Draba

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
Re: should we just nerf the Onslaught?
« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2024, 05:00:25 AM »

I don't think Onslaught is a standout among capitals, Legion and Executor are both on a similar level for the DP.
Those 3 are definitely a big step up from cruisers though.
(Radiant is a bigger investment so hard to get a fair comparison, Paragon good but more limited)

The onslaught is literally the worst ship in the game, right?
I don't think there's another capital that any cruiser with a movement ability can kill so reliably without lowering shields or using missiles.
It's turning speed is so bad that you can rotate it like a cog with ships with 1/5th the mass too so you can literally approach it from the front if it's the player piloting.
I think most high-tech heavy destroyers would win a 1v1 with an onslaught. It's even the only ship that properly informs the AI how to beat it because it zones them out of it's effective area with built-ins so they understand to go around.

40 DP for 4 medium weapon mounts and no shield. Just incredible stuff. I think that this is a ship that is literally only capable of fighting starbases and other capitals. I can't even imagine taking this thing into a fight against .91 remnant.
Dude :)
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12159
    • View Profile
Re: should we just nerf the Onslaught?
« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2024, 06:23:26 AM »

I don't think Onslaught is a standout among capitals, Legion and Executor are both on a similar level for the DP.
Executor is 50 DP.  It should be good.  If it is similar to Onslaught and Legion in performance, that means player is paying 10 OP more with Executor than he would if he used Onslaught or Legion instead.

As for Radiant, since Cybernetics seems to have become the next BotB-tier meta skill (at least for those with some Combat skills), getting Automated Ships is a big opportunity cost.  You get Radiant, you lose out on Cybernetics unless you get Tech 8.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2024, 06:32:31 AM by Megas »
Logged

Killer of Fate

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 687
    • View Profile
Re: should we just nerf the Onslaught?
« Reply #21 on: March 09, 2024, 06:40:41 AM »

If Legion was on the balance level where the Astral is, it would have 1000 armour, 3 hangar bays and its system would be flare launchers aimed sideways to increase its hitbox.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2024, 06:42:22 AM by Killer of Fate »
Logged

Draba

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
Re: should we just nerf the Onslaught?
« Reply #22 on: March 09, 2024, 06:49:05 AM »

I don't think Onslaught is a standout among capitals, Legion and Executor are both on a similar level for the DP.
Executor is 50 DP.  It should be good.  If it is similar to Onslaught and Legion in performance, that means player is paying 10 OP more with Executor than he would if he used Onslaught or Legion instead.
for the DP
Executor does a different thing, but it's generally slightly higher impact: clears out smaller ships very fast, overall high hull damage, covers a massive area, decent mobility.
Taking DP cost into account the 2 feel pretty close.
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1896
    • View Profile
Re: should we just nerf the Onslaught?
« Reply #23 on: March 09, 2024, 10:13:48 AM »

If Legion was on the balance level where the Astral is, it would have 1000 armour, 3 hangar bays and its system would be flare launchers aimed sideways to increase its hitbox.

The Astral is fine. It may be a bit undertuned but not a whole lot. Its main advantage is being able to utilize tridents without compromise and easily being able to coordinate bombing runs. Giving it similar levels of firepower to two Herons but much better coordination.

The main problem Astrals have is that stand-off fleets are weak and so bombers are weak. And that there are no cheap stand-off ships in the high tech line. Astral + Paragon + 2 Medusa is 134 DP That isn’t wide enough to really hold. And going more wide is pretty hard. Whereas that is 3 onslaughts and 2 monitors!

Additionally there are a lot more competing finishers in more ships with large missiles. (And just general flux reductions across the board)

What you really want for the Astral is a line of HVD eagles. 130 DP is an Astral and 4 eagles, 9 HVD!
Logged

memeextremist

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: should we just nerf the Onslaught?
« Reply #24 on: March 09, 2024, 11:56:58 AM »

onslaught is only OP when it's shunted, player-piloted, and has either 4 PCL's or 4 jackhammers [or hammer pods... or reapers... or...]
y'know what else is OP?

* shunted legion
* shunted legion 14
* fusoreina from UAF
* locomotive from HMI
* gramada from xhan empire
* arsenal from DEX
* a zigg flown by... anyone that has played longer than a week
I've even seen a guy shunt a paragon and slap. disregard shields. acquire fearless player pilot behavior that is all
Logged

eert5rty7u8i9i7u6yrewqdef

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile
Re: should we just nerf the Onslaught?
« Reply #25 on: March 09, 2024, 01:00:13 PM »

Onslaught is fine, its great armor is worthless if something doesn't kill things for it, as is shown in the video you posted. It's just too slow to finish things off.
The video was also an easy blockade. The blockade I fought was 4 detachments, a resupply, and the elite Armada, and they spammed Dragonfire Pegasus. Unfortunately I don't remember how many I beat, I didn't write that down, I'm pretty sure it was 4 or 5 Pegasus with two or three Conquests.
Such a fleet would have killed multiple Onslaughts, if not beaten him.
XIV could use a DP increase, somewhere between 2 and 5.

Only two capitals feel like they need buffs and that is the Retribution and the Odyssey. The Odyssey just needs a shield efficiency buff. The Retribution just needs, a lot, it's really bad.
Well, I guess the Astral could stand to lose 5 DP, it's a bit fat for what it is.
The only capital that feels like it needs a nerf is of course the Radiant.

I don't think it would matter if the Persean League fleet was larger. If my calculations are correct, the Onslaught's armour in that video is most likely above 3k, that paired with the firepower of Mjollnirs makes the ship pretty much impossible to duel. With Flak Cannons also effectively shooting down all DEM missiles, including Dragons, which are the Persean's League way of dealing with the high armoured enemies like the Onslaught. Which is why they're bad at dealing with these kind of enemies. Cause Dragon sucks.

Whilst true that Missile Specialisation+ increases the missiles durability and whatever, but with the recent buff to the Point Defence Mastery+, the strength of that skill is easily negated with extremely powerful flak cannons that also stack with ITU.

Whilst its true that the Onslaught's kill potential is small on paper. The fact that it can actively vent with ease during combat as long as not threatened by strong missiles. Though it usually is, but it can just be more ballsy overall. Burn Drive is strong at giving mobility. And the range of all its weapons is high enough to threaten any sort of typical high tech ship or a frigate that enters its perimeter. And if it dares to venture further to try to damage the Onslaught, it will take it so long to retreat from its firing range, that it will take damage.

Have you ever tried to kill an Onslaught with like a Fury? Or maybe just a frigate or a destroyer? It's a nightmare. On the other hand once you flank the Conquest, its squishy enough and has such poor shield durability, that it will have trouble venting hard flux. And will just easily die. In fact, I would be able to deter a Conquest with a Dominator. Not kill, cause Dominator is too slow, but deter. Which, like... If you put up a Dominator against an Onslaught. Good luck.
It's Dragonfires in conjunction with Hydras, all of which are being dumped due to the Pegasus' system. It will overwhelm an Onslaughts PD, unless it also has Devs. Dragonfire missiles will also beat a shield shunted Onslaughts armor if more than one hits the same area.

I have not tried to kill an Onslaught with a Fury, because I don't use the Fury, because it's bad. The combination of poor stats, a bad system, and medium sized armament means it has no good role. Two Shrikes will always be better than one Fury. One Odyssey will always be better than two Furys.
As for frigates, yes officered Tempests with one Pulse Laser and one Phase lance, alongside support doctrine TT Brawlers with double Phase lances flat out bully Onslaughts.
Keeping in mind five Tempests = one Onslaught, ten SD TT Brawlers = one Onslaught, and my favorite, two Tempests + six TT Brawlers = one Onslaught.
Logged

prav

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
Re: should we just nerf the Onslaught?
« Reply #26 on: March 09, 2024, 01:29:50 PM »

It'd still be a good deal at 45 DP. A little unimpressive at 50, but only a little.

Could just roll back a bit of the TCP buff, low base flux matters a lot less when you're blasting away at 0.6 flux / damage with 750 s-mags DPS.
Logged

Killer of Fate

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 687
    • View Profile
Re: should we just nerf the Onslaught?
« Reply #27 on: March 09, 2024, 01:53:01 PM »

If Legion was on the balance level where the Astral is, it would have 1000 armour, 3 hangar bays and its system would be flare launchers aimed sideways to increase its hitbox.

The Astral is fine. It may be a bit undertuned but not a whole lot. Its main advantage is being able to utilize tridents without compromise and easily being able to coordinate bombing runs. Giving it similar levels of firepower to two Herons but much better coordination.

The main problem Astrals have is that stand-off fleets are weak and so bombers are weak. And that there are no cheap stand-off ships in the high tech line. Astral + Paragon + 2 Medusa is 134 DP That isn’t wide enough to really hold. And going more wide is pretty hard. Whereas that is 3 onslaughts and 2 monitors!

Additionally there are a lot more competing finishers in more ships with large missiles. (And just general flux reductions across the board)

What you really want for the Astral is a line of HVD eagles. 130 DP is an Astral and 4 eagles, 9 HVD!

Every ship in the game is trash until it isn't. And it no longer is cause of how officer skills work. Carriers are bad cause skills don't work on them. They always exist in their pure form. This is also why battlecarriers are significantly stronger than dedicated carriers per DP. A Heron isn't awful. But that is only cause it is impossible to catch. But tbh, I feel like it's also kinda boring, cause of the fact I mentioned. Compared to say Mora, which benefits significantly from plenty of aspects, such as Missile Specialisation, armour stuff. Etc.

The solution would probably be to make both Heron and Astral battlecarriers, or make skills benefit fighters in some minor ways. Preferably both. Like Missile Specialisation increasing missile health for bombers. Making Cobras finally have a chance at hitting the Onslaught, like their description would suggest they should be good at. And there could also be other things. Like reduced overload time, 10% more range, armour effectiveness at reducing damage or better manoeuvrability. This would also really help Remnant fleets. Cause an Alpha Core on a Scintilla is somewhat of a waste.

I feel like destroyer carriers should be dedicated support carriers. And cruiser and capital ship carriers should always have some sort of a battlecarrier aspect to them. Like Mora should have high armour and missiles. Heron should have mobility and burst damage. Legion should have tough armour and brawling potential. And Astral should be a *** shielded brick wall that can't retreat, like the Paragon. That irradiates you with beams before launching missiles at your face.

Which, I mean... Astral does do that a bit nowadays. But I feel like it doesn't have nearly enough flux for how much it costs. It should have 20k flux base and enough op to reach 30k, if you focus no it, and be able to equip hardened shields whilst still being able to host at least mediocre bombers. Like a bunch of Cobras and Broadswords.

But eh, I'll doubt anyone is going to bother reading this balance proposal, let alone implement it. So, whatever... Who cares... I guess Astral will just remain bad, until it gets like 5 more op and then people will say "it's good now" for some reason.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2024, 02:50:45 PM by Killer of Fate »
Logged

Killer of Fate

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 687
    • View Profile
Re: should we just nerf the Onslaught?
« Reply #28 on: March 09, 2024, 02:05:04 PM »

It's Dragonfires in conjunction with Hydras, all of which are being dumped due to the Pegasus' system. It will overwhelm an Onslaughts PD, unless it also has Devs. Dragonfire missiles will also beat a shield shunted Onslaughts armor if more than one hits the same area.

I have not tried to kill an Onslaught with a Fury, because I don't use the Fury, because it's bad. The combination of poor stats, a bad system, and medium sized armament means it has no good role. Two Shrikes will always be better than one Fury. One Odyssey will always be better than two Furys.
As for frigates, yes officered Tempests with one Pulse Laser and one Phase lance, alongside support doctrine TT Brawlers with double Phase lances flat out bully Onslaughts.
Keeping in mind five Tempests = one Onslaught, ten SD TT Brawlers = one Onslaught, and my favorite, two Tempests + six TT Brawlers = one Onslaught.

I wasn't saying that NPC Onslaughts are indestructible. I was explaining how an Onslaught works, and then extrapolating on that with how a player would make one operate. Explaining why it has high kill potential in spite of being slow.
Fury is bad. True. Tempest sort of isn't. TT Brawler is just annoying. It's the XIV equivalent of a Tri-Tachyon ship. Shrikes replacing Furies sort of works, until you kinda realise that a Fury needs one officer to work. Whereas two Shrikes need two. And if it comes to the Odyssey, its role is no way near as simple as that of a Fury. Odyssey is a capital ship with a huge hitbox and a bad shield. And yet it needs to be able to compete against an Onslaught. Fury just needs to hunt down a bunch of garbage floating about to pay itself off. And Shrike won't even be able to duel a destroyer without going like "omg, my hard flux is too high, better run away and waste my precious peak operating time". Which, I mean. Sure, Sabots and Heavy Blasters with SO. I guess that will always work. Haven't tried it, cause I hate SO. On the other hand, I kinda love Furies. Pulse Lasers, Ion Cannons and PCLs was an old build of mine. Hated ambs on it though cause of short range. And wished they had slightly more op to fit both high flux capacity and venting, as well as ITU and hardened shields. But I guess I could've just built that in. Didn't though, cause I was avoiding s-mods for some reason back then.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2024, 02:19:01 PM by Killer of Fate »
Logged

Killer of Fate

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 687
    • View Profile
Re: should we just nerf the Onslaught?
« Reply #29 on: March 09, 2024, 02:09:45 PM »

onslaught is only OP when it's shunted, player-piloted, and has either 4 PCL's or 4 jackhammers [or hammer pods... or reapers... or...]
y'know what else is OP?

* shunted legion
* shunted legion 14
* fusoreina from UAF
* locomotive from HMI
* gramada from xhan empire
* arsenal from DEX
* a zigg flown by... anyone that has played longer than a week
I've even seen a guy shunt a paragon and slap. disregard shields. acquire fearless player pilot behavior that is all
I love how you want to prove how not op Onslaught is by listing a bunch of stuff that doesn't even exist. I mean, what the *** is a Ziggurat?
« Last Edit: March 09, 2024, 02:14:52 PM by Killer of Fate »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10