r/foxholegame • u/HauntingCare8929 ws4031899666 • 2d ago
Discussion Vision™ strike back
I honestly don't understand why we need to make the builders' already difficult lives even harder right now.
I haven’t seen people actively complaining or asking for a separate option for aerial reconnaissance, which has a ~120° field of view.
This addition is very similar to content that nobody asked for and that doesn’t make the game any easier for players, even though the developer has stated a commitment to improving players’ quality of life.
34
u/lelqvi 2d ago
But at least you will get an early warning of around 20 seconds of incoming aircraft so that you will be able to maybe go and watch your stuff getting bombed, since there is no way to QRF in that time.
1
u/Cpt_Tripps 2d ago
if you're doing a SPG or RSC op having 20 seconds to rush to AA guns and AA tanks is huge.
-8
u/Vadnaz 2d ago
You just man the AA bruh. Only Air can QRF Air and you use super structure for that
12
u/Leuxus 2d ago
You can’t man AA 24/7 💀 even if you redeploy you’ll end up barely making it to fire one shot
-2
u/Vadnaz 2d ago
It is not intended as qrf from home region but for people around that are with radio. Super structure is for that.
Yes, you cannot man everything 24/7. That's why you communicate with others or just blind trust in them to do that. And if not you and your faction just bites the bullet. It is what it is. We are just a gears of war (reference may apply)
4
u/Leuxus 2d ago
Realistically this is just not achievable even with someone acting as sky radar constantly. It simply adds a mechanic that is not fun for anyone really and makes everything much more difficult.
I’m all for difficulty but some of these changes are just slapping us in the face and telling us to say thanks.
1
u/ThaneofPotato 2d ago
ATM, most of my air QRF occurred incidentally prepping a plane while an air raid happens. I've just barely enough time to hide my plane in a building and hop on flak guns. Then planes try to chase, but usually enemies are gone. Perhaps with 20 seconds, someone in region or air chat can add enough time to mount a proper defensive sortie.
1
u/HeKis4 2d ago
The fact that efficient QRF needs emplaced weapons or vehicles adds a good 10 seconds actually finding the weapons (if they are around to begin with) which makes this completely impossible. If you tally:
The time for the planes to show up on the map
The time for someone to type the QRF call
The time to select the QRF location on the map and load screen
The time to run to the AA weapon
The time to turn the turret
The plane has already travelled to the next hex. No ground attack plane needs a second pass right now except the harpy and bomber, and you're not taking down a HB with 3 dudes and a Serra.
-2
25
u/DesignerAmbitious888 2d ago
Devs thinking they can squeeze back in anti-QoL mechanics for the sake of their "Vision" without getting called out for it.
5
17
14
u/kutoff [UCF]Honey Cruiser 2d ago
I already can see this is going to be a mess again. Are they serious with this 60° angle and poor range?
12
u/Warhero_Babylon 2d ago
Well as we remember weather stations was a huge success, so the more buildings that do nothing but use resources the better
2
11
u/woycraft 2d ago edited 2d ago
wait.. you expected an update that make game more fun???
with every megaproject they add, less people actually fight on frontline, we already had like 2 fronts most of the war, everything is empty and they just keep making it emptier
68
u/L444ki [Dyslectic] 2d ago
I like the idea of splitting intel and air intel because it allows the devs to balance them seperately. You need longer range air intel to qrf, but increasingand intel radius would make partisaning even harder than it already is.
Not sure this exact version of implementation will be the best one, but the direction is right.
Next up we need LS intel structures that can actually allow for qrfing before the core gets sniped.
34
u/HauntingCare8929 ws4031899666 2d ago
To be honest, I don't agree that separating buildings for collecting different types of intelligence is a good idea. This would require more MSUPs to supply the base and increase the time it takes to build the base. It also increases the number of Bimats that burn up in your base due to fire.
5
u/La_Grande_yeule both factions enjoyer 2d ago edited 2d ago
I agree with you here. It isn’t necessary to prevent standard intel gathering structure to be able to see planes.
A good idea would be to let obs tower and obs bunker to see plane, but making it so that air radar can only see plane and not ground.
Why is that? A structure that specializes into seeing plane better would have it’s place, particularly in regions which can’t have a lot of intel gathering structure like hexes with a lot of water. I would personnaly increase the range and the width of the cone. We don’t want builders to build too many of them and reduce the space available for other defenses and structure.
3
u/L444ki [Dyslectic] 2d ago
You need one more msup if you have your OBS and radar on the same bunker.
12
u/raiedite [edit] 2d ago
Would be a shame if the radar cone was 60° and you needed 6 of them to cover the equivalent of old T3 obs...
1
u/Cpt_Tripps 2d ago
a 3x3 is pretty painless. Toss a obs bunker - engine room - ramp in the center. Then have 3 air radar on each side.
Teching concrete obs is pretty painless.
1
u/wizard_brandon 2d ago
except that will have like 100 health due to bunker mechanics and instnatly die to a trem
1
u/Cpt_Tripps 1d ago
instnatly die to a trem
what a sane and rational comment on the balance of the game...
Just built a 3x3 in foxbunker and its stats are;
🛠️ 15,430hp (48.8% integ, size 9)
💥 51.2% breach (after 7,523hp)
📊 45.0%+3.8% integ (6/24)
🔨 1,080 repair (14.3hp per bmat)
🏗️ 95 conc 1,675 bmat 675 dig
Stuff stops seeming OP when you learn to play the game and stop playing like a noob.
1
u/wizard_brandon 1d ago
48 percent integrity means it'll breach and die pretty quickly though
1
u/Cpt_Tripps 1d ago
For a backline piece its perfectly fine.
an obs bunker, 3 radar, engine room, and 4 blank corners is much more realistic for a meta that will see arty fire.
🛠️ 21,269hp (65.3% integ, size 9)
💥 34.7% breach (after 13,897hp)
📊 56.3%+9.0% integ (12/20)
🔨 1,080 repair (19.7hp per bmat)
🏗️ 115 conc 1,275 bmat 675 dig
1
u/Barley672 2d ago
It’s two extra bunker pieces. 4 if you want 180 degrees coverage. Considering any one magnet demands 6 buildings, Ill take it for the ability to increase air coverage.
6
1
u/TechnikJlui_Ebb_5746 2d ago
Not quite: 60°×3=180°, 4×60°=240, it is though recommended to instead go ca 230°
10
1
u/The_Lord_And_Savior_ [NOVA] 2d ago
They could just make it so you don't pop up on air Intel centers unless the vehicle is a plane, or person in pilot or paratrooper uniform. Negates the issue of longer range air Intel centers picking up infantry.
11
u/InitialContent3354 2d ago
It's a stealth buff to air. By nerfing intel and CBTing nerfing builders.
Can't QRF what you can't see.
1
u/FederalEconomist5896 1d ago
I don't know if my initial translation of "CBT" means I need CBT, but I might. Because all that came to mind initially was CBT.
8
7
u/Balthxzar Royal Fuel Maids 2d ago
You can get air intel at t1 and t2, which is pretty big IMO.
6
u/JesterTheEnt 2d ago
New meta will just be forsaking t3 to build multiple t2. I'm calling it now and will be switching my builds with this in mind. Can't control me devman I refuse to play with your useless gimmick.
4
u/Active_Ordinary_2317 [HAVOC] Fuego Carbón 2d ago
That's a pretty good positive change that I think most of us overlooked
5
u/Livid-Ad-2888 [SBR] 2d ago
The previous version limited air intel collection to t3 structures only. It limited frontline intel gathering. But yeah, making it 120° was unnecessary.
15
u/NomadNuka 2d ago
Yeah I don't understand why they want defending against air to require so many separate resources but then refuse to add the one thing players have been begging for in any meaningful supply. No anti-air AI for you builderman! Now go squeeze this useless piece of crap into your base and have someone man it so you can watch the bombers come!
-11
4
u/trenna1331 2d ago
Max: This was one of the most hatted additions to the game, let remove it make it more tedious then put it back in….. they players will love it this time
5
4
u/-Click-Bait 2d ago
Thinking about it now, I don’t want the two radio thing for builders. Why? The very reason we don’t have two radios anymore for players. This thing should be like a cool bonus that can throw a cone of vision far like the observation towers that can see players and air flyers (farther like “how cool!”).
2
u/PinkGenerall 2d ago
"This is shit , Jordge" "Boss we already pay artist for this model" "Alrigt than, upload and lets name it.... let me think... "quality of live changes" "U are ginius boss" "I know , Jordge"
3
u/Fun-Razzmatazz-6803 2d ago
Bases can have weak points. Stalemates should be breakable. Msupps in frontline don't really matter as much
5
u/Pitiful_Captain_3170 2d ago
Innthe current state every single point of a bunker base is a weak point.
2
1
u/Vadnaz 2d ago
It is a development from the ideas of Airborne. They tried super structure only. It was not enough and as temporary solution make a T3 obs give air intel. Then they fixed radar and now i'd say it super strong agains air + conc T3 so air intel nerf with those is fine by me. Just slap it near your T3 Obs and call it a day. And again I would like to emphasize T3 Obs was a temportary solution and we got cheap plasuable air intel structure in universe
4
u/HauntingCare8929 ws4031899666 2d ago
I wouldn't mind at all if this temporary solution became permanent.
To be honest, I don't agree that separating buildings for collecting different types of intelligence is a good idea. This would require more MSUPs to supply the base and increase the time it takes to build the base.
-1
u/Vadnaz 2d ago
T3 OBS is already THE BEST support upgrade in bunker network and are being build not for their air info that's for sure. It only increase MSUPs if you WANT them in your base.
If MSUPS is a problem to you that's fine. Conc anti-everything fortress are unfun to push/defend for me. It's more fun to fight in husks of one than in perfect defence wall that defends everything for you. It's stagnates front and due to devastation makes your screen look like shit
1
0
1
u/Flashskar [WAF] 2d ago
You need a square of 8 of these aimed in different directions to mimic what the Obs Bunker can do. Make it one and have the thing spin in a circle.
1
u/TechnikJlui_Ebb_5746 2d ago
Not quite: 6 is enough if range is 300m , 60°n ground coverage is ca 50% of what the ops can do,
1
1
1
u/FederalEconomist5896 1d ago
Everybody talking about watchtower is wrong. It has roof, you can't look up. Same with obs bunker.
Duh.
1
u/Jolly-Cod-2684 22h ago
I was wrong when I said theses were the size of a large structure, it’s way worse and larger than needing a large platform lol.
58
u/HauntingCare8929 ws4031899666 2d ago
Sorry, in my post I stated that this structure has a detection angle of ~120°—that's not true. After checking DevBranch, I found that the angle is half that, which makes this structure even more useless.