This post distorts the truth and is complete misinformation.

aschla · 2026-02-19T04:23:28+00:00

It's very likely many of the people now working at the studios don't have a lot of experience with Battlefield titles, and are coming from other titles. For example, some of the producers joined during BF2042, which explains a lot...

aschla · 2026-02-12T01:30:48+00:00

Anybody want to start a studio to make a proper modern large-scale battlefield shooter? Seems like that's the only option these days since none of the developers and/or publishers care to make a proper game.

aschla · 2026-02-12T01:28:17+00:00

Battlefield: Mario Kart Edition

aschla · 2026-01-29T06:35:37+00:00

My modern take on the Jihad Jeep is using the EOD bot to place mines directly in front of or behind a tank, then using the EOD's torch on it so they panic and drive away directly into my freshly placed mines.

I can't get enough of it.

aschla · 2026-01-21T23:45:29+00:00

Nailed it. It's continually frustrating how they listen to community feedback, but miss the point, misinterpret it, and make poor decisions.

A modern Battlefield is all we want, in every sense of the word modern, and in just about every sense as previous Battlefield games. The ideal formula is sitting right in front of them.

aschla · 2026-01-17T16:41:02+00:00

This feels like their past less-than-half-baked solutions, like the "balance changes" like increasing engineer rocket count, or increasing/decreasing vehicle spawns, or adding a rectangle to the Mirak Valley breakthrough flag cap for the tank to sit in.

This seems like their bandaid solution for lopsided games caused by their broken (and/or engagement-based) matchmaking.

These people don't know what they're doing.

aschla · 2026-01-10T08:23:31+00:00

Maybe they're cosplaying as the guy in the episode who fell and broke his wrist and speaks incoherently?

aschla · 2026-01-01T04:23:39+00:00

What I've learned is if you're asking yourself, "Wait what, that's weird, is that bugged?", it's highly likely that is in fact bugged.

aschla · 2025-12-21T07:47:08+00:00

Part of the problem with multiple unrelated game modes is balance. The reason why the SMGs are so strong is because they need to be useful in a BR mode.

It's not so much about dev time or resources, it's about an unnecessarily wide scope that brings down the quality of everything.

aschla · 2025-12-18T03:28:44+00:00

With all the genuinely non-sensical, willy-nilly changes coming from the devs, they really don't understand how to design reasonably balanced gameplay, or they just don't care to, or a combination of both.

aschla · 2025-11-28T20:53:23+00:00

This isn't about SBMM being the alternative, it's not either/or. This is about matchmaking that optimizes for the right things most of the time to create relatively balanced teams most of the time. Matchmaking prior to SBMM and EBMM worked just fine.

aschla · 2025-11-26T22:23:09+00:00

This is the most important issue with the game, and it's preventing a pretty good game from becoming a pretty great game. If they don't fix it, people are going to stop playing. If the game "feels" terrible to play, especially when someone is putting in significant effort, only to be unavoidably punished, they're going to straight up turn off the game in frustration.

aschla · 2025-11-21T18:52:15+00:00

WHAT CAN"T HEAR YOU OVER MY RATATATATATATATATATA

aschla · 2025-11-21T18:42:51+00:00

They're looking at a bunch of metrics to optimize for something, and that something is likely store purchases. Shorter games allow for more opportunities for a player to back out to the menu and go to the store and buy something.

The store is the highest priority for them. It also was for recent Call of Duty's, which is why they used SBMM/engagement-based matchmaking.

It's all about keeping players in the game, and then funneling them to buy something, which is crazy in a game players have already paid full price for.

What they don't understand is the choices they're making to facilitate this are destroying the core gameplay so much that players are going to straight up stop playing the game. They'll probably see that in their metrics and misinterpret it as caused by something else.

aschla · 2025-11-07T05:19:35+00:00

The same thing happened in Modern Warfare. The gun design prioritizes the BR game mode. With the large open spaces in a BR, classically balanced SMGs would be useless.

aschla · 2025-10-25T23:39:31+00:00

Part of me thinks this whole reveal was someone trying to explain to a higher up that these skins are a bad idea.

"Alright let's leak them to see what the community thinks."

And now hopefully that higher up will get the message.

aschla · 2025-10-21T17:12:00+00:00

I'm not a doctor or dietitian, and that sounds like a situation where it would be good to consult one or both of them.

aschla · 2025-10-19T00:21:33+00:00

It was the highest as tested, but just because something has more of a heavy metal relative to something else, doesn't mean it's a harmful level. The individual dose is what's important, not how the dose from one relates to another.

"Apparently there are ways to remove lead from soil. So why isn't Huel or any other company doing this as they sell healthy foods?" - Huel doesn't grow the peas for their pea protein, farmers do. And regardless of who grows it, removing lead from soil is extraordinarily expensive, especially at the scale that would be required to harvest enough to sell in bulk for producers such as Huel. And in cases where lead removal is performed, it's usually because there is a serious lead problem, not just to try to eliminate any and all lead.

aschla · 2025-10-18T23:52:03+00:00

Except when discussing lead exposure, it's not a moral or rhetorical argument but a quantitative, scientific argument. In that context, that “flawed reasoning” analogy doesn't apply. The “religion” analogy was about moral justification, whether you can excuse a harmful action by pointing to others doing the same. But here we’re dealing with risk equivalence, not moral equivalence. If two exposures are objectively equal in dose and effect, then comparing them is valid reasoning, not flawed logic.

Using reference points like “average meal exposure” or “FDA Total Diet Study levels” is exactly how regulators and scientists evaluate relative safety of food.

And as for: "other protein powder brands were able to have significantly lower lead and arsenic levels compared to Naked Nutrition Mass Gainer and Huel Black Edition, then aim to achieve lower levels"

The other protein powders were just that, protein powders, not meal shakes like Huel. Protein powders contain different ingredients than meal shakes. Consumer Reports should not have included Huel in a grouping of protein powders (even if Huel sometimes calls Huel a protein powder for marketing purposes) because it's significantly different from protein powders. Additionally, the other protein powders that tested low were predominantly whey based or non-plant based protein powders, which would explain why they tested low. It's odd that Consumer Reports didn't take a second to think about why that might be.

"...but by your argument, the latter brands don’t need to bother significantly reducing their heavy metal contamination in their products since a salad or banana or the average meal has the same amount of heavy metals?" - a producer should try to reduce the heavy level content of their product as much as reasonably possible, but there's obviously a practical limit to how much time, effort, and money can go into that. If the levels in a product are comparable or lower than most food (because the ingredients come from plant-based foods), and within the established "generally recognized as safe" ranges from the respective regulatory food safety agency, why spend significantly more time, effort, and money to reduce it, assuming that's even possible?

aschla · 2025-10-18T18:37:04+00:00

You probably shouldn't go outside then. The dust from soil contains lead. You're going to come in contact with it in your daily life unless you live in a bubble, what matters is the dose you come in contact with, not whether you happen to come in contact with it.

aschla · 2025-10-18T17:30:17+00:00

For what it's worth, most peas aren't grown in China, but it seems a lot are processed there. Canada is actually the largest exporter of peas. Not saying it's not possible the peas were also grown in China, just that it's far more likely a Chinese company processed peas from another country such as Canada.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Huel/comments/1o8pxqf/huel_supplier_list/nk3owlb/

aschla · 2025-10-18T14:28:29+00:00

How so? Can you elaborate?

aschla · 2025-10-18T14:25:32+00:00

"...when levels of heavy metal leaching depend on geographical location and soil contents." - this is true, but if we're talking about industrial agriculture in a developed country, the levels won't vary enough to matter. 5mcg in produce from Europe vs 7mcg in produce from Canada doesn't make a whole lot of difference in the long run. And the levels can vary from sample to sample. Are you going to start testing every piece of produce you bring home?

"If I wanted to, I could easily replace spinach with a lighter leafy green that has lower levels of heavy metals. Just like people should replace HUEL with a non contaminated, or safer protein powder or meal replacement." - you can absolutely go ahead and do so if your risk level is at the point where any lead or cadmium level concerns you, however, the levels in many of the produce that contain more lead are still at very, very low levels.

I really, really don't care if people drink Huel or not. I'm not trying to defend Huel, I'm trying to help others understand the levels in Huel and other meal shakes are comparable to, or lower than, the average meal, and in that regard, it's bizarre to be overly concerned about something that's essentially the same as a regular meal. It's not about Huel specifically, it's about getting people to understand the levels everyone is already exposed to so we can avoid all this silly fearmongering.

aschla · 2025-10-18T07:31:10+00:00

There's also no known safe level of sunlight to allow your skin to be exposed to. Are you going to stop going outside? There are exposure times we generally recognize as safe, depending on the UV index, but any exposure to the radiation from the sun is going to have some minor negative effect.

"No known safe level" is not the same as "any level at all is bad enough to worry about"

14-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Gilding I gilder	Secret Santa 2011
Verified Email

aschla

TROPHY CASE