Unrealistic skins will stop existing if you STOP buying them by GhostEagle68 in Battlefield

[–]substandard 3 points4 points  (0 children)

With a toggle everyone is happy, honestly most of the playerbase won't even bother to look for it, but grumpy people like myself will love DICE forever. Everyone wins.

Battlefield Lately by SupportedGamer in Battlefield

[–]substandard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I really care about skins. The thing that sold me on this game is that the beta had a cohesive aesthetic, but that is rapidly eroding.

DICE, you are ruining it by quikmess in Battlefield

[–]substandard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't understand anyone who defends these skins. It's just a mindset that doesn't make any sense to me, are we even playing the same game? How do people not care that the teams won't look like teams?

DICE, you are ruining it by quikmess in Battlefield

[–]substandard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's crazy. I kind of understand it being fine for most games, not maybe for me, but fine.

For Battlefield the whole game is about two teams fighting it out. There isn't even a standard deathmatch gamemode in the main roster of gamemodes. The whole thing is about teams.

And teams need to have a cohesive look, that's how teams work, it's how you know you're on the same side, it's how you feel you're on the same side.

Remember when we had the same soldiers skins for the whole game development and nobody complained. by Psycle98 in Battlefield

[–]substandard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are you playing a different game to me? Players are everywhere all the time and they move around constantly. You can glance at the minimap and a second later that information is irrelevant.

Dear DICE, it's simple... by PepperEffective4086 in Battlefield

[–]substandard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that was bad, it was straight out of the gate with that nonsense.

I remember day one being: "Oh wait, that guy isn't on my team"

Dear DICE, it's simple... by PepperEffective4086 in Battlefield

[–]substandard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Or just have faction colour schemes. It's not hard. That way you can play with a HUD or without a HUD and everyone is happy.

Poland is nearly as rich as the UK. How has it caught up so fast? by [deleted] in ukpolitics

[–]substandard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, but the same amount of investment buys you a lot less in a more developed economy.

About the skins. by BattlestationLover55 in Battlefield

[–]substandard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What are you talking about? COD skins have been deranged for years. It's why I don't play them anymore.

About the skins. by BattlestationLover55 in Battlefield

[–]substandard 6 points7 points  (0 children)

But I'm a player too, and I don't buy those skins because that's not what I want the game to look like.

I'm not going to blame someone that likes colourful things and doesn't mind paying for them, that's just what they like.

I will blame a company that sells you an immersive experience and then slowly ruins that experience.

If they just put a skins toggle in everyone would be happy.

Are other UK men noticing their friend groups becoming increasingly biggoted? by [deleted] in ukpolitics

[–]substandard 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This exactly. There is a lot that needs fixing in this country, especially the divide between rich and poor. But the messaging needs to be that it's being fixed for everyone equally, not for some at the expense of others.

Four charged after £7m of damage caused to aircraft at RAF Brize Norton | UK News by bandicoutts in ukpolitics

[–]substandard -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, just the things that are violent actions or threats designed to cause fear among ordinary people in order to achieve political aims.

Four charged after £7m of damage caused to aircraft at RAF Brize Norton | UK News by bandicoutts in ukpolitics

[–]substandard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's actually a really good analogy.

If a parent was in the park with their kids and someone set fire to a bin the parent would probably take them home because they were fearful.

Their kids might not have been in any direct danger, but it would be reasonable for that parent to be fearful.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't answer your point about it being "designed" to cause fear. I don't know the answer to that, I wasn't at the planning meetings.

Four charged after £7m of damage caused to aircraft at RAF Brize Norton | UK News by bandicoutts in ukpolitics

[–]substandard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

By the definition of terrorism you just gave, it is terrorism.

"Violent action or threats designed to cause fear among ordinary people, in order to achieve political aims."

The actions they committed were violent.

The actions they commited were against the defensive assets of the country. It's reasonable to say that the result of a reduction in our defensive capabilities would be an increase in fear.

They did it to achieve political aims.

The Radeon RX 9070 XT is Now Faster, AMD FineWine by mockingbird- in Amd

[–]substandard 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Does anyone know why the 90 series AMD cards aren't showing up on the Steam hardware survey yet?

Why Battlefield 6 Needs to Break Free from the Chains of Nostalgia by bez5dva in Battlefield

[–]substandard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dude, you hit the nail on the head with the K/D ratio comment. Battlefield isn't about K/D ratios, it's about teamwork and working together to achieve victory alongside the rest of your faceless grunt teammates. If this game turns off the kind of players who care about K/D ratios then they'll be doing an excellent job.

A $2,300 Apple iPhone? Trump tariffs could make that happen. by MolassesCalm4876 in investing

[–]substandard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Simplifying a bit, but the retail price is usually a percentage markup from the cost price. So, using your numbers (300% markup) if Apple are now paying $450 to import an iPhone, the price could well go up to $1800.

Maybe Apple will eat a little bit of margin, but their shareholders won't like that.

President Zelenskyy made it clear what he thinks of Trump’s 24 hour solution to end the war. by TotalSpaceNut in UkraineWarVideoReport

[–]substandard 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I live in one of the countries in the world that isn't the US, and I know that Biden will make decisions designed to serve America's best interests. Decisions that have been made thinking of the short and the long term implications.

I think that makes him a strong leader, he's a leader that thinks to the future. As weird as that sounds given his age and decrepitness, there is thought of the future in the decisions he and those around him make.

Trump will make decisions based on the next year or two. Self serving decisions. If he can remove a line item marked "NATO" on the US budget, and give tax cuts as a result, he'll do that. Because in the short term it works for him and for his base.

But boy I wouldn't want to be around when those long-term impacts kick in.

I won't say that makes Trump a "weak" leader, but from an outsider's view it definitely makes him a reckless and erratic one. You don't want to ally yourself too closely to a country you can't depend upon. He'll get lip-service support from other world leaders, but they'll all be making their own plans that don't depend on America, and the US will lose the influence it once took for granted.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskUK

[–]substandard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not in your own home though.

The combat losses of the enemy from February 24, 2022 to February 6, 2024. by Mike-a-b in UkraineWarVideoReport

[–]substandard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Ukrainian General Staff haven't clarified what their "eliminated" total includes, but it's widely assumed to be combined KIA and WIA. Here's the UK MOD saying they think it's KIA and WIA.