A solution to the issue of force swords and warp resistance

Warhammer 40,000: Darktide Gameplay Feedback
1

tl;dr: New force sword type that has “defenses” instead of “warp resistance” which is functionally the same as a force sword with 0% warp resistance.

!!!
Post Scriptum:

This all being said however, I truly think the best solution still would be to just allow for reducing of stat-%, that would help with staves and certain weapons that do not want to stagger, for example some rifles with collateral, as stagger can throw enemies of of the line of fire.
!!!

After considering that the developers flat-out refused to allow players to reduce or refrain from upgrading a (set of) specific stat-% in the crafting system, even when this was a sensible request by many a skilled player and which could have been implemented, I think I have a solution to at least the issue this decision causes for the force swords.

To have the cake and eat it - so to say - for the developers, who seem to be blind to the fact that warp resistance being high is a bad thing, I suggest an addition of a new type of force sword in the game, which allows for the psykers who like warp resistance on their swords to keep it, and allows for psykers who want to keep their warp resistance low to “keep it low”.

The introduction of a new force sword mark, named for example “Warp-Open” (instead of Blaze)

“Warp-Open” forceswords would not have Warp Resistance as a statistic, and their Warp Charged special activation would always cause the psyker to gain 45% Peril. They could have a stat like Defenses instead as placeholder for the removed warp resistance, but scaled so that at 60% defenses the Warp-Open swords would be equal in defense-stats to the current Blaze forceswords.

The swords would have the similar treatment of cosmetics as Rumbler and Kickback, which is to say they share the Cosmetics between them but may have a different flourish on them, such as in this example the Rumblers having the front sights, which Kickbacks do not have on shared skins.

@FatsharkStrawHat I would be glad if this was forwarded to the team, I sincerely think this is the most easily achievable type of compromise in this situation, and I daresay it requires quite little devtime, but has massive benefits for the amount of gameplay enrichment it provides.

2 Likes
2

Did they actually officially state they will never implement the ability to refrain from enhancing certain stats? Because if so that is what I can only describe as a deaf decision considering how many people are requesting otherwise. More so that the new brunt lowered power cap makes it literally impossible to get weapon stat spreads that used to be achievable if you threw enough dockets at it.

All the people asking for this feature are players with thousands of hours in the game and immense game knowledge/experience theory crafting and building out their favorite weapons. If ever there was a population of players to listen to regarding how to build “optimized weapons” it would be them…

3

Oh sweet summer child…

4

Justly said.

5

You clearly misread my tone to be naïve. This was not a pleading request, but an approach of laying out a proposal that is irrational to decline.

6

You clearly didn’t see who I was replying to.

7

No, it was not shown clearly since there was no:

“[quote=“name, post:number, topic:number, full:true”]”
“text”
“[/quote]”

8

You use the Illisi pretty exclusively I think @AC3NATOR , from what I saw in the other post.

So - this is basically that weapon, but buffed in the melee department. I’d foresee this being used … maybe alongside a gun so you can trigger damage at high peril bonuses?

The Illisi special attack is … fairly meh. So, this new variant seems to me like it would for many builds, particularly gun-psyker, be notably more powerful as you could activate twice from a standing start, go to town on the killing, then keep topping up your peril with little real risk? And meanwhile you’ve got some extra defence stats.

Sorry for taking a suspicious stance at the suggestion, but it’s just human nature. When someone asks for something new it’s very rarely because they think it’ll be more difficult for them to use.

9

Note: this addition of the weapon changes nothing about how I currently play, since I use an illisi with a low warp resistance already. I do however think it is unfair that others cannot acquire it in the same way I acquired my low warp illisis.

Plus, you can also make the defenses stat be something that is on par with Blaze forceswords when at 80%, ergo the Warp-Open sword would be mathematically always worse than the “good blaze” variant on 80 80 80 80 0.

The suggestion of the defenses being on par with blaze force swords at 60 meant that a Warp Open 80 80 80 80 60 force sword would be equal in every way to 80 80 80 80 0 which I think is fair, since currently the only thing between a player and a 80 80 80 80 0 is just stupid grind.

The issue here is that the game treats warp resistance as a good stat. Your reply is based on the opposite. As such I am curiousas to why you do not agree with this wholesale.

Furthermore, I use illisi on any and all of my psyker builds. I have used it since it got released.

I do not use it to trigger high warp most often, I use it to generate warp and quell it to gain at-will toughness. This interaction is a really good example of how to not design a game, when an emergent property causes “good stats” to become bad. i.e. every peril generation reduction and warp resistance mechanic become nerfs to psykers in this manner.

The easiest whilst wisest ludological solution to this would be to allow the option of not picking warp resistance/peril generation reduction features. This is the best solution since it gives the people who like to reduce peril generation the option to do so, and it removes the issues of the emergent property, since now it is a completely intended, recognized and supported alternative.

The illisi special attack is not meh to me, but opinion may vary.

10

Me too. And I agree it’s a melee monster. I love that RHS tree for it; ostensibly the gun psyker build, but I go melee-psyker. :supervillain:

No; my thought was that you’re planning on using the sword as a +45 peril generation tool (which helps you) while adding defence stats (which helps you) and you’re sacrificing … nothing (which helps you). So it’s a complete triple-buff to your chosen high-damage play style.

I get the thinking. “Peril Stabilisation” would be almost a fairer stat (i.e. when using the sword you gain and lose peril at 10% of the usual rate). Obvs requires you to have another mechanism for generating peril which is more where the balancing aspect comes in.

11

Well, this use of +42% peril generation tool is already in my inventory. This new item changes nothing of substance when it comes to that use-case.

It only makes my use-case more easily achievable by others, and I think that is the more important part.

It isn’t a question of “if this was added, then this would be possible”, since the “this” is already in the game.

Well this is then a different tool for a different job, I would not change from the currently-in-game Blaze Forceswords if this was added. This is doubly bad for my use case.

Not that this is a bad addition either. I say we could have Warp-Open and Warp-Stabilizing force swords both, since they do not need to do any modelwork, they just need to create the Wrap-Stabilizing modifier, since defenses is already in the game as a modifier.

AND they could allow players to lower stats on their weapons.