1 Like
I’m sorry, but I thought the anti-modder stance was focused on ‘protecting gameplay integrity’ by opposing mods that offer unfair advantages. Now, it seems like the line is shifting to condemn a purely cosmetic mod with zero impact on gameplay. This isn’t a case of someone exploiting game mechanics or altering core difficulty—it’s a harmless visual tweak. If we’re going to get up in arms over a cosmetic mod that doesn’t affect anyone else’s experience, I can’t help but wonder if the real issue here isn’t about ‘cheating’ at all but about wanting to police all mods in Darktide, regardless of their impact.
If we start declaring cosmetics a threat, it’s easy to see why the anti-mod side has developed a reputation for being overly puritanical. Mods like these don’t cross any reasonable line, nor do they violate Fatshark’s own mod policy, which seems far more open to customization than this anti-mod stance would suggest. At this point, the debate seems less about fairness and more about blocking mods entirely.
if it doesn’t let me kill teammates directly it’s not a cheat, not sorry
2 Likes
FatShark killed shirtless via patch in last major patch
1 Like
a most infamous endeavor
It helps to read the conversation. Nobody has an issue with For The Drip, it was just brought up as a random example of a non-server side mod.
1 Like
Alright, so if no one had an issue with For The Drip in the first place, bringing it up was kind of pointless, don’t you think? Feels like it just added noise to the conversation. No pun intended.
I didn’t bring it up. And no it quite made sense when Badwin brought it up really. Again, I recommend reading the conversation before commenting on the rhetoric integrity of its participants from the sidelines.
1 Like
The discussion veered into how FS has no control over client-side mods without taking back control with anti-cheat. Murderer suggested FS could theoretically expend untold amounts of energy to purposefully break mods, like FTD, if they wanted to. This was intended to be a counterpoint to me saying the aforementioned statement. We both agreed that this wouldn’t be reasonable or feasible and it was just theoretically possible to temporarily stymy client-side mods.
That’s all.
2 Likes
Ah, thank you for actually clarifying the conversation. It’s refreshing to get insight rather than just noise for the sake of saying something—makes all the difference.
lmao this guy, embarrassing
2 Likes
Listen I know you’re rattled because you realized you embarrassed yourself by not reading something you replied to, but you don’t have to keep going, just move on. I wasn’t even rude to you, I just told you that you clearly didn’t read the convo and as such were confused as to what anyone thought about For The Drip. Whichever boogieman you’ve built in your head is genuinely not real; you just failed to read properly and made a false assumption.
1 Like
Projecting much? Embarrassed? Not in the slightest. I thanked Badwin because he added clarity to the discussion, something you seem allergic to, given your fixation on dismissing anyone who doesn’t meet your ‘standards.’ If you’re this bothered by a simple appreciation for constructive input, it says a lot about your priorities here. It’s almost like you’d rather nitpick than actually engage in meaningful conversation. But hey, if that’s what you’re here for, by all means, continue.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.