Fatshark seems committed to the idea of balancing everything in their games - first in Vermintide, and now in Darktide. But perfect balance in a PvE action game is not just unrealistic -it’s unnecessary. There will always be weapons or talents that are stronger than others, and trying to flatten the curve entirely often leads to a stale and repetitive experience.
Instead, Darktide, as a semi-live service game, should embrace variety over balance. Every few months, the meta should shift dramatically: bring underused weapons to the forefront, tweak keystones, and refresh talents. For example, give the double-barrel shotgun unique perks that make it a top-tier choice for a season. Two or three months later, rotate the spotlight to another weapon. The same goes for talents and keystones.
This kind of intentional meta shifting would keep the game feeling fresh and exciting. Players wouldn’t feel locked into the Rapier or any single dominant pick for months on end. Instead, each new patch would bring a reason to try something different—and rediscover the game from a new angle.
It would also reduce burnout. High-level players could continue engaging with the game, not because they’re forced to use the same optimal builds, but because the landscape is always changing.
Because ultimately:
Trying to make everything equally viable is not only futile—it’s counterproductive. Fatshark should stop chasing perfect balance and start chasing fun. Rotate the meta. Keep it fresh. Keep us playing.
You’ll rarely see players complaining about OP stuff or “metas” in general just because the game is better balanced, and you can basically run most things without issues and succeed even in cata
Why?? Why can’t we just have both?
Nerfing the OP stuff and buffing the weak is how you manage to get a sweet spot where most things are viable. It doesn’t matter if something is above everything as long as that’s just BARELY superior to the other options
This gotta be bait
How can you say “Fatshark is obsessed with balance” and then say “We need variety”
You gotta have balance to have variety you silly goober! Otherwise exactly what you said happens (Everyone using Duelling Sword)
No?? Not everyone wants to be constantly switching around stuff, some people like to have a small group of weapons and practice them until they reach their peak
Fatshark SHOULD balance all weapons so people can pick their favourites, even if they don’t wanna use everything later
?
So what you’re saying is that everyone would love if for example the heavysword became broken overpowered just like Duelling Sword is?
Purposefully misinterpreting every single thing he said doesn’t make it wrong.
Literally how GGG made path of exile stay fresh for a dozen years, by nerfing the utterly game breaking, buffing the esoteric weak stuff, and making regular changes to let the community figure out the newly strong builds. I think it’s a solid philosophy, but not inherently better than what they’re doing currently. Maybe stable player numbers means that the tiny minority on the forums and reddit are the only ones sick of playing the same builds. Maybe there’s something we just don’t know or have access to that explains why their current approach is better. I’d still like to see them give this a shot with some of the least played and least effective weapons, even if it results in incredibly broken meta builds, because we already have those. Having a few more utterly broken builds isn’t a bad thing, just makes the balance problems more fun.
I agree that intentional meta shifting is preferable to what we have currently. Unfortunately Fatshark doesn’t update the game or monitor balance at the pace required for that approach to work at all. Hence we’d be better serviced hoping they just generally move bit by bit in a direction where no weapon/build is mega overpowered and no weapon is unreasonably bad in every build.
I do feel you have a bit of a misunderstanding of this balance approach though. The aim is not to make everything perfectly equal, just to have everything within a reasonable range of effectiveness so some weapons don’t completely invalidate others, and nothing feels like you’re shooting yourself in both feet to use it. There is plenty of room within that design space for niches to exist and for weapons and builds to feel distinct from each other.
VT2 weapons have some problems, and had some bigger problems, but overall they’re just so damn good. Individually distinct and balanced.
I have trouble explaining what’s going on with DT. Whatever it is, though, it makes me think FS won’t be able to deliver a shifting balance. Instead, I’d expect a balance that couldn’t be called “wildly careening” because,
A) It implies something other than glacial change.
B) The phrase isn’t sufficiently negative.
A shifting meta isn’t a bad idea at all. But it’s best achieved organically, by introducing new weapons, new enemies, new modifies, and improving existing elements. Not by moving slow and breaking things.
I know “moving slow and breaking things” is not what is being proposed, but I really think that’s what we’d get.
You’re misunderstanding my point a bit—I’m not against balance per se, I’m saying true balance across all weapons in a game like this is impossible, especially when many of them serve nearly identical roles. Some weapons are just objectively better, and that’s always going to be the case unless Fatshark starts doing what I’m suggesting: deliberately rotating the meta.
Take the Devil Claw Sword as an example. You can see Fatshark really wants it to be viable, but it’s not landing. Unless they over-buff it temporarily and push it into the spotlightit won’t ever see meaningful use. That means giving it a large boost of power on purpose, letting it shine for a season, and then dialing it back later with micro-tuning. That’s the only way you can get variety in a PvE game like this—not by chasing some theoretical “everything is viable” dream that never materializes.
To illustrate: I run Double Barrel Shotgun and Heavy Sword on Zealot. It works fine in Damnation, but no way I’m bringing that to Havoc 40 and trolling someone’s run when Spearhead Boltgun, and Rapier exist. Technically yes, I can make it work, but only with a very solid premade team. In randoms? It’s just not viable. Not because I don’t want to play differently—but because the game punishes you for doing so.
And on your other point: I’m not suggesting people constantly switch loadouts. I’m saying shift the meta every 3–4 months, like a soft season. That’s long enough for players to fully explore and enjoy a build, and then something new becomes viable and exciting. And no, I’m not saying to nerf things into the ground—just nudge things around so different tools get their time to shine. That’s what keeps games like PoE, Apex, and Diablo interesting over time.
I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt, and say that he perhaps misunderstood.
This is exactly what I meant, Thank you for the support and clarification
I think I did misunderstand. But I wouldn’t describe what you seem to be asking for here as the meta shifting dramatically, I’d describe it as a regular rotation of OP weapons.
That would indeed foster variety. Still, I’m not enthused.
People will play what they like despite the metas. Only the very select will confine themselves to metas or follow them while learning game.
The nature of balance is to keep a game fair as possible for players not just opponents. We could have a I win button and since it’s pve one might argue that’s okay, but it would totally ruin the enjoyment for other players and probably self in the long run.
A rotating meta occurs naturally as small changes occur, forcing it adds to the balancing act and will upset more players once their favorites time is up. As close as possible to True balance, as was well done in VT2, is the best way while maintaining variety.
It works with PoE cause when you have gazillions of skill gems and unique items there are always will be something thematicaly/aesthetically and performance wise appealing to switch on.
Speaking about DT, i prefer solid A tier weapons, with some cons you need to learn to play with, not S. I’m an “ethical build” enjoyer. And chain weapons thematicaly. So i play mostly with evi on zealot, and chainsword on vet. I would be dissapointed if there will be drastical changes that will make them DS lvl strong or doghsit unplayble.
On the other hand, i absolutely not interested to play with autoguns and knives in a wh40k game.
Overall commenting on the topic subject. Balance just should make sense. If a weapon asks no effort - easy chains, low recoil, etc. It shouldn’t be the strongest one, skill = reward.
This is why you can see flamer (even it was nerfed) and purgatus on high level havoc in every run almost - no need to aim + infinite cleave = gg.
If you want some crazy strong stuff like DS you should balace it around parry, head shots and good movement, heck DUELING sword. And you shouldn’t be able to use it with tanky character. Giving it to zealot and vet was a mistake, or atleast zealot and vet DS should have lower mobility stat mark or a stat cap.
I think that’s a very cynical take. When done right, a rotating meta can actually feel fresh and engaging, especially if developers are responsive and make adjustments regularly. The idea isn’t to shake things up for chaos’ sake—it’s about injecting life into the sandbox. Start by over-buffing an underused weapon to make it stand out, then refine it with minor tweaks in the biweekly patches Fatshark already releases.
That’s fair, and I agree with the goal. But in practice, some weapons will never fall within that “reasonable range” due to role overlap. For example, in Vermintide, there’s almost no scenario where a 1h sword on Kerillian is a better pick than Sword and Dagger. They fill the same niche, but one is just vastly better—more mobility, more stagger, better boss damage.
Absolutely agreed in principle. But creating new weapons or content clearly isn’t trivial for Fatshark. Look at Vermintide’s new weapon pack—it was announced back in March, and it’s now delayed until next year due to technical issues. That shows how much effort even a single pack demands.
Funny comic, but here’s the reality behind each “balancing philosophy”:
Valve’s Way – “Fight broken with broken” is basically power creep. It might be fun for a while, but it’s unsustainable. Eventually, you inflate the power ceiling so much that older content and weapons become obsolete unless constantly reworked.
Riot’s Way – Works well only in PvP, where player interaction creates its own evolving meta. But in PvE games like Darktide, it doesn’t translate the same way—there’s no “enemy player” adapting to your build.
Fatshark’s Way – Throwing more enemies at the player doesn’t solve the balance issue. In fact, it just amplifies the gap between strong and weak weapons. Strong gear becomes even more essential, while off-meta builds become dead weight.
Blizzard’s Way – Taking turns with buffs/nerfs may be the least flashy, but it’s often the most effective for keeping the sandbox fresh. Rotate power, don’t chase perfect balance. That’s the real path to long-term variety.
I actually agree with your sentiment—we’re basically saying the same thing, just differing on how to approach it.
You’re absolutely right that buffs shouldn’t turn a weapon into a “press button to win” tool. Power should come with mastery, and underused weapons should be elevated in a way that rewards skill, not laziness.
For example, instead of just slapping +25% damage on the Double-Barrel Shotgun, give it something thematic and rewarding: say, headshot kills grant 100% reload speed for 2 seconds, not as a blessing or perk, but as an innate shotgun mechanic. That turns it into a skill-based powerhouse without making it brain-dead.
Games like Apex Legends actually do this well. There’s an attachment that makes shotguns auto-reload when sliding, encouraging movement and aggression. Another seasonal mechanic gives underused weapons a “rotating hop-up”—a passive where each knock recharges your ultimate ability by 20%. Obviously, I’m not suggesting copy-pasting those into Darktide, but the design principle is great: make low-use weapons fun and rewarding through creative, skill-based mechanics.
For Darktide, something like the Devil Claw Sword is a perfect example. It already has a parry mechanic, and it feels like it’s just one smart buff away from being a high-skill, high-ceiling weapon that competes with the best. The same logic could be applied across the board—buffs should encourage learning, not just brute force.
This kind of design doesn’t alienate “ethical build enjoyers” like yourself. It gives you more to master, and rewards you for committing to a weapon, even if it’s not the meta pick.
Same man, what a waste of resources in them having so many normal, non 40k specific weapons. Why do we have so many normal axes in a 40k game when we could have power axes instead?
There are planty of cool options. Be it innate weapon class ability, like all swords can parry, all blunt weapons have inbuilt haymaker, or can maim enemies reducing their AS/MS., and more and more. Attachements. Or introducing a side progression system like Emperors Tarrot (Back4Blood card deck, also was in the Inquisitor Martyr iirc), where you can choose specific cards that provides niche perks but also cons (DRG overclocks), prestige levels in the end, etc.
It’s just…Fatshark.
Well that part of my post was about shifting the meta, cause for metashifting not causing drammas you need to have a lot of options first, including thematical, cause fantasy matters.
FS overall went on the route with homogenizing everything. You just need to slap some Rend talents and that’s it. The game needs Combat 2.0 with fundamental changes like nuking CDR, but i don’t expect it’s gonna happen.
Yeah, I feel you—and honestly, I’d go one step further: the homogenization path isn’t just flawed, it’s already breaking down. We already have weapons that overlap heavily in function—even within the same weapon class, certain marks are just objectively better. One mark of a rifle performs far above the others due to recoil, ammo economy, or breakpoints. We also have different rifles that serve the exact same purpose—but one simply does it worse.
Trying to make all of these “equally viable” leads to a design trap where the meta gets flattened, and the sandbox feels stale. You either nerf everything into sameness or spam universal blessings like Rend to prop up weaker choices—and neither makes for satisfying gameplay.
As for Combat 2.0—I agree, it would need to fundamentally rethink core systems like cooldown reliance, blessing design, and class-role interactions. But let’s be honest: Fatshark doesn’t seem to see this as a problem. If they did, we’d see signs of a systems-level rethink by now. Right now, all we’re getting are surface-level adjustments, not structural changes.
That’s why I keep saying: the only real solution for long-term viability is cyclical buffs. Rotate the spotlight every few months. Let underused weapons or builds shine temporarily by giving them thoughtful, skill-based buffs. Because with how similar many weapons are in design, true balance is impossible. One will always be better unless you go down the path of giving every weapon a unique, niche-defining mechanic—tied to specific skills or keystones.
But if you do that, now you’ve opened the door to an entirely new set of problems: viable builds, role compression, and managing complexity at scale. And that’s a whole different beast that I don’t think Fatshark is even close to tackling.
