IAG Infantry Auto-Gun
you are saying Auto Infantry Gun
I corrected
you care about balance i care about representation
from DH 2E Core Rulebook
you don’t need to get the table top rules, those are for a different scale of warfare, guardsmen and inquisitorial acolytes get these
so the popular things that ppl are wanting nerfed are things FS buffed in the past. plasma, knife, etc. would it be wise to take a few steps back then?
finess multiplier on knife is good but there are others and mk4 duelling sword might be higher. most mobile weapons can run from mobs in this game, knife is hardly special there. literally the tac axe mentioned can just dodge away from every mob minus dogs and muties
truely sounds like skissued folks asking for a nerf outta hate for a weapon they dont like. its not that special. the blessings OPs saying are strong really arent even the strong blessings for knife
there are more unethical weapons a zealot can bring to a game than a knife
2 Likes
even if combat axes and eviscerators do better on the scoreboard when it comes to ethics one can think at few things other than knives
1 Like
I can’t think of one, really.
When I see a Zealot with an Evi, CA, Heavy Sword or Catachan sword I am almost always confident that I am matched with an actual player. When I see a knife, however, it’ the exact opposite.
I know. But making weapons better than others is really the bad move. Or they should have, from the start, limited only to iconic weapons.
I guess sm2 will please you on this.
But actually we have lot of weapons, and I think that the goal is to allow us lot of gameplays.
You want few weapons viable and that we all play with a restricted weapons pool, I want that we can play with all of them and that they allow various gameplays.
That’s the only thing that can maintain the replayability of this game.
Your care to “representation” is, in fact, a call to restrict replayability
1 Like
Mate, the flamer was nuked in Patch 7. Where’ve you been? 
1 Like
FatShark does seem to have gone down this path, more power to you, havn’t been always like this though, this trend got exacerbated after patch 13 and it changed the balance of the game dramaticly, and its a damn shame
my mistake i can’t remember every detail, it was the same patch that nerfed power sword
still i’ve enjoyed my time with flamer back then, i used to play zealot more, flamer and thunder hammer every game
nothing stops you to play with underling weapons at max difficulty, its what made the game fun for me and many other players challenging themselves, it’s what makes every great game great
your and Fatshark sense of balance is the same that Helldivers devs has, which is what kills the game by normalizing every build as if we were playing league of legends
if you make every build perform the same at the max levels, you take away the value of working on a build and crafting your weapons because any casual with less knowledge of the game can do the same as you and be just as fine
Of course something forbids it. It is called “players”.
When you take a weak weapon, or a bad build, you’re a spectator.
And guess what… I do not play darktide to run a walking simulator with a spectator mode.
That’s why balance exists, to address that.
As an example, yesterday did an auric game cause wanted to play a specific map that was just there. Took a bad build that i was testing. The team had 2 zorona revolver player, and the last a kickback.
Guess what… I have just played as spectator. Any time i was aiming something, it was killed faster than I could (instant kill > need to hit with several bullets).
So, what you say is a non sense. As noone wants to play with an handicap but also… cause others that use OP weapons will forbid you to play.
Who said performing the same? I have never advocated for that.
I want different gameplays but no gameplay above an other one. All weapons should be viable
1 Like
see this is why people attacks zealot mains, the main character syndrom and their ego, you can be just be as helpfull at completing a mission (if not more) if you are an objective centric player that don’t push it for the scoreboard or keeping yourself and them alive with abilities
i bet you wouldn’t mind about Voice of Command staying as it is, the most powerful and trivializing ability of the game, just overshadowed by your focus on the scoreboard
if i want to make 1 million damage for the scoreboard i go exe stance, but even then i would feel more useless to the team (and doing more unnecessary work, plus risking to loose the mission if it takes a wrong turn) than just going with voice of command and baby sit them to the end of the mission
First, I was on the veteran…
But tell me you take weak weapons and tell me that you love a game where you can kill only what all others have not seen. Tell me that…
I bet that you did not read the discussion about that. VoC is the stronger ability of the vet.
Read again what I said.
I don’t think it is worth discussing with you if you just deform what we say
On the same path, you just want to maintain stronger weapons to be able to say others that they have a skill issue.
1 Like
I wouldn’t go so far as saying that using a non-meta build, or over-specializing in a single domain makes you a spectator ; people are allowed to just have fun. But this is a PvE horde game. The first priorities everyone should have is
- Kill things as quickly as possible,
- Stay alive. And being good at 1. helps a lot with 2.
(and these things are easier to achieve when you pay attention to your team, which is why rushing-Loner Knife Zealots have a bad rep. The problem is not the Knife’s high mobility ! You can get similar mobility levels with pistols etc.)
If you’re bad at killings things, à-la IronBreaker in VT2, it usually means your teammates have to pick up your slack.
“Playing the objective” is not something you do very often in Darktide. 80% of the time, you gotta push forward. That means killing things. And in any case, during events you hardly ever have more than 1 person taking care of scanning, carrying stuff etc. because the other 3 are too busy protecting them, meaning killing things.
1 Like
I’d personally prefer to see the current versions of the knife DELETED, and replaced with more lore accurate, logical designs.
The current knife drew inspiration from Counter Strike, giving “move tech” and stylish flicks over the fingers etc, its supposed to be cooooool.
In reality, for me, its f***ing cringe.
My advise, make the knife into a bayonet, give it powerful crit lunges, some wide swings. Way less mobility, than current.
Idk, figure it out FS, you got us in this mess.
2 Likes
my stance is for meritocracy over equity among weapons, and for players not being compelled by norms when experimenting with the videogame
game would then reward or penalize players according to the builds and weapons they choose on the higher difficulties creating a good argument for those who calls for increase difficulty and tell them to play with less performing gear if game is boring to them
Thats replayability in a nutshell
(and i can’t stress enough that all this was pretty much the case during the beta of this game where most of us bought the game)
not to mention there was a sense of progression when you would level up your character for the first time, making you unlock new weapons that were alegedly better than the previous ones
but after 2 years of overbalancing what do we have? lasgun mg1a, rasheed, laspistol and kickback on top of the meta, 4 of the corrispective starting weapons
i hate nerfs as much as the next casual, and i’m fine having overpowered options but if it comes to that they better be the right ones, not battered down revolvers and 1d5 knives
meritocracy… you mean elitism? or “play with OP weapons or you’re worthless”.
You just want to restrict gameplays cause you want that only iconic weapons have a place in this game.
But then, they should not have spent one minute on all other weapons… and let’s push to the end, they should not have made this game about rejects working for the inquisition but should have put us in a space marine.
You will get what you’re looking for, in sm2.
And there is no merit in using an OP weapons and have better results (= killing more enemies).
Noone has called for equity, but a lot of us call for balance. My opinion is that when a weapon is above all others and can forbid others to take a part in the game, then there is a balance problem.
well, we clearly disagree. You want that iconic weapons would be better and so that it should be the obvious choice (if not the only one), I want that we can use any weapon.
You want builds that are better than others… Let’s say it, it will always be that, as with a complex talent tree there will always be combinations better than others. But still, I don’t want to see stronger talents than others, and that, here again, there is balance. No talent should be more useful than an other one. You should be able to use all of them, and not have to avoid one or have the feeling that this node is just one point lost.
We will, again, not agree.
In my opinion, this game has 29 levels unneeded. But, as the progression is enough fast, this is not something that annoyed me enough to mention it.
But fast progression means that there is no need to create a lot of weapons just to use them only during the “progression” of your char. How much time to get to level 30? 3 to 4 days max. If these weapons would only be useful here, then they should not even have introduced them at all. It would just have been time lost to spend so many hours to implement so many weapons just to use them during few hours…
you did not quote the zorona, plasma gun, power sword?
I agree about combat axe that is very strong. Not sure if it needs a nerf or other weapons need a sort of buff, but still combat axes are in the stronger weapons.
the problem is not that. You can still have build that are helpful, and I play also them. The problem is when with the same build, when you use one weapon and deal 2 times the dps of an other similar weapon, there is something wrong.
But, as you don’t care of balance, no need to develop.
2 Likes
you are doing elitism when scolding people for playing the best weapons, its what the word means
i know there used to be people who scolded others for not bringing the best weapon in high level games and they were wrong to do so aswell, that used to happens in the beta when there was disparity amongst weapons
(i remember a time when someone just quit after complaining that i brought laspistol in chat back in beta days)
i want that, disparity amongst weapons, its what adds variety to the game for me
the meritocracy part is that the game should not reward you for bringing a knife to a gun fight (no pun intended)
what i hate about your discorse more than your take on balance is that you compell people to behave according to your ideas, ‘‘not using op weapons’’ in your case, but i would make the same case if you would have told them ‘‘to use op weapons’’
i do not like people, that is not what i’m doing here
Knife is fine if movetech is removed entirely, which it should be. All abuse cases stem from the mobility enabling players to ignore all game mechanics and kite hordes/bosses for free.
1 Like
Must be cause I am french, or maybe you don’t want to understand. I tend to think this is the second.
I never said that… I just say that you cannot play with a weak weapon when there is a skilled played that use an OP weapon. And so, this justifies or a buff of the weak weapon, or a nerf. If you have to buff all others weapons, then obviously this weapon needs a nerf. If you have to nerf all others weapons, then you should just buff this weapon.
And buff / nerf is not only damages (this is obvious, but as you deform everything I say, I prefer saying it). You can buff a weapon by a lot of ways (example: the change that has put close range at 12.5 meters instead of 8. It buffed a lot brautos and also IAG, something I advocated to not go this way)…
Once again (I have said a lot of time, but as again you faint to not understand…) I don’t want that all weapons look the same… I want all of them have a place and be different.
That’s not here where we differ. This is by the fact you feel like this knife should be bad… and that’s normal.
But who would take it then? if nobody can or will use it, then this is one less weapon you can use, and so less different gameplays.
This is not players that I point, it is obvious that normal player will always pick what is stronger.
What I don’t like is that it takes 8 to 12 months for Fatshark to balance something too strong. See who I consider that need to act…
If you read a little more, I perfectly know that the community won’t change players, and that’s why there is balance patch.
Now, feel free to answer, I won’t answer. The discussion is totally pointless… we don’t talk about the same. If they want to remove a lot of the game, they should follow the path you propose… if not they should try to balance the game.
And if you try to balance the game, you have to pay attention to other weapons. And instead of feelings, I have provided datas why the proposition of the OP cannot be applied. This would lead to nerf like 68% of the weapons and not sure it would help…
See this Zealots and Knifes - #84 by Ralendil
And see this: Knife and how to balance it - #20 by Ralendil
I think I have documented my points… instead of this:
EDIT: To be sure you will get it, feel free to answer… I won’t answer you. As you often seem to not understand what I say, I prefer saying it again.
1 Like
I hate the “bolt weapons are weak agenda”, they are totally fine, they are the only guns I run in Duos. The only thing they need fixed is the ADS jank.
2 Likes