Has GW been nerfed?

I'm noticing a lot of crappy roles. I haven't played in 5 months and I'm seeing 5 marines fail against 5 militia, with 2 militia remaining.

Have rolls changed, or maybe marines specifically? Why am I consistently seeing small failures in GW that do not add up?

Didn't got nerfed...


in fact, it got boosted...

Geschrieben von clovis1122, 17.01.2016 at 21:36

Didn't got nerfed...


in fact, it got boosted...

what was the boost / where's the update thread for it? would you mind posting it please

GW is probably one of the strongest strats around right now, but that gets countered by its inconsistency with rolls, which gw has always had

Geschrieben von Dbacks, 17.01.2016 at 21:53

GW is probably one of the strongest strats around right now, but that gets countered by its inconsistency with rolls, which gw has always had

the inconsistent rolls are across the board, its why i made this thread.

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=23443

Geschrieben von Permamuted, 17.01.2016 at 22:24

Geschrieben von Dbacks, 17.01.2016 at 21:53

GW is probably one of the strongest strats around right now, but that gets countered by its inconsistency with rolls, which gw has always had

the inconsistent rolls are across the board, its why i made this thread.

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=23443

I mean it more in the way that the accepted X marines kill X something else is riskier than with most strats

Geschrieben von Dbacks, 17.01.2016 at 23:13

Geschrieben von Permamuted, 17.01.2016 at 22:24

Geschrieben von Dbacks, 17.01.2016 at 21:53

GW is probably one of the strongest strats around right now, but that gets countered by its inconsistency with rolls, which gw has always had

the inconsistent rolls are across the board, its why i made this thread.

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=23443

I mean it more in the way that the accepted X marines kill X something else is riskier than with most strats

This is exactly right in my experience^ Probably just a flaw in reasoning because of bias, but marines do seem to have "bad rolls" more frequently than say PD inf, or RA tanks.

Geschrieben von Prometheus, 18.01.2016 at 11:41

but marines do seem to have "bad rolls" more frequently than say PD inf, or RA tanks.

That's the idea.

Geschrieben von clovis1122, 18.01.2016 at 12:01

Geschrieben von Prometheus, 18.01.2016 at 11:41

but marines do seem to have "bad rolls" more frequently than say PD inf, or RA tanks.

That's the idea.

What do you mean exactly? Are you saying marines intentionally have a larger "dice roll swing"? That would be interesting if they were designed to have a greater chance factor than Inf or tanks.

Marines should have the same rolls as say imp/pd tanks. The level of variance shouldnt be different, in fact it should be better since theyve slightly more crit from the lucky marines upgrade. I've never noticed anything different. and ive never seen 5 marines fail against 5 militia, 2 marines against 2 militia yes.

Geschrieben von Prometheus, 18.01.2016 at 13:24

What do you mean exactly? Are you saying marines intentionally have a larger "dice roll swing"? That would be interesting if they were designed to have a greater chance factor than Inf or tanks.

Not that, but marines usually have 7 attack compared to tanks which have 8. With infantries you would usually send more than the neutral militias.

Failing a 5vs5 marines vs militias isn't as strange as the first post says. Rather than bad rolls, I would call it miscalculation.