Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Confirmation Bias (TM)
It's a lack-of-information bias.
Once the wildlife has been unleashed (i.e a member of their pack has been hit, even by overwatch), they will attack anyone.
However they don't exactly attack mindlessly. While it's a bit more complicated, overall the AI will try to maximize the damage.
If you play Orks against SM, most of the time the wildlife will prefer attacking you because of your lower armor, for example.
Depending on your factions and units you use, it's definitely possible to rightfully feel like wildlife and enemies team up.
Thanks. I barely ever play Orks, might be related to my perception of it being fair.
To explain my position, players typically weigh situations that went against them more heavily. I say typically because I've seen it happen frequently where I knew for a fact how something worked because I had the source code, while players saw imaginary biases against them everywhere, especially if randomness was involved. So one aspect of good game design revolves around avoiding creating the perception that the game is against you even when it objectively is not.