New tactical FPS Wardogs has been out in early access for just over a week, and players the world over have been putting it through its paces. The uber-popular game has garnered a community that's already several hundred thousand strong, and they're finding the weak points, like a balancing problem where if you're on a certain side, you're practically destined to fail.
For context, the standard Wardogs format involves three teams of 33 players vying for control over a patch of land. It's a mix of battle royale and king of the hill, with each team assigned a color: red, green, or blue.
Anecdotal evidence points to losing streaks for all of them, leading to the boss of developer Bulkhead to point out who's the ultimate loser and acknowledge this is a problem being looked at. "We definitely have a balancing issue," John Brammer, Bulkhead's CEO, says on Twitter in response to a claim that red wins disproportionately.
We definitely have a balancing issue, But it's green team who win most of the time, green and red are fairly even.. and that's been the same way since pre-alpha. But blue getting destroyed is definitely a problem with mixed reasons.September 17, 2026
"But it's green team who win most of the time," he adds. "Green and red are fairly even. and that's been the same way since pre-alpha. But blue getting destroyed is definitely a problem with mixed reasons."
The streamer Wynn Gaming found that, during an eight-hour stretch on stream, red was consistently the victorious side. They fielded a couple of theories on how the shooter favors this team, but it seems their experience is counter to what Bulkhead's found.
In reality, nobody should be losing or winning on a predictable basis. These are the kinds of bugbears releases like Wardogs have to gradually confront, and I've little doubt this'll be a recurring problem in the months ahead. Just maybe avoid blue if you can manage it for the time being.
