I guess that's the way things go, units which are commonly used get point increases regardless of external balance. TB have great stats for their cost, probably the best in the game but are very slow and immobile. Most people in charge of 9th seem to think units which have the same stats do not need to be priced the same in different books, I have no idea why and I have spent the lats few days contemplating why but the reason still eludes me. This idea of units with the same effectiveness costing differently is like the anathema to external balance. I'm trying so hard to try and fathom how the same unit can have a different playstyle in different armies. I don't even know the definition of playstyle and I have been playing this for ages, the idea of playstyle is very wierd and too flexible to actually define or try to create. Then on the other hand command groups, magic level upgrades and items cost the same between books somehow. The 9th team have a vision and this vision has brought us a great game, however I will continue to abuse it's shortcomings in competitivene events.Talking about our wood friends:
Are TB and treeman a little bit expensive for that atributes? Compared with another monsters or monstruos infantery...
Appart from everyone with pyro banners or able to take alchemy...
TB are 20 points more expensive than one year ago
The objectif of external balance is that each army has about 50% winrate. The process in charge of achieving it is mostly automatic and data driven, to achieve it without biais.
Now take an extreme example. Suppose army 1 has access to zombies, and a necromancer Lord that gives +2 attacks and 6 os/DS to zombies he joins.That's very strong.
Now army 2 has access to the exact same zombies but not the necromancer lord and army 3 has access to the necromancer and not the zombies. (Of course it would make no sense from a game design pov, but it's to give a clear example).
Now in order to stay balanced, of course units of army 1 should cost a lot because it is really strong. If you charge the premium on zombies then army and decide to price zombies of army 2 the same, then army two won't have a chance against army 1. The same is true with army 3 if you charge the premium on the necromancer.
This proves there exists situations where achieving balance is not compatible with charging similar units the same price. The example is not natural but it would work the same with implicit synergies rather than explicit synergies. For example with engineers in an army with catapults, canons, balistes or in an army with only balists. Same entries but better synergies.
Anyway the point is to explain why uneven pricing across armies is compatible with balancing.
The most important point is : The process is algorithmic and data driven. Nobody really choses the price of a unit, except in the first iteration. And it happens that this process leads to uneven pricing for similar units.
If you think it's abnormal, then please explain why the process is flawed or inconsistent and why uneven pricing is incompatible with balancing. That's onto you
ID LAB Coordinator
The post was edited 1 time, last by Serwyn ().