MMH5.5 - Heroes of Might and Magic 5.5

I think we can close this topic because after this change we have to improve all other Might trees to make them as competitive as Combat and we do not want that.

There is an option to slightly reduce the hero's direct attack, if that's what you want.

So if Might and Balanced will be more similar while the heroes inside the classes are a bit more different, aren't we back to the same state?

No, because the differences between them are already significant, but there are no differences between the classes within each group. Ideally, at least 3 out of 9 available skills should be different. Or at least bring it up to 2 in those classes that differed in 0 or 1 skill.

Because it is Might and Magic, you either fight or cast magic. The only way this is possible for knowledge is through the Artificier skill and as an aid to the Magic heroes late game. All other factions utilize knowledge in their secondary heroes for more resources and creature growth.

If magic is expensive enough (high-level spells), there will be no problems with how knowledge will work in a prolonged game. However, I wrote about this.
Currently, it turns out that the parameter is incomplete, i.e., "economic" (Might heroes have a lot of attack or defense, Magic heroes have a lot of magic - all).

Exactly! It does not cancel it but you get the -1 moral penalty.

This is not significant as a difference. It's just -1 to morale. Especially for magic classes.

Both heroes have an army where Might has a stronger one due to passive effects from skills while Magic has a weaker army and compensates with magic. The most important thing here is that the success of both players depends on the tactical maneuvers on the battlefield.

If magic is too weak, then yes, even against magic classes, defense will work well. The question is whether it should be done this way.

The point is that before, I also thought that attack + defense were rigidly connected and it was always beneficial to upgrade them together, as well as magic + knowledge. Like, one enhances the army, the other enhances the hero. But multiplayer experience convinced me otherwise.

If I take a warrior and upgrade his defense because it's cool, it generally strengthens the troops, but then a mage comes along who kills with magic - I end up at a significant disadvantage because defense becomes irrelevant.

On the other hand, a mage - it would seem - doesn't need to upgrade defense, he plays with magic, why should he strengthen his troops? But in practice, when a combatant with good attack comes against you, defense allows you to buy time in the arms race (strength versus magic). Thus, defense actually synergizes with magic just as well as attack does with a warrior.

Even in a match between a combatant and a combatant, if one focuses on defense and the other on knowledge (casting Light-Dark spells), do you think the advantage will be with the one who upgraded just Might-defense? Not at all. Defense allows you to buy time and generally exchange blows well, but only until the opponent casts full buffs and/or removes your buffs.

By the way, a very important note about Light-Dark buffs. Since you made the reduction not 0.5, but 0.1 (or 0.0), the game with buffs has significantly weakened, and it is necessary to think about strengthening their effects, while raising prices. Just so that classes with low 10-15% knowledge cannot afford too many buffs in battle, ideally 2-3 at most (if they haven't specifically upgraded knowledge). Prices need to be raised because of the fact that in the buff race, the mana consumption per round has decreased by half due to the 2 times fewer buffs, and heroes with low knowledge gain an unfair advantage, competing with those who sit on buffs with high knowledge. With the old (0.5) rate, mana can run out quite quickly, but with the 0.1 rate, it no longer does (if you don't raise prices).

Buff = casting Buffs / Debuffs

Thus, you need to think carefully about what to upgrade against an opponent. Attack - if we kill primarily with troops. Defense - if we are afraid that he will kill us primarily with troops. Magic - if we kill with magic. Knowledge - if we plan to outplay the opponent in magic in a prolonged battle (either with Light-Dark buffs, or with the support of magic).

That is, defense is not a universally useful parameter for a warrior. For a warrior, the only definitely useful parameter is attack. Defense is not tied to either a warrior or a mage - it is a parameter that is effective specifically against a warrior (as a warrior against a warrior, and a mage against a warrior). Therefore, I do not see any need for every Might class with 45% attack to have 30% defense. It may not work, in different situations 30% magic or knowledge may work better (although with magic it will no longer be a Might class).

Actually, I don't have much experience playing specifically in your modification. I analyze a lot, but I don't play as often. But there is experience playing in the original Heroes, as well as on a special tactical arena (upgrades + battles between heroes). Therefore, everything I tell you about parameters corresponds specifically to my experience and the original game. In your balance, this may not work as well, but in this case, it turns out to be a flaw in the balance, if before all 6 combinations of parameters were played (not in theory, but in practice), and now only 2 are played (Might or Magic).
Although you also have 1 good class with a focus on attack + magic (total 70%) - Assassin. I would like to see more such classes, with clearly defined key parameters, different from just Might or just Magic. That is, the interest of the Assassin is not in the fact that he is Balanced (attack + defense = 50%), but in the fact that he has (attack + magic = 70%).