MMH5.5 - Heroes of Might and Magic 5.5

Yes, this is usually correct if you stick to conservatism. But sometimes this approach has serious drawbacks if the ability is weakened too much.

This is valid for everything ;P.

Not always.
Example 1: a dancer can use defense and get approximately the same bonus while staying in place.
Example 2: if the dancer is standing next to an attack target with Armored (heavy class), then the choice is whether to attack from the spot (100% damage) or attack while running around, activating agility, but dealing only 50% damage.
Example 3: you can run less, but avoid the attack of certain enemy units (compared to a greedy run). The same is true for Knights.
I forgot that the defense command is very strong.

NargottFrom my point of view, in terms of combat, there is no difference whether there are 5, 10 champions or 100. They deal the same percentage of damage, with scalable troops.

I agree but in WGE you have a predefined time frame for meeting with your opponent (~ 6 weeks) this means the army size is predefined on both ends.
When the game stretches for 3 or 6 or 9 months there is difference when compared to killing units with Might versus Magic hero.
This is what we try to achieve actually - having similar output over as much time as possible. When time is a factor things get messy.
Here I can refer again to Starcraft Broodwar where on theory zealots are way stronger than marines but on practice the ability to manage the unit through period of time (micro) and the clunky engine (not being able to make good surrounds with many units) somehow adjust the game balance.

Also all numbers regarding Champs are great and I already advised Magno to do some tests add fixes for next release :).

You see, the fundamental difference is that you measure abilities around damage spells and absolute losses, so a small percentage doesn't seem insignificant when the "meat" grows.
I measure abilities in relative terms, how many percent more "meat" allows you to kill or save. Therefore, for me, the moment when an insignificant ability suddenly starts to play out somewhere in the late game never comes. Everything is relative.

P.S. In short, each time you weaken something, I advise you to ask the following questions:
1) is it interesting to play with it with the new numbers, can tactics be built around it, or is it not worth it?
2) is it interesting to counter it, or does it not deserve attention?
3) is the effectiveness of the ability dependent enough on the player's actions? compare with an equivalent passive bonus to parameters, instead of this ability
4) is the ability attractive enough compared to others?

Thank you for these questions :). We actually use them with one difference. We do not ask them for abilities but instead for creature upgrades.
For example this is why one of the titans is melee and throws lightings (which are actually physical damage but Nival messed up).
Same goes for Haven Inquisitor vs Zealot changes; Seraph vs Archangel; Wraith vs Banshee changes and so on.

This also answers the relativity question. Agility is weak because the unit itself is strong. If we boost the "Agility" we will have to reduce the creature itself.
Ok. I think I have an idea of what we can do. We can set "Wind dancer" base defense to 0 and set agility to +2 or +3? Not sure if it wont become stronger that its counterpart on practice but it will definitely add tactical variation