Basic units limit

I don't think it should depend on the unit type (sparkling/crossbowwolf/golem)

so up to 3 golems in 800 bracket ?

i think that 3 is the sweet spot for everything minus the legendaries, which are obviously unique units.

IMO maybe if each faction would have 12+ units...
now i would rather set (if forced to agree)

at 400ap

5 units for ap cost lower than 30
4 units for cost lower than 50
3 units for cost lower than 100
2 for lower than 200


but it needs whole company management rework


so i still prefere balancing ;P

Yeah, I don't like this idea. In no way will it open the game for more company diversity it will in fact limit the companies to just a few options per race.

The way I'm playing right now is changing my company after every match from a 9 companies builds I have with humans and this is in 250 AP, in 400 AP you have way more options for building company rotations, if you lower the limit of foot soldiers or archers the game will lose part of the core balance.

The zerg building is part of the intended Meta, if you limit the amount of foot soldiers or archers Undeads and Humans won't be able to compete with Wolfs (in my opinion). What we saw 4 or 5 weeks or so ago, were Wolf companies that could play the zerg Meta and they were king of the game, the devs changed them to their intended no-zerg way for a reason, if suddenly Humans and Undeads are forced to play the same very limited numbers of units as Wolfs then Wolfs will be king of the game again.

What I have been thinking for a while is how about a random set of rules in the pre-game window, you see your oppenent's name and race but also the game randomly (from a set of pre-tested scenarios) tells you the limit per unit (not lower than 2 for example) and a limit of units in total (total of 7 or 10 units for example) for the companies, or maybe something like no Casters or no Elites or no Ranged or no Legendaries, the numbers and the rules change randomly and force the players to have a set amount of units builds variations to changed to and build their new army accordingly to the opponent and the random game rules. There was another post suggesting a way to be able to save your companies, that system will work great with this idea.

I think this will be a lot of work for the devs, but could totaly pay off if it adds more variety to the way the game is played right now, there are so many units in this game already and so many combinations that im pretty sure not even 20% of the player base have ever try. As I see it, right now most people try a combination of units for a whole week and thats what they play all week, honestly that way of playing lost the fun for me long ago. If the devs implement my idea, the ranking won't show what company setup is the stronger for that week but the way it is suppose to be, what player is the best at playing the game.

I have been playing this game for 3 Months if not more and I'm sure I haven't play every company possible combination with all the races on all AP brackets.

A question from a newer player - what countered zerg in earlier iterations of the game? I assume it was AoE spells and abilities.
I assume that the current meta is a product of the past patches. If that was the case, could it be that the counter was nerfed to some degree?
I say this because a constant cycle of nerfs might not be the correct choice (promotes laziness and such) - could it be better to un-nerf/buff the old counter a bit instead?

I'm not sure that fix some limit to unit would improve the game.
I think that the metagame if it's well done would promote a various unit composition that could benefit from synergie between unit variety.
It's THE CHALLENGE for the devs to made such a metagame, while using unit limit would just hide the problem.

My honest feeling is that I want the devs to get the balance right as soon as possible and not do anything to lengthen that process. Once we have this, they can start getting new army in the game. I've haven't played in two weeks, partly because I've been busy, but also because I've gotten a little tired of just three factions and the continual minor tweaks here and there. I know it needs balance to work, but lets not lengthen that process. Let's get the balance with these three factions as quick as possible and move on.

This next part is solely my opinion and may be wrong, but I feel the reason there's so much discussion about finding the perfect balance between these three factions, is because there are only three factions - perfect balance will never exist, get it close enough and move on. Maybe zerg is a Lion, Ram things, lets get more factions that don't use it instead of trying to fix those two to be an everything army.

Don't mean to piss anyone off, but this game needs more factions soon.

No more nerfs. I see a pattern already. If you limit base units players will just naturally gravitate to the next best comp. Then shortly after the vicious cycle begins and people start complaining about that. Don't you guys recognize the trend that's been happening. With every nerfs, the number of viable builds drop. Eventually this game would just become a stale match between players using the same comps. What we need to do is introduce enhancements, not nerfs, to counteract OP builds. Create a patching system that promote a healthy ecosystem where plays can build diverse compositions that are all competitive in different ways. I say buff NOT nerf.

Amen to that. p122ab0y has pretty much summed it up. I've seen this same cycle over and over with many of the table top games out there.

The actual fix here is not limits but as a few has pointed out more diversity. More factions or more units in the same points brackets. By giving us choice we actually get to use something beyond just archers.

As a casual Lion player I ended up playing archer because there simply isn't any other variation. Why would I give up an archer for a swordsmen. I could swap in a Lion but I'd never see the same impact.

If you are dead set on limits you are actually going to need to set them on a per unit basis and then slash AP costs across the board.

Many a game has died because limits was they way they tried to balance the next itiration. The games that have been successful have variety.

I don't think limiting players choices is really necessary here. What the current problem is, is that the synergy for lion archers between them and divine favour and valkyries is too darn strong to counter in many games. Ring of ice is no match for 3+ archers + valkyries. So either the archers need to be tweaked so other units seem more appitising or the counters need to be tweaked to make them more worthwhile and discourage overuse of archers. Like say give ring of ice an area of effect around the unit it is cast on. That way it can help mitigate shots by strategically placing other units next to the target of ring of ice. Then theres also certain maps that are particularly brutal when you combine the lion archer with them >.>(psst it's lanevar)

[Jigoku]

EDIT :
We do not believe that nerfing or buffing units will entirely solve the problem.

We would rather find options that are equally important to us, if not more important, than the units balance itself.

For example, a gamemode that would allow different ways to win or lose the match could be a very good start.
Of course, I am not taking this example at random, but I can't comment too much about that for now.
More on that very soon.

That's what i was talking about before. Instead of just more units variety of the maps, game modes would be a great option. I shoudl have been more clear, by adding more game modes, maps you will actually help balance out the units as well since it will dilute the match ups where certain lists just dominate. The variety also cause you to have to play multiple lists a bonus for you guys.

I would suggest adding in scenario maps. Defend this tower, transport this wagon, spring the ambush. If the player doesn't know which side of the scenario they are playing they will play optimised units. Give them the option to know what side they will be playing and we can tailor a list thus leading to more strategy and challenge.

What further adds here is that you feel llike your company is doing more. You could tie it in to the mail events.