I am waiting for answer from admins what they will do about the situation.
About what situation, Sohva?
They don't play the game to understand that 1 of 2 non-cheating competitive kingdoms has just quit the game.
They think that you are just another raging noob, and they are too busy being "deeply concerned about our problems" and "bringing them to the HQ" to care about a random raging noob 
do you even spend enough money to be important?
Sieging, raiding or attacking does not influence the amount of points gained.
Yeah, you understood it correctly.
Offensive and defencive points are calculated by adding the total crop consumption of troops killed while attacking (off points) or while defending (deff points).
In case of robber hideout only 50% of the points are given.
I think before you quit Sohvapeuhari the last thing you should do is write a comprehensive guide for cheating
You have been fighting cheaters for so many years that you know more about it than any game dev. And you have a nice circle of friends to consult you.
It's not against ToS, they cannot ban you or remove the thread.
I play Roman off, always, been first off several time, 2nd on last Halloween Hunt.
I don't know what are you trying to change and what is your project.
You know I could just write "go read the initial post" because both you and me know that you did not read it 
But what the hell, i like you, Drugs, so lets go:
1. The goal of this project is to prove that in terms of defensive power, x3 speed is imbalanced for some tribes. Most heavily - for romans and their Praetorians.
2. Good thing that you mentioned that you play off. Because the problems i raise are only applicable for deff player.
Why? -Because deff players care ONLY about defence/ress of a unit. Training time is irrelevant, because if we have more ress - we build troops in more villages. if we have less ress - we utilise smaller baracks level.
This is completely opposite to off players, who do not care about the troop power/ress and instead care only about power/time.
Theoretically the "right" answer would be to increase the crop consumption to also be 3x.
But many players enjoy the easiness of managing larger armies, meaning it would be very hard to change that.
Thank you for your insight. What would you think about a resource discount for slower, more expensive troops? Even something like reducing praetorian cost by 5 wood + 5 iron would mean that it breaks even with phalanx at around day 30, which is similar to X1 standards.
BridgetB
Any progress? Idea dismissed or were there any discussions?
I spent quite a lot of time to get this data. Would rather someone at least tell me that "This was rejected" instead of waiting for this thread to die
CUrrently I have a 15c and no other villages after destroying spawn. Should I put res in palace and settlers to spawn a second village and then capital, or should I put res in getting pop to 500 to make city?
You have only 1 village, therefore it is already your capital.
You can build palace or residence in this village at this point, it does not matter.
What matters is that you rush this capital village to 500 pop as soon as possible and upgrade it to city to reap in the insane bonus
Usually 500 pop is reached after getting lvl 12 ressfields + lvl 12 cropfields, unless you're a king. If you are, then you might rush it with lvl 12 ressfields + lvl 10 cropfields by building random buildings.
Before I begin, I would like to comment a few notes from fellow players.
Limit Menhir only from 6-444 to 6-444, and keep all the fields. (No resource to farm)
This would mean that quicksettle is impossible. Or, at least, it will take longer. And what are the benefits of such an idea?
5 > Camps can only be taken with hero and attack.
This demotivates active players. We (LITA) want our top players to get as much camps as possible. And if someone who logs in 2 times per day cries about getting no camps - well we simply don't want him getting any camps
So please leave this decision to the kingdom, we will take care of it. no need to enforce any stupid rules on us.
My own wishes:
1. Harsher punishments for cheating and clarity in punishments. I don't want to hear about client privacy. If you are allowed to display "The player has been banned", I'm sure you can add "Multihunter has found this player to be doing X violation"... or just add "This character has been banned X times: Y times for multiaccount, Z times for script usage" to the avatar description. Let these bans have some value. like Tiitana said, "Criminal history" needed.
2. Rebalance troops for X3 speed. ( RE: Defensive stats balance for troops in X3 speed )
That't it. But I also agree with everything th0mm said except his #5. Seems like this guy spent the most time actually thinking about this.
Good point, Cool and Crazy#EN ! Having that in mind I will actually respond instead of ignoring Unknown and challenging his sanity
I failed to fully understand how the "population destroyed" statistic would work.
I as well am weary of what it would mean for smaller/newer players if suddenly accepting them to bigger kingdoms in order to destroy them would give some type of bonus/nice statistic that some players would try to achieve...
1. We can just as well destroy small players without inviting them to big kingdoms to give us "some type of nice statistic" whatever the f that means.
2. Having in mind what you said, we should actually remove "Top Attacker" statistics, because some bigger kingdoms might kills smaller player troops for "some type of nice statistic".
3. We should also remove "Robbers of the week" statistic, because some big players might attack smaller players for loot to get "Some type of nice statistic".
Did I understand your concerns correctly Unknown ?
I failed to fully understand how the "population destroyed" statistic would work.
Also, to add to the original topic, I could help you understand that there are 2 ways how to make this calculation:
1. (The hard way): Player X attacks with his army targeting buildings A (level 15) and B (Level 20). If he has enough catapults + troops to destroy them IF THERE WAS NO DEFENCE, but defenders sent some troops and reduced damage to make buildings A (become level 5) and B (Become level 15), the Defenders get: 5 (A levels saved) + 15 (B levels saved) = 20 SAVED BUILDINGS points.
Attacker gets: 10 (A levels destroyed) + 5 (B levels destroyed) = 15 DESTROYED BUILDINGS points.
Since I know this would require full day of coding, which is impossible to expect, I will give you the easy way:
2. (The easy way): Just add 2 sections in statistics, called "Siege units lost as attacker" and "Siege units defended from" where catapult = 2 points, ram = 1 point. I hope I do not need to further explain.
I believe that was the initial proposal. Correct leo#EN(19) ?
And what about the initial idea of leo#EN(19) ? I think that idea is brilliant.
But why is there no response about it Unknown ? Are you planning to ignore it before it gets forgotten meanwhile cherry-picking some easier ideas from random comments, like Iribuya's?
Just give us a clear answer:
A) Leo's idea will be implemented in an unspecified amount of time.
B) Leo's idea is rejected.
Wtf is this ignore mentality? I was personally offended by same thing in different thread where I made 3 days research about troop defensive stats and the result was a "haha" reaction. Wtf does that even mean?
pasted-from-clipboard.png
Anderaos No, it does not
Each tribe is different, that is the idea, one can choose one or the other for different reasons, depending what one wants to do in the gameworld that is about to start.
So it is logical that a tribe is better at defensive units, another one at offensive and another one at infrastructure... what would be the gain on making them all equal in all things?
In my opinion it would make choosing one or the other almost based on looks if we make all of them equal... isn't it?
Thank you for the reply Unknown . You are absolutely right, each tribe has to be different.
But I have to once again remind that this thread is NOT about tribe imbalance.
It is about the imbalance of troop stats in X3 speed. We have to realise that same troop behaves differently in X1 speed and X3 speed.
Travian have made romans to be slow and efficient, but because in x3 speed servers crop consumption is only x1, romans become just slow... and never efficient
2. The workshop-bonus influence will change with the kind of server and number of players it has. On national Servers its already hard enough to defend a Wonder against single, strong attackers, if you dont have a deff-focused Kingdom. If a single acc, can be even more of a threat for Wonders, you will have more deff focus on small worlds, making those even more boring.
Very nice point about single hammers having much more influence on smaller servers.
However, even by adding +10% off strength the single hammer will be able to destroy more levels of WW, because the total attacking strength is VERY important when you calculate catapult damage.
But don't you think that +10% deff that this system is adding will be good enough to counter it?
Maybe the solution would be to add more deff bonus then? Pilgerfuchs
Looks like this thread has gone down to abyss without being noticed.
But now that the Travian team is already implementing changes to game mechanics, maybe we could talk about this one aswell?
BridgetB
Please have in mind that this all could be changed by something as simple as lowering the cost of slow and efficient deff units by 5-15 ress each.
well, I just wanted to say that in our team we have way more good players that COULD use the full potential of a good 15c. And we need more of those 15c's than the initial 6 treasuries allow us to have.
And it will clearly be a problem for us, and for any other big kingdom as well.
Can we at least agree on that?
And as a result, it will buff the performance of smaller kingdoms, which we really really support.
Contact me in PM if you wish, I will share some numbers of our ongoing server (COM3x3 kingdom LIHKG), and you will see the power distribution is nowhere near the (20% players have 80% power) distribution
In a well established kingdoms numbers look differently.
FInally, someone with some sense of rationality.
20% of players posses 80% of server-firepower.
The top kingdoms are already well refined and the distribution inside a kingdom becomes neither gaussian nor pareto, but a filtered variant of pareto. So the skill gap is not so big that 20% of players have 80% of firepower. Really, I've played enough highly competitive servers against Ottomans, OCG, Doom, AK, YIY, Unreal etc...
What you're talking about is purely the statistics of a random server with no premade teams.
if Im already gold user, I dont care that much about having perfect 15c as main, or shitty 4-4-4 as main, simply because I will be NPC-ing the whole time one way or another
And I am very sorry to say, but this clearly indicates that you have never played with unlimited gold and 15c 
The difference in early game economy between 6c and 15c capital can be around 300% at day 3 of the server, because croplands have much much better economy of resource gain/resource invested.
Having said those 2 things, In a highly competitive server with big kingdoms of refined professional players this new changes will be a hard hit for such kingdoms, while also being a buff to smaller kingdoms with less gold users.
Where did they mention you must have a village inside borders to get fealty point?
Afaik being inside kingdom doesn't mean you must be inside borders.
If so, players can Menhir inside the main kingdom, settle a cropper, and destroy their start village for others to Menhir again.
BridgetB Please clear this: Is it required to be inside borders for earning fealty points? or having kingdom is enough?
Well if your capital is outside the borders, it means you get no oases and not able to sell stolen goods or contest camps, even if you are technically part of the kingdom AND get the Fealty bonus. In other words, you're still f*cked.
LovëGood leo#EN(19)
Let's discuss this.
This change implements that the highest bonus will be gained for players who stay with their kingdom as long as possible. So one premade kingdom with a plan to unite will consist of 3 starting treasuries in each kingdom, so 6 treasuries total for a team.
6 Treasuries can realistically cover ~4-6 (15 crop) fields and ~4-6 (9crop) fields, out of which only 4-5 will be high quality (>100% oasis bonus). So 5 gold-using members can play to their full potential.
If you have more than 5 gold users in your team, they will need to:
A) Play inside the kingdom but with shitty field for their capital;
B) Play inside another (or his own) kingdom, but later lose 10% power when switching to main kingdom.
If we take a real example, the team I represent - LIHKG, which has 100+ members, I can state that 70% of our players will not be able to play with high quality croppers or we will lose 10% bonus.
So I must conclude that this system IN NO WAY supports huge META kingdom, on the contrary, it makes choices very hard for 70%+ players of META kingdoms. And it seems to me the most optimal way to utilize 100% of this bonus is to play with 20-30 people kingdoms, which would have ~5 heavy gold users and the rest would be casuals. If a kingdom has any more members this system starts getting exponentially worse for that kingdom.
Seems like a sneaky way to pay make the game even more pay to win. Have plus players reach the highest tier bonus twice as fast. This included the 10% strenght in def and attack.
Sad to see the big and exiciting news is not something to make the game actually better.
iribuya I think you missed the point that even if you have gold enabled 24/7 for the whole server you still get ONLY 1 % INCREASE when compared to Free to Play.
