Posts by ÜksikHunt#COM

    It seems that any offensive troop movement over 2-3 hours appears too long for many players now, and few understand or wish to learn how to adequately fake opponents so defending has become much easier and simpler (and not just in TK). Skill has become far less important than luck. In other words, the answer is to develop and use the skills needed to successfully attack opponents at a distance in concert with team mates.

    This is not a problem the game designers can address - as the fault lies not with the game but with the players.

    Daaarn Daniel, back at it again with the white vans. Still playing the same old blame game. Many active players quit when the game changed. The game did not change because of the players where changing. At least not when T3.6 and T4 first came out. Then you saw first big surge of active players leaving. One could very well argue that the players you see right now have always been there. Even pre-T4 days. Difference is that before you could see proactive players.

    As the game evolved from T3 to various T4 versions, the players experienced changes also. New game mechanics made it easier to defend against attackers, which lead to active players either quitting or adapting to new style of play where they focus less on daily attacks and more on simming and hammer building.

    If the game model promotes hugging then it is ridiculous to blame players for exactly doing that. If the Travian would implement a rule where defenders get 50% defense bonus 5 days out of week, would you still go around blaming the players who would attack during those 2 days that this rule does not apply?

    I find it humorous to think that company would blame its clients for using products what they are intended for. Laying blame solely on players makes no sense. Same goes for laying blame at game developers. I do not blame TG for loss of active players. I simply state that the new mechanics promote more peaceful gaming and therefore you have less aggressions.

    We can complain that the playerbase is declining but there is no reason to believe that this has ever been a problem in the eyes of the company. Company's goal is to keep its profits at certain point, so this will be addressed first. One could argue that TG has addressed many times its profits levels rather than declining playerbase. In that way, those new type of players you complain about may still very well be valuable to TG. While you may have less players, they may still bring in as much or even more money than those who have quit. Those passive players probably make up biggest part of the profit margin also.

    I think I have to side with TG in this case. I don't think that removing all these other servers will significantly improve .COM numbers. People playing there probably have no interest or language capabilities to play in .COM. They also are probably quite aware of king-governor situation and we already saw in closed beta, how much language barrier affects T5 game play. Forcing people to play non-native servers will not make them want to play in .COM - even if you create a multi-language server. They would have bigger incentive if they could easily team up with their fellow countrymen but in T5 that is not so easy.

    By my experience, there is also an issue of lack of interest. I know people who have no interest towards T5 and they haven't even tried it out. I also know people who have played a full server of T5 and have no interest in playing it again. I actually know nobody outside these forums who is interested in T5. And by the looks of it, even those numbers are going down.

    So, the problem is not so much about having a large amount of servers but lack of interest. One thing that TG should do is let people give feedback when they decide to delete their account. It would be useful if even some people would comment in delete box - or something like that - about why they are deleting their account.

    I haven't been active for a long time but by the looks of it at least some T4 domains have not reduced in numbers like they did in years before. So we might be arriving to the plateau. I still doubt there are enough players for both games but as I understand, in the future all these T4 people will have to settle for the 'special' T5 servers.

    In all honesty I do not get why this thread was started. We have seen this before where players give feedback and/or come up with ideas only to be left in the dark, not knowing what TG thinks about it or whether they have even read it. This is one of the reasons why active community that we had in closed beta has diminished. These kind of topics seem to be created by TG only to give people feeling that their opinions matter and do count but not long after community realizes that there is no feedback from the other side and loses interest to the whole process.

    One thing I have never understood is why TG refuses to use valuable resources it has. By bringing up this topic TG could be admitting that they have no idea how to fix the game. So, players share their ideas, but what happens next? TG tries to fix the game again. I think we have already established that TG has not been able to fix the important issues but yet it decides to try to fix things by itself again. The valuable resources I am talking about is the experienced players within the community who have something to give back to the game they had enjoyed in the past. Rather than TG trying to fix the game again, it should use this resource.

    It would be simple a simple task to create a mini-group of experienced players who are able to contribute to the game and interested in doing so. You could set up a private forum where you would have anywhere from 5-10 active members coming up with different ideas. Difference is that TG should be active there also and give their own feedback to those ideas. Nobody is expecting to start arguments or serious discussions with TG staff, but how do you expect players to come up with solutions if you are not saying anything about the ideas that were already put out there before? It would be helpful for any idea if TG simply says that they are not going to consider it or that they may consider it. With an answer of no considerations, it would help players if there is also some explanation to it - whether coding makes it too hard or whatever have you. This in turn would help players to adjust their ideas that would suit better. There is no need from TG side to give too long feedback or arguments, 3-4 simple sentences would be more than enough.

    I also think that TG should realize that it does not have enough players for T5 and T4 games. If T5 is not going to be advertised side-by-side with T4, it will never take off. Then again, dividing its already diminishing player base between two games would be dangerous. It should also be realized that trying to find new players is not the answer with the new game. Gaming industry has really revved up and competition is tough. The time for changes was missed and now TG should put efforts to developing the game around its already existing players. You should create an active game that players who are involved with it daily will want to recommend this game to their friends because it is exiting. As it stands now you could recommend T5 to a friend by saying that it is easy, you do not have to do much, just register as a governor. While we have been fed with lies of improved teamwork, at the same time we have seen how the game has become more and more dull and nothing has been done to change that route.

    This post is not about some particular changes that I would like to see implemented because quite frankly, I and many other do not feel that anything will be done about the issues anyhow. I am sorry to say it but TG has lost the trust of the community because of bad communication methods. I had doubts all along when Kingdoms feature was introduced. I mean, in a perfect world it is a great idea and something interesting but then again, we do not live in the perfect world and real life has shown that this does not sit well with the intentions that the game should have.

    So, to make my post relevant to the topic at hand I will add this paragraph. T5 should be made more similar to T4 because it is yet to be seen whether T4 players will actually ever want to go over to T5 or not. Therefore some steps back should be taken with intentions to replace T4. You do not have to completely remove kingdoms feature from the game but I do believe that all the benefits should be removed - taxes and treasures. Having kings and kingdoms would fare much better if it was simply a method of creating alliances and there would be no long term benefits to it. If governors do not produce treasures, then there is no disadvantage in becoming a king. If there are no serious benefits of being a king, then you will see much smaller kingdoms. You could still have VP system to decide the winner but ideas like rewarding VPs for battle points makes much more sense in that case.

    In short, I do not believe that T5 should by itself be completely different game or even strive to be that. Actually, I think it should be more similar to T4 and fix the main issues that were apparent there. Right now we see TG trying to create a new game without even being able to fix the old one. Perhaps we should fix the old one before we move on to a new one. This is not a call to make T4 better but to make T5 more similar to its predecessors. Think about it, you could have T5 that is very similar to Travian vanilla version BUT you could open up special servers each year to try if new features would make the gaming experience better. For example, lets picture that T5 is exact replica of T4, only it has a new look and new coding. Now the summer or whatever date comes and TG could release special server where besides having all T4 features you will see Kingdoms system implemented. This would be perfect opportunity to test things out rather than build a completely new game mechanics and then try to fix all the issues that arise at the same time.

    I didn't actually mean you as a heavy gold user/whale. Those normally don't complain or if they do, they'll go ridiculous lengths about it without making much sense.

    We actually had a long discussion about how instamerchant+NPC+instabuild is too overpowering combination and many felt that insta-merchant has to go. I guess TG didn't echo these thoughts since whales who play as kings will spend a lot just to instabuild their village overnight and enjoy having a village that is indestructible.

    Taxing NPC for as low as 10% is one of greatest ideas I've seen so far to be honest. I doubt it would make any difference how often people use NPC but it would make gold players less stronger than they are right now. I also don't think many will cry about losing 10% in the process. They gain more with their weekly res bonuses.

    I guess I have to repeat what I've said previously. The less NPC costs the bigger the gap is between free and gold players. The more it costs the smaller the gap. I'm excluding whales.

    I understand that you as a gold player want automatic win for that but even though I am/was a gold player I still value free players' input more.

    Considering where your complaint comes from why not suggest to make NPC free for all? Or perhaps remove that feature altogether. But no, you only want to make gold players even stronger. :)

    Also, why are you crying about NPC cost for WW builders? If you consider the cost too high, don't involve yourself in building a WW. Simple as that. No need to make heavily biased complaints only to fulfill your own needs.

    If TG really reverted it back to 5 then this is positive. Raise it 2 more to make it 7 and things finally become better. I seriously doubt though, there hasn't been any announcement and this is probably a bug.

    It would be more sensible to give numbers what Ointment's selling price is. You can always find people who pay triple the worth.


    This illustrates one of my concerns, the reason I posted in opposition to the change. No one in these forums has defended TG's right and need to make a profit more adamantly than have I - however, this is going a bit too far even for me. Those, like myself, who buy and use gold deserve some advantage in the game in return for their monetary support (which benefits not only TG but all players as well), but non gold users should not be penalized beyond what was basic, and the hero health filling on level up was and should remain basic.

    I have spoken against ideas to make the game more level for non gold users, but this goes in the opposite direction and I am very much against it. Obviously, it will be only gold users who can afford to buy ointments, buckets and other health related hero items at auction - because the cost of all those items will continue to climb and will be impossible for non gold (or even light gold) users to meet by selling items gained in adventures.

    Oh no, people can't handle strategy and planning of hero's adventures so we have to revert back to overly simplistic ways. To be fair, it comes as a no surprise to me people started crying that their hero doesn't gain full health after leveling up. I didn't get why they even introduced the feature in the first place.

    What I also don't get is why people are crying about something that keeps prices up. The Auction House gives non-gold players a chance to compete and any update that keeps prices up will help them. No surprise that whales come in crying after Ointments that they buy become more expensive. Even if heroes lose too much health per adventure I'm sure TG will correct that. You are clearly again making an argument to keep gold players ahead of the others since free players never had any business buying items in the Auction House in the first place.

    You don't feel that players and style of play have anything to do with why there are fewer battles. I hear you, I just don't agree.

    Do you understand why Ammanurt doesn't see it as main reason? Because he is looking for a cause not someone to blame.

    TG has done a lot to get rid of those active members that were into fighting and TG has nourished passive gameplay with each version. New wave system doesn't nourish passive / easy-to-defend gameplay? How about fakes costing more? How about that it's more beneficial to invite nearby enemy into your kingdom than turning him into a farm or killing him? Most of those active players have seen how defending has been made easier with each step of the way and stopped playing. You're left with a lot of passive players who would've been farms in the old days. How can you blame those same passive players who would end up as farms in real fights if they never were capable of doing anything more than being just that? There are always more passive players than hyper-active ones. If you remove active ones it doesn't mean that passive ones become more active.

    It's a true cop out to blame players even though the product itself promotes the gameplay they have chosen. Yes, less fighting has to do with players being more passive. Somehow you fail to ask why are they more passive? It wouldn't surprise me if you'd blame it on genetics like in the world of medicine. When doctors can't find the exact cause of something they take an easy route by blaming bad genes.

    You know why there was more fighting before? Because it was easier to fight. You always had to be on alert - even when you belonged to a meta / huge alliance. Nowadays you just join biggest alliance / kingdom you can find and will never see red swords on your account.

    He said that gold users will not be able to find login button, which I read as they don't know how to play at all.

    I am sorry for the misconception. While I don’t mind how you understood it I need to clarify I meant to reiterate what was said before – that gold users will quit. So they can’t find login button because they feel so hurt and simply have quit the game. I used a lot of wording that left option for loose interpretation but Wonka did point out what I meant. Remember, I’m a gold player also and personally, removing any gold features or adding more will not influence my decision to play or not. Read the title of this thread – anyone who is worried about same thing should not be someone who quits because of losing some feature that actually may help balance the playing field and keep more players in the game. During a server you can easily spot gold and heavy gold users – the bigger the advantage gold users have the more it discourages free players to even try to attack them.

    Of course by average, gold users should be smarter than free players. Actually they have to be. Any smart free player would’ve quit if they can’t or won’t afford buying gold. It is interesting to experiment with a non-gold account but if you’re all out to be your best you are forced to buy to keep up with others. That said, there are numerous examples of gold users that spend big and have small brains. Just because they are spending a lot of gold doesn’t mean they are any smarter. There will always be something like 10 or 20% minority of players who take this game to another level or too seriously. With gold you can be as casual as free players. Even if gold players don’t develop their accounts to the ideal extremes they still get the satisfaction of having advantages and being better through gold over free players.

    Example regarding no insta-build scenario.

    On another (travian) server I had my fields destroyed recently and rebuilding now. Originally, we npced and insta starting level 13, it was early game, so the account was small and we did not have resources to do so more than 2-3 times a day, not too much spending. If insta build did not exist fields would take more time but still will worth it probably. Now however, we have big account and alliance push to rebuild the fields so we have enough resources to build much faster and not much time till the end of server to allow slow build up. If insta build did not exist alliance will not be able to help us rebuild, no way to spend those resources. There is not enough time to bring fields to the original level, leave alone to have them produce enough to pay off and without it we can't support more troops. Constant NPC is more gold than we are spending on insta build. Result - once fields destroyed after mid-game an account would be frozen and frankly, how many will continue in such circumstances?

    Oh god, so you’re actually forced to feel what it is to be a non-gold player? God forbid, no! That said, my main issue is that T5K encourages instant merchant+instant build. I wouldn’t be so against limiting instant-build only to Capitals. It would keep things fair. Also, any other player in similar situation could turn their account into defense only to support their other members and eventually WW village.

    I believe T4 had better balance with instant build and the Auction House. As a free player you could gain in a normal sized server over 100 gold in silver and save it up towards building up your capital and getting high cropfields. See, how not once I have said anything about removing the Auction House or that it is too overpowered? It didn't even disturb me when Artworks and Scrolls were available from the get-go. To me, at least T4 system gave early advantage to gold users but at the same time gave means for free players to catch or keep up with them in the long run. I am skeptic of the new system being able to keep same balance.

    Also, all these things you're insta-building with gold don't really give you the edge that people think it's giving you. If you have so many resources that you can insta-build a city from 0 to 1000...odds are that city isn't really adding to your strength very much.

    Perhaps you should try upgrading your Capital without insta-builder? I wonder how long it takes for you to give in and finish those fields instantly. Although I tend to agree that building times for cropfields have made it a lot easier for free players and use of gold for those is not as much required as in T4. But my case was mainly about kings/dukes using insta-build+instant merchant+NPC combo to buy up their villages. If you don’t see the advantages of that then perhaps in time you’ll see what I’m talking about.

    You can build maces 24-7 (over 800 daily) from the resource production of 2 villages. Which means anybody can get enough raiders to spend 10 gold every week to keep their farm lists available and send out thousands and thousands of maces every hour.

    I'm not saying it's easy, and takes no planning. But it's not impossible for a small or non-gold user to keep up with most gold users. But if the gold users didn't have an edge, I doubt the game would exist. It's really hard to pay people to develop a game with no money.

    You just advocated free players to become gold players. This argument does nothing to non-gold/casual gold/whale balance. It is amusing to see someone advising to buy gold to keep up and then says it’s not too hard to keep up as a free player. Nobody is advocating to remove the edge gold gives you. Question is how big of an edge you should have?

    The game isn't about killing your neighbor, though it is fun, it's about building a WW, or in this case having the most victory points.

    I am glad you understand the new T5K. I have to correct you that it is T5K when you don’t kill your neighbors anymore. Unlike in T4 and in previous versions, in T5K you simply get friendly with them and sim happily ever after together until the end of time. Only few of us raised this problem in Closed Beta. But there is lack of fighting because TG wants you to have less fighting. Hence the reason for new waving system and some other changes that I don't care enough to get in detail to. TG wants people to fight only over Treasures. This is at least how it all looks at the moment.

    Also, your description of ideal playstyle talks a lot about someone who builds hammer whole server only to knock down the WW. It is only one of the playing styles and I just wanted to clarify this for others because not many are into only this.

    Unless there is some advantage to buying gold, who is going to buy it? And if no one buys gold, where is TG's revenue going to come from? Gold is a fact of life, and gold users having some advantage over non-gold users is another. Without both, there would be no Travian.?

    Nobody is talking about removing gold from the game. But the advantage gold gives you through various features should be discussed. Especially if these advantage are getting out of hand. Besides, one of the most wanted features for T5 was something that gives you no advantage.

    TG does not sell advertisements which constantly take up part(s) of the screen and add to the drain on system resources and distract from the game - who among you would rather have 1/4 of your screen filled with advertising?

    I wouldn’t mind if it’s positioned well. T4 had a lot of empty space on the sides and to be honest that is and was annoying. It’s a trade-off I would be willing to take if it meant that more players will be in the game. That being said, ad revenues are not that great these days.

    In reality, gold users support the free game that non gold users play along with us. Without us, there would be no game to play - TG would not have an online game.

    Oh high and mighty we the gold players are. Free players should be our minions since we are the gods! I guess you are amongst the people who would enjoy servers with only 200 players? Because, you know, free players make up most of the player-base. It’s a mix of two that has kept this game alive. I use past tense because currently sinking ship is obvious to everyone. I suspect percentage-wise more free players have left the game than gold players and it should be investigated why is that? I would suspect keeping up with gold players is one of the reasons.

    If you went hungry into a restaurant which served meatloaf and potatoes free but charged a premium price for steaks in order to pay for the free food - would you resent those who ate steak for having a better meal?

    If I was hungry I’d be glad to have any food. Especially since it's free. I guess you’re having one of those first world problems when you start complaining about steak not being well done.

    @ÜksikHunt Nothing you said is in any way an argument that is in the least bit convincing. Almost every gold user I know would leave this game immediately if the insta build was in any way compromised. Honestly the fact that you think this feature is in any way unbalancing shows your complete lack of experience in the game. The rate limiting factor on a x1 server is not time to build, as you assert by asking for removing a button that saves nothing but a bit of time. The limiting factor is resources and will always be resources for non-gold users. The mechanic that is most unbalancing in TK is insta delivery.

    I wasn’t even arguing in the previous post. Unless you were referring to my first/original post in the thread. My main point was about the instant-merchant/insta-build/NPC combo usage. Never once I’ve made a case that insta-builder should be removed from the game. I made a statement that in my view insta-builder has bigger impact than insta-merchant because if you remove insta-builder then I’m not so sure what you can use instant-merchant for. Other than when you desperately need crop to feed some village you’ve filled with defense – like I once did against Wonka. My main argument was about balance between free-gold-whale players.

    In hindsight, I was still coming off from DanielHart’s words when he argued about insta-builder still needed for getting your fields high in Capital. I didn’t bother to argue much as I didn’t care about it at the time and he did provide valid calculations. I didn't bother to check whether it was as sensible to build cropfields as high as people were used to, too. It wasn’t interesting for me to go deep enough but after I ran small calculations now I still believe as I originally did (when I was discussing this with him) that you don’t need insta-builder for your fields like you did in T4. Sure, if you are going too high you’ll need it but the field itself may not pay off in time. So with that being said, I’d say advantage one or the other (insta-builder or instant-merchant) is about equal because it’s the combination of both that is too much. Out of the two it would be easier to remove Instant-Merchant since people hopefully haven’t become too adjusted to it yet.

    I am not advocating to removing anything because I mainly don’t believe TG is into removing any features. Perhaps, if they remove instant-merchant I’ll post about changes that should be made to keep the prices up in the Auction House. While NPC/insta-builder/instant-merchant combo has made whales too strong I’m still more talking about the balance between gold and free players (in the free/gold/whale table). I’m not for any usage limitations of NPC and insta-builder. Increasing the cost of both will by itself limit the usage. At the same time you could keep the habit doing them as often as you like but it would be at higher cost. I guess what I am saying is that current advantages that gold players do get should come at greater expense of their purse.

    I also don’t agree with the statements like TG still has to make money also. Personally, I don’t care whether they increase the cost of gold features or the price of gold. I actually briefly argued in Closed Beta that Travian has become cheaper for players in time. I only didn’t include T5K in that because I hadn’t done enough cost calculations about it and we still don’t know how it’ll look as a finalized product. Private companies mostly are about maximizing their profits. More often than not they want to at least keep their yearly profit margin from year to year and therefore start increasing prices or inventing new methods to get extra money from clients if they fail to make this goal. Unless you can provide numbers that Travian as a product is generating less income than before I find it hard to argue for or against the statement that TG has to make money also. I mostly argue that declining player-base can partly be contributed to differences between gold and non-gold players.

    I would also like TG to implement cheaper gold in certain regions. Meaning that it would be cheaper to buy gold in poorer nations. If you can't transfer gold from one domain to another it wouldn't be a problem. I think they only calculate currency so the cost of gold is about same range throughout but hasn't taken into account the affordability.

    And to keep this thing in topic it is my belief that difference between gold and free players is partly the reason for decline of players which by effect is resulting less fighting than before.

    I've seen people done with lvl 18 fields before WWs were out yet :)

    Just because you can doesn't mean you should. With 100% capital it takes about 94 days for one lvl18 field to pay itself off. With 150% it should be around 77 days. Anyone feel free to correct my quick calculations but point being that if your fields start paying off a week before server ends or perhaps not even that - you'll have hard time justifying your bad investment.

    Just to end with a sentence by Chris Rock

    If you make it so that you cant insta build, all gold players will leave the game. I certainly will. It will make servers completely unplayable and super long. i am not playing a game to sit and twiddle my thumbs. If you want to do that you can play Farmville or Sim City. This would destroy the game.

    You should realize I am a gold player. Although not a whale like you, I still use gold. I guess you have fun playing in servers where there are 1k players or less because your gold has even bigger impact there.

    Reference to Sim City and Farmville will not help you at all. I guess you missed the title in this thread which clearly points that T5k is further step towards Farmville/Sim City due to lack of possible offensive activity.

    But thanks for proving my point that gold players don't want to shorten the gap between free and gold players because you know, without gold a lot of them can't even find the login button.

    I think the only part of pay-to-win I might change would be to restrict insta-build to a few times a day. Maybe 5x in any given town in a day?
    And maybe NPC to maybe 3x per day in any given town.
    (though the NPC restriction would have to go away when the WW are out)
    i think most folks would barely notice ^these -- only the super gold users would.

    Limits like that are not good, like a clear limit on how many governors you can have is not good for the game. Increasing the price per use is much more sensible but nobody wants that because it gives free players chance to keep up with gold players. If you have 10 or 7 gold - whichever developers originally had in mind - per NPC use then even the big whales may stop at some point and rethink whether enormous NPCing makes sense. Gold players will not be driven away because of the price increase - they simply will be doing it less often. This also makes gap between no-gold and gold users smaller.

    Biggest problem with whale/gold/no-gold players in T5k is insta-build and insta-merchant. Insta-merchant makes gold/whale players/kings indestructible. One or the other has to be removed if you want to give regular players any chance. Removing insta-build may even give no-gold king players chance to keep up with others. Right now any whale player can settle a village in your area and it'll reach pop1000 overnight. This of course would require a lot of spending but you don't even need to make it at such a large scale. Ammanurt has a good example of this from his battle with Alb. It was clear example how insta-build + insta-merchant are ruining the game for free players.

    Free players would be much equal with gold users if you remove insta-build feature. There aren't Artifacts anymore and getting your Capital's fields as high as possible is not that necessary anymore. Instant-merhcant is not that big of an advantage without insta-build. You could easily make up this loss with few tweaks to hero's items and implement much wished village buildings reposition. By that I mean for 50 gold you can change the placement of infrastructure buildings inside your village. This would give no advantage to gold users and at the same time was wished by many before T5 Alpha was launched.

    The best suggestion I've seen is for change it to have nothing selected. That way if you do the wrong thing, it is 100% on the player (instead of ~95% :p).

    How about having an option under profile/account settings to set default action type? So you would set raid as default under your profile and it would stay that way. No need to invent some additional 'no action at all' type of button.

    Here's a better idea. Allow players to manually trigger robber hideouts to attack them. This way anvils can clear hideouts in the same rate as hammers.

    And additionally remove all offensive troops. Who needs them anyway since defense becomes even more overpowered.
    To topic - I like the idea by Wonka to increase NPC fighting. I hope you never complained about the increase of NPC fighting before. :)

    I tend to agree with Jallu in the matter that comparing top Kings to top Governors makes me just roll my eyes. You should compare averages and also take into account the latest changes which should have a large impact. Only those Kings that start with organized preformed teams should have a chance to create large enough advantage over others since it takes more planning than before.

    I agree that the cost of Treasury level 20 is too high for only 4000 treasures. At least I agreed with it once Alb pointed it out. It seems a bit high.

    I don't think that any of these changes make non-gold and gold players' gap bigger. But it is still an issue between non-gold - average gold - whale players. Can anyone actually imagine trying to play as a King without buying Gold under new circumstances?

    Actually, current Robbers are trying to balance things out. With the loss of trainer artifacts, offensive armies got weaker while defensive strength remained same - I'm talking about the Endgame here. Also, WW village gets 50% crop reduction. If you simply make it so that Robbers attack by your own command (weird isn't it - I wonder how many times Caesar commanded enemy army to attack him) this will make defense-attack balance even worse than it already is.

    Right now i'm ready to sacrifice my whole hammer for that 4k treasures but everyone has all of their treasures in just 1-2(3) treasurys and i'd probably just splat, maybe it'll reduce fighting on later game, but right now i'd love to snatch some 4k treasure loots if people divided their standing deff to multiple treasuryvillages.

    So, you are saying you would attack but there really is no point in attacking? So you are not attacking. I am saying that people fight less over Treasures than they did for Artifacts and you are proving it. Also you can't take everything from personal aspect. Just because you would do something doesn't mean most people would do it.