Is Travian Kingdoms or Travian Legends better?

  • Legends, but mostly because of game play and gold.


    I love the GUI of TK, and I miss it badly when I'm on TL, the bugs in TK are here, but largely superficial.


    However the gameplay is really quite broken, the whole Kingdoms idea just doesn't work well, and if your a gold user, TK eats gold at maybe 15x the speed you use the same amount on Legends.


    So on balance, stick to Legends and hope they update the GUI.

  • Some parts of the GUI are really good (or would be if they weren't broken. Try scrolling the map with a chat open and you'll see what I mean. Or just try scrolling using mouse instead of keyboard arrows.), but some parts are horrible. Try gathering info of all dukes in an alliance, or all governors. Have fun. Want to make a plan for people in your alliance? Better use external tools or you're screwed. Why is there nothing ingame? Oh wait, it's a casual game and you're not supposed to be fighting anything, of course..Not that this one is any different in TL. But multiwindow shit is absolutely laughable if you want to do more than one thing at a time. Reports are shit. Visibility system (which player can see, what, when, and why) is inconsistent, static, unclear, and in general shitty. I could go on...


    Also, some of the bugs are absolutely gamebreaking for me. For instance the time-bug, where people who select the same timezone (+1 amsterdam or whatever) still get different times. Great fun to have one dual select one timezone, then have it screw up the time for the other dual...Absolutely not frustrating that this nr.1 priority bug has existed since dinosaurs were alive :)

  • Both versions have both their own pros & cons.


    Many players of Kingdom's did or are still playing Legends


    Kingdoms is still basically a new game altogether for Travian and is still in it's infancy and still holding that beta tag.
    So the bugs and game play problems that many post about are part of the reason why many will not play or have stopped playing.
    It is tough to play a game that was just invented as you are playing and sometimes spending money on something that only works part of the time.


    I would have to at least let Kingdoms grow to about 4 years old and see what the product looks like in full open mode before trying to compare it to Legends which has been around since 2004. Kingdoms opened to the public with the beta tag in early 2015 so this game is just rolling up on 2 years old, while Legends is 14 years old.


    Just stating how I view it.

  • For sure Kingdoms.main reason is activity.legends is way to old and only veterans are playing it.More people=more fun.And i dont agree with spending 15x more gold for kingdoms.Iam curently rank 1-5 (depends very tight) on com 3 without using gold for 1 month.

  • I said, if you're using gold... if you're not, then, yeah, it won't cost you gold.


    As for Kingdoms is more active than Legends... perhaps it varies by country, but the servers I'm on, Legends has a lot more players than Kingdoms.

  • Well, I played T3.5 and I really enjoyed it, than we got T4, basically travian legends and I stopped playing, because its crap. My friends stopped playing aswell, but when we found out, that there is travian kingdoms, we tried it and I think its great with only one flaw, the amount of gold you spend is absolutely ridiculous.


    Govenors and kings are just great, leader is true leader with advantages. For govenors its friendly if you are begginer. You dont end up as farm in first day after protection ends.

  • I'm playing my first and last round of Kingdoms. I haven't played Legends and will try that next. I don't mind the pay to win aspect, but if you're not a king, the math does not work. The king takes the top spot in all the oasis so you'll never have enough crop to feed a decent-sized army as an anvil. So even if you have a 9 or 15 c with crop oasis, you will only get a partial oasis bonus percentage, depending on who is near you. As a hammer, you can still raid to feed your troops, but you still won't be able to feed a bigger army than a lazy king who doesn't raid and the raiding is sparse on kingdoms because there aren't that many players because Kingdoms sucks. I used to play T3.x, i might have even played earlier versions, I forgot. I liked the early versions because it was a level playing field. I loved the giant meta alliances of the early versions, I don't see what was wrong with those because you could always join one and learn from the leadership, make tons of friends, and could build a decent hammer with your own hard work and a little gold. This is not possible with Kingdoms unless you are a king. Kingdoms might be OK for non-kings if you go in with an expert team and you have a specific, realistic role to play in your kingdom based on your gold and time commitment. One thing to know, is that you can relocate your single village later. Many people take advantage of this. One good thing, is that travian customer support is excellent. I submitted 2 tickets and the response was speedy, courteous, and excellent and they solved both my issues.


    The other thing I don't like about Kingdoms is that due to the oasis, you basically have to compete against your kingdom members to get the #2 spot in the oasis for your cropper. In the old T3.x versions, you would just clear your 13x13 and your oasis would belong to you and everyone in the alliance would cooperate with each other. There were no disincentives to cooperate like there are in Kingdoms. Then other kingdom players don't respect the saving of spots and steal the 9c spots from someone else by just a few minutes. These players are half the size of the other player that got their 9c stolen. Granted, the bigger player should be more on the ball, but it's really not in the best interest of the kingdom to have a 2 village player have the 9c while one of the biggest deffers has no 9c.

    The post was edited 3 times, last by arry#EN ().

  • I'm playing my first and last round of Kingdoms. I haven't played Legends and will try that next. I don't mind the pay to win aspect, but if you're not a king, the math does not work. The king takes the top spot in all the oasis so you'll never have enough crop to feed a decent-sized army as an anvil. So even if you have a 9 or 15 c with crop oasis, you will only get a partial oasis bonus percentage, depending on who is near you. As a hammer, you can still raid to feed your troops, but you still won't be able to feed a bigger army than a lazy king who doesn't raid and the raiding is sparse on kingdoms because there aren't that many players because Kingdoms sucks. I used to play T3.x, i might have even played earlier versions, I forgot. I liked the early versions because it was a level playing field. I loved the giant meta alliances of the early versions, I don't see what was wrong with those because you could always join one and learn from the leadership, make tons of friends, and could build a decent hammer with your own hard work and a little gold. This is not possible with Kingdoms unless you are a king. Kingdoms might be OK for non-kings if you go in with an expert team and you have a specific, realistic role to play in your kingdom based on your gold and time commitment. One thing to know, is that you can relocate your single village later. Many people take advantage of this. One good thing, is that travian customer support is excellent. I submitted 2 tickets and the response was speedy, courteous, and excellent and they solved both my issues.

    1. If you play in a decent preformed kingdoms, they always let the guys with highest crop income take the top spot in oasis, since that's just efficient. That does not necessarily mean the king. (You can raise your influence by adding troops to an oasis to have set spots per player)


    2. I agree that the game is pretty unbalanced, you CAN make a good army as a governor but it takes a LOT more effort. Big kings get millions of resources in tributes per day while governors have to setup 2-4 raiding villages just to get the same income. (This also would not be a problem if the raiding cap per city wouldn't be so small and would make the income difference slightly smaller between roles) OR you could always just have governors boost some of your key players with resources, but this option i'm not a big fan of. I like to be self-sufficient.


    3. People in here tend to dislike metas because the kingdoms playerbase is small and even 100 player kingdom might end up being half of the servers playerbase during the endgame. Those fights are only fun if there is multiple similar sized teams battling it out instead of one big one bullying the small.


    Hope you enjoy legends, i personally love the legends gameplay more than kingdoms but the UI from 2008 is too awful after getting used to kingdoms.

  • A well organized, preformed kingdom with the logical rules enforced to maximize the benefit of the entire kingdom would certainly improve my Kingdoms experience and i could probably be persuaded to play Kingdoms again in such a situation. Unfortunately though, having a bad first experience and investing all those months and gold into it has soured me on Kingdoms and I'm just counting the days until the stupid round is over.


    What they should do is make a travian version with the T3.x style gameplay with the Kingdoms UI, pay to win features to make it manageable (I love the building slots) and mobile app (I love the mobile app). Also they should keep the game duration short, like maybe 3 months for a 1x speed version. So you could play a summer round while out of school, or a winter round while it's cold outside, or something like that.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by arry#EN ().