Yes, but there have been some 'teething problems', see the other tread on this subject: https://beta.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/release-notes-version-1-151.17662/Has anyone managed to get the new tech tree when starting a new account since the update?
Thanks @Enevhar Aldarion
Would you please make a Bug Report for this, so that our QA Team can investigate further: https://beta.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/guide-to-bug-reporting.1913/
Why would you need to wait to chapter 5? there is if you refuse there are so many, and you can always start your own.If it first possible to take tournament from chapter 4 And spire in chapter 5.
sorry to say to all new player.
you must be in chapter 5 before you Can get in FS ;-(
so, with the new "bginning", you're unable to disenchant anything, and you cannot enter the spire for a long time = events aren't going very far
Thats your problem, you decide to ignore part of the base game, so your problem.I'm testing the new tech tree as a pure caterer meaning no barracks. I keep being roadblocked by quests demanding a upgrade a barracks which I don't have out. All quests dealing with upgrading pf barracks can't be declined until after you reach the next chapter advanced scouts. Apparently they want all newbies to fight and then give up since fighting in these chapters are difficult you don't hit easy again until late chapter 5 or chapter 6. everything is either medium to very hard battles to fight. Especially when you take in that no one will be using the MA much until after spire is unlocked and have less of a relic boost from unlocking tournament in the middle of chapter 4.
View attachment 10046
Same punishment should be applied to players that opt for not advancing in the chapters (as they are also deciding to ignore part of the base game)?
Good point - the main problem with far too many F2P games is that those who pay [enough to 'rush' the whole game] do indeed, in many cases, find the game growing very dull as a direct result. Meanwhile, the non- or lower-paying players, who will, the developers hope, provide those who do pay [more] with the necessary competition, companionship, and/or underlying elements which the game itself fundamentally requires - in Elvenar, for example, regular Trade would be a useful example - often find themselves equally bored, sooner or later, because so many mobile games, in particular, either become an extremely slow grind, or are, in any case, lacking in any real strategic or other type of player choice.There should not be a "one true way" to play the game that avoids all possible negatives. If there was, then that way would be too boring, like just spending diamonds to avoid all the hard stuff.
Indeed, it's the same "logic" Inno is using in other games (for example, team explorations in Sunrise Village). I think that let players learn and test the game is a good idea; too many times I've found players who even don't know what a boosted good was, just because they joined a FS where nothing were teached but "forced" to do points (tournament and spire overall, just feeding them with good because for newbies is really cheaper).It's unrealistic, to say the least, to expect any new player, in any game, to have the depth of knowledge which even mid-stage players have acquired
I really like and appreciate your contributions to discussions. Very well reasoned and written.Good point - the main problem with far too many F2P games is that those who pay [enough to 'rush' the whole game] do indeed, in many cases, find the game growing very dull as a direct result. Meanwhile, the non- or lower-paying players, who will, the developers hope, provide those who do pay [more] with the necessary competition, companionship, and/or underlying elements which the game itself fundamentally requires - in Elvenar, for example, regular Trade would be a useful example - often find themselves equally bored, sooner or later, because so many mobile games, in particular, either become an extremely slow grind, or are, in any case, lacking in any real strategic or other type of player choice.
It's no fun for most players, after all - and whether one has paid to get there or not - to be doing little else but near-passively 'operating' just one of a thousand Cities (or whatever the game's about) which are, for all intents and purposes, near-identical clones of each other.
I think most of us would agree that while Elvenar isn't ever going to be a mobile/browser version of Sim City or similar (and nor does it attempt to be, either), it does represent a quite rare chance, these days, to enjoy an online social gaming experience while also playing in one's own way, within a strategic framework which has many - probably infinite - ways for any given player to succeed; it's a marked and welcome exception to the far more prevalent, and far more dull and uninspiring, core game structure now so common in mobile gaming, which can largely can be summed up as 'Different player name, same underlying City/Farm/Army Base/etc.', regardless of any superficial differences in graphics, add-on elements, etc.
In fact, it's not only because I generally dislike being 'forced' to follow or avoid any given course of action, in any game at all, but specifically because I feel that Elvenar's strategic versatility is its most important particular strength that I would argue that NO player - no matter how determinedly they may choose to resist the game's 'most sensible' or even 'developer-preferred' strategies - should be directly penalised for any choice they might make. After all, isn't the very fact that it is so much harder to play the game against its primary in-game 'rules', if you like, as well as against its inherent 'spirit', too, enough of a penalty in itself? - with the very important difference of self-imposition by the player without external coercion.
And to relate all of this largely theoretical argument back to the ongoing early-Chapter changes : in respect of maintaining or even strengthening Elvenar's fundamentally vital breadth of player freedom of strategic choice - whatever that choice may be, and however other players may view it - I certainly hope that the incoming early-Chapter changes are NOT a warning sign of typical mobile app-style 'railroading' entering the game.
Wait.. You can't delete residences or workshops? Seriously?I only grabbed a screenshot of the barracks stop gate there was one with the amount of residences needed (18) and another with how many workshops are needed (8). When I saw the residence quest my first thoughts were of rise of cultures, it makes sense there to have quests increasing the amount of certain buildings who are suppose to have, every building keeps it original footprint. Not so, with elvenar each new research of buildings unlocks a new bigger size building. You can’t delete the big buildings i.e MH, MA, barracks, trader and builder hut. You now also can’t decrease the amount of residences or workshops you have. The only thing you can delete from your cities are the factories.