@Quixotique : Thank you for taking the time and trouble to compare, and analyse, two early-game Cities under both old and new systems.
I myself have much [more] to say on this - mostly pre-written, but in my usual very lengthy style, so I'm still editing parts of it down somewhat.
However, for now - one of Quixotique's most significant conclusions, which really should be a far greater focus of debate at the moment, in my view, and certainly on a par with ongoing discussions about when FS/Tourney/Spire access is granted to new players, is this:
[...] it isn't the kp that's worrying me the most - it's that massive drop in relics. [...]
Yes - Relics are one of the game's fundamental elements, and this change is far more significant than it may appear. It's
also certainly related to Inno's otherwise inexplicable and - in its own right - profoundly game-altering decision to suddenly, and without apparent motive or credible explanation, re-value formerly worthless Rune Shards, which are another of the game's fundamental influences, as 10-15 AWKP Instants.
On the above alone, much remains to be said; I am sure that there is a complex plan behind not only the ongoing early-Chapter and most of the previous two years' more major changes, too (2020 Tourney Formula included). As I say, I don't yet have a concise enough comprehensive explanation to post here, but in essence my view is that Inno is making, via multiple interlinked stages, a slow, carefully tested, VERY complex and long-term structural alteration to the entire game, with much further-reaching consequences in mind than only the early-game Chapters.
There is also certainly a link between these two very notable factors, too:
[...] under the new system, the game [...] Without events and tournaments each day is simply producing stuff to upgrade so you can unlock the next level of upgrading to produce stuff.
Having prior knowledge [...] doesn't affect how fast my city grows, or whether it's an efficient city anymore because all the avenues for choice (apart from premium choices) are removed. [...]
Excluding game-specific differences, most player reviews of MOST of Elvenar's competitors - including Inno's own more recent mobile releases- all feature
this very same complaint - constant waiting (a very long time) to progress in the game, including/especially during its early stages, when the majority of modern mobile gamers are beginning to
expect to have to pay at least some real money for a 'head start' (and Elvenar now offers a LOT of 'packages' to its starting players - far more than ever before - priced at about £10-20), even though most entirely new-to-game players ALSO [and rather paradoxically?] expect those games to be F2P as well. For all but the most patient of players, the ONLY alternative in this type of game is to pay to progress at a reasonable pace and without a tedious grind. It's a very profitable strategy used by [in my opinion, too many] 'build [something complicated to construct but essentially easy to grasp]' games which now compete within the 'Casual Strategy' genre.
Please, don't just take my word for it: evidence supporting the above contention can readily be found by reading, as I have, a good number of player reviews of Inno's more well-known new mobile offerings, Rise of Cultures and Sunrise Village - as well as their currently less well-known but even more recent release, Lost Survivors - or indeed MOST 'Casual Strategy' games. Almost ALL are built around the same model as above.
... In short, I am now as certain as anyone without insider info can be that ALL of the recent changes, and more, are both carefully designed, as part of
one over-arching and long-term strategic change to the game, and also quite intentional (one thing Inno does know is its market) - and I, for one, fear for Elvenar's future, certainly in the form preferred by many of us who already play. So far, and if the ongoing early-Chapter (and other mentioned) changes are a benchmark, it seems that the game as WE play it will probably remain relatively unchanged - for us - but players who are genuinely new, when the ongoing changes (and there will be more, I think) are implemented, will
begin in a very altered game.
[...] I think that the main purpose of the changes is to make more new players keep playing. [...]
I'll be called cynical for this and/or accused of sophistry, as well, but for 'playing' you really CAN read: 'paying'. Bear with me. You're right that:
[...] The game needs to make money to survive [...]
But I believe you're wrong that:
[...] retaining new players will provide new income stream and make the game even better for us. [...]
... and I say this because:
Long-term players are demanding in innovation, easily bored, quick to complain, and costly to please, and the days of a few 'whales' funding most other players are long gone. Far cheaper (and less reliant upon the whims of relatively fewer, higher-spending customers) is the ever more common 'revolving-door players' system now used by many games : start, pay a bit [£10-20 in Elvenar's case], get bored, leave, replace, repeat.
I have said elsewhere that I don't think Elvenar will very readily fit into the same mould as Inno's new - and newly designed - mobile offerings, and I hope this will also be of some help to those of us who know and like the game as it is, but Elvenar is essentially 'out of date' now, as far as Inno (and MTG) are concerned; a slow, very resource-heavy, PC/browser-friendly game aimed squarely at a core playerbase which is no longer the revenue goldmine it once was, and what we are seeing now is, I believe, an attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole. Elvenar's newer games fit that round hole perfectly, of course, but are far removed from Elvenar, as a result - and because of that they are games I'd never play.
In fact, the world of mobile gaming is rapidly departing from MOST of the old norms which PC/browser gamers have come to understand, over the years. It's not there yet, but mobile gaming is increasingly becoming comprised not so much of games as of 'products', and quality and/or longevity of the game - once both very important considerations - are no longer even important for many large gaming houses, except insofar as the game needs to be sufficiently 'shiny' (polished and graphically impressive) to attract enough interest to repay their initial investment.
This is also true (like it or not, and I don't) of the retention of long-term, satisfied players, which was once also one of any gaming company's primary aims, since they represented the future of the game AND its reputation, which itself brought in new players and ensured sequels and so on. Now it's just the marketing which talks, and games are built around nothing but that, and their financial model,
from first concept onwards.
ALL else is secondary when a large corporation is designing not a new game, but a new 'product'. Profit really IS all. Pride in the
quality of the game no longer applies. And even the veracity of the marketing is becoming more of a bad joke than anything; again, do watch just about any mobile phone game advert for evidence of this - Match-3 games depicted as animated RPG adventures, and vice versa, too, if it will only suck in just one more player, just for as long as they will pay that magic first X amount of money which the 'product lifecycle' requires.
And no, any and all of this doesn't make me any happier than I sound... but reality is reality, and I don't think Quixotique's analysis is flawed.