Not to be party pooper, but it's just score victory described in fancy terms, it's been in every 4x ever including civ and all Endless games. People usually turn it off because it's boring having the game end on a time-limit with someone being declared a winner without any sort of gameplay-related climax. 

You can also turn off every victory condition except it, if you're into that.

And I'm glad I won't be tempted to 'collect capitals' just in case I decide to go for a 'domination victory'.    That's one victory condition I won't miss.   It turns the game from a 'I'm managing a big civilization' to 'I'm playing risk'.   

Is there a fame target to reach to win or is it totalled up at the end?

The closest thing that this victory system reminds me are some board games system, when you count at the end of the game how many points each player has earned depending of their deeds (with a lot of possibilities to earn points ofc). For instance Seven Wonders, and Kanagawa that i am playing a lot those days. Im pretty sure there are a lot ofothers and im missing classics. Anyway, in those games this simple system works extremly well because it offers a lot of different path to win, but most importantly a lot of flexibility during the game. Depending on how the game is going, a lot of opportunities and timings are naturally offered to change, combine, or empower strategies, and also try to fuck up ennemy strategies.

SuperMarloWorld wrote:

The closest thing that this victory system reminds me are some board games system, when you count at the end of the game how many points each player has earned depending of their deeds (with a lot of possibilities to earn points ofc). For instance Seven Wonders, and Kanagawa that i am playing a lot those days. Im pretty sure there are a lot ofothers and im missing classics. Anyway, in those games this simple system works extremly well because it offers a lot of different path to win, but most importantly a lot of flexibility during the game. Depending on how the game is going, a lot of opportunities and timings are naturally offered to change, combine, or empower strategies, and also try to fuck up ennemy strategies.

Another board game example is Eclipse (no, it has nothing to do with vampires): There you also have different ways to score victory points. One way is fighting, after each fight you can draw victory tokens depending on how many enemy ships you defeated and keep the one with the highest value. That way fighting early on is encouraged.

I bring up this example because you can loose most of your fleet and territory but the victory points earned through fighting are safe and will allways count. Seems like the Fame works the same ways. Deeds you have done will allways count, no matter how good you are doing at the moment. Which is and interesting take and will bring the genre forward.

No more late game tech rushes where I walk all over my enemies. Perhaps I can do this also in Humankind, but it is not safe to assume, that this will secure me a victory, if I didn't play well the eras before. This is a really good design decission. You will allways compete with the other nations for victory and not only at the end.

Looked at some image of Eclipse this game has such a huge board wow :D

Seems epic tho !

Its understandable for 4x games inspire from boardgames but boardgames victory goals designed to en in one session (avarige 2 hours) were in a pc game you end your game in multipla sessions.

Grinding for multiple sessions is not fun. Thats why many rules of board games adapt their ways for pc gamin

Nyarl wrote:

Not to be party pooper, but it's just score victory described in fancy terms, it's been in every 4x ever including civ and all Endless games. People usually turn it off because it's boring having the game end on a time-limit with someone being declared a winner without any sort of gameplay-related climax. 

You can also turn off every victory condition except it, if you're into that.

Dear god,

As described by the developers, regular scoring system is determined by what you have, while fame in humankind is determined by what you have made/accomplished. 

When in a game like civilization, you capture a city with a wonder, you gain a lot of score, but in HK, you get no fame out of that city and wonder by themselves, because you haven't made them. You get some fame for your military victories, but not for the buildings and cities you conquered.

Catodion wrote:

Nyarl wrote:

Not to be party pooper, but it's just score victory described in fancy terms, it's been in every 4x ever including civ and all Endless games. People usually turn it off because it's boring having the game end on a time-limit with someone being declared a winner without any sort of gameplay-related climax. 

You can also turn off every victory condition except it, if you're into that.

Dear god,

As described by the developers, regular scoring system is determined by what you have, while fame in humankind is determined by what you have made/accomplished. 

When in a game like civilization, you capture a city with a wonder, you gain a lot of score, but in HK, you get no fame out of that city and wonder by themselves, because you haven't made them. You get some fame for your military victories, but not for the buildings and cities you conquered.

So, it sounds even worse - since if an opponent runs away with his fame you can't even snag a victory by nuking him to death, if destroying and taking his stuff (supposedly) doesn't decrease his fame. 

Making a score victory even less interactive doesn't sound great at all. But I don't think Amplitude would make a system as bad as that, you will likely have ways of decreasing enemy fame. If victories and making cool stuff gives you fame, then losing battles and having your cities destroyed should diminish your fame too, bringing the system more or less in line with the normal score victory.

Why should you win because you just trashed someone elses stuff? If someone is running away with fame do something about that before it becomes unreachable. You could still murder them to prevent them getting any more fame and use their kingdom as a base to make your own achievements. Of course as you rightly say we don't know how it works and how close it is to a plain score victory. Late game I imagine theres some big projects you could work toward if you are behind in fame like landing on the moon, discovering penicillin, etc.  

I actually worry more about winning the early game and sitting on my laurels pressing end turn.

how are you guys getting these detailed information about how fame works?

ruzen wrote:

how are you guys getting these detailed information about how fame works?

It was mentioned from dev stream https://www.twitch.tv/videos/469860777

stl0369 wrote:

I actually worry more about winning the early game and sitting on my laurels pressing end turn.

This is true although I think alot of this comes from players needing to have perfect starts, reloading until they like their starting area or they get beaten to a key wonder. Its understandable you probably dont want to waste hours on something that feels futile. Although my best games have come from having a shaky start I want to quit from but choosing to muddy on through.

PARAdoxiBLE wrote:

ruzen wrote:

how are you guys getting these detailed information about how fame works?

It was mentioned from dev stream https://www.twitch.tv/videos/469860777

thanks

It seems like the closest thing we have too it at the moment is the Era score from Civ VI. So imagine if there was a victory where the only thing thats brought into account is your Era score.

I imagine its much more fleshed out in Humankind though

ruzen wrote:

how are you guys getting these detailed information about how fame works?

also read the latest PC Gamer https://ebook3000.biz/pc-gamer-uk-october-2019-download/

you may skip culture/nation changes between eras to get more fame in cost of traits / bonuses

The main difference here is that the Civ system has always been a *race*.  And not just any race, but 4 or 5 races at once.  This makes it *incredibly* hard to balance in a game which lasts a dozen hours or more.  What's the average turn for a culture victory?  What's the average turn for a science victory?  If science victories are always around 12-15 turns later than culture victories, then they are simply not feasable.  This is super hard to balance because it's super hard to even gather the data needed to determine if something is not balanced.  Sure, everything *feels* fine to the players in most cases because the fact that one race track is shroter than the others is not something you can easily see.

So instead of building the best civ in history, it often feels like optimizing a very specific racecar.  

The fame/VP point based system is something that can feel like it fits the theme/simulation much better.  The goal stops being 'pick a race track and drive down it hard while mostly ignoring the others' and becomes 'build the best culture in history' where 'best' is measured by points for many different types of actions.

It's also wholy different from the score system in most 4x games, as those are never very transparent.  Why is blue 200 points ahead of red?  Don't know, the game doesnt' tell you.  maybe it's becasue of their wonders?  Or maybe even though red has a lot of cities they don't have a lot of science?  Who knows?

The achivements/VPs/Fame in Humankind will be known quantities.  You'll know what you're trying to do and your optimizing for it.  The score system can't easily be optimized because it's obscured.

Bridger wrote:

The main difference here is that the Civ system has always been a *race*.  And not just any race, but 4 or 5 races at once.  This makes it *incredibly* hard to balance in a game which lasts a dozen hours or more.  What's the average turn for a culture victory?  What's the average turn for a science victory?  If science victories are always around 12-15 turns later than culture victories, then they are simply not feasable.  This is super hard to balance because it's super hard to even gather the data needed to determine if something is not balanced.  Sure, everything *feels* fine to the players in most cases because the fact that one race track is shroter than the others is not something you can easily see.

So instead of building the best civ in history, it often feels like optimizing a very specific racecar.  

Very true. And in almost EVERY case with 4X games the most efficient racecar is military conquest. Why would I spend 1800 production to build a Spaceport for a scientific victory, when I can use the same production to train a bunch of infantry and artillery and take my opponent's Spaceport? Now I've got a Spaceport, and units to defend it!

Why would I spend 20 turns building a wonder when my neighbor can spend 20 turns building units to take it over the moment it finishes? Now I've lost everything, and my opponent has doubled his ROI. So it basically turns into whoever has the largest army snowballs by taking out anyone closeby who went for a more economic build. And all the score, science, culture, gold, etc. from those conquered empires get funneled to the biggest warmongers.

I'm not saying I don't like having war in the game. If done properly, combat can be one of my favorite aspects of strategy games. But I hope the proposed Fame system will balance out the insane benefits of conquering present in most current 4X games. Not transferring the Fame of wonders/cities/achievements made by the conquered empire to the conqueror sounds like a huge step in the right direction. 

That's a very good argument for the Fame system.

The insane benefits of conquering in most 4x games is largely due to the highly unrealistic benefits that conquest provides.  

For my tastes, absorbing other nations into your empire should be much more difficult (and therefore interesting to manage), the amount of conqured territory you can effectively manage and extract benefits from should be limited by your administrative capacities, etc.  

Not to mention that one army shouldn't be capable of conquering the world.  Soldiers get tired of fighting, want to settle, go home, etc.  There was a limit on how long any real army could stay in the field, and 4x games are horribly bad at representing this.

However, I know a lot of players enjoy 4x to "conquer the map" and hate any restrictions on capturing cities or getting benefits from them later.

Will be interesting to see how HK handles the conquest of other empire's cities.

Speaking of conquest, what happens if the player gets conquered? If you're eliminated, that means there are technically 2 victory conditions: fame and conquest. If you aren't eliminated, what happens then? Do you become a governor within the winning civ? Do you have to successfully revolt in order to get back in the game? Do you get a new settler from the survivors and have to run away to create a new home? Does the AI just run the game in the background real fast to see if they built up more fame and then tell you if you won?

TravlingCanuck wrote:

The insane benefits of conquering in most 4x games is largely due to the highly unrealistic benefits that conquest provides.  

For my tastes, absorbing other nations into your empire should be much more difficult (and therefore interesting to manage), the amount of conqured territory you can effectively manage and extract benefits from should be limited by your administrative capacities, etc.  

Not to mention that one army shouldn't be capable of conquering the world.  Soldiers get tired of fighting, want to settle, go home, etc.  There was a limit on how long any real army could stay in the field, and 4x games are horribly bad at representing this.

However, I know a lot of players enjoy 4x to "conquer the map" and hate any restrictions on capturing cities or getting benefits from them later.

Will be interesting to see how HK handles the conquest of other empire's cities.

Any system should make a distinction between conquest and expansion as I found Civ 5 heavily penalised expansion to the point most people never went over 4-5 cities and vast amounts of decent land went untaken well into late game because it simply wasnt worth the investment. 

@TravelingCanuck Insightful points and I agree. I enjoyed civ 5 up to the first expansion as well but the second expansion actually diminished the game for me which has been a awkward opinion to hold because Brave New World seems so loved so I'm glad someone else feels the same!

I think the social policys also encouraged few cities, just picking anything except Tradition as your first policy felt like such a shot in the foot even for a casual player like myself. The other 2 (3?) just felt so weak in comparison to me.