Molay wrote:

 Diplomacy feels rather limited. I adore the system of grievances and such, but war and peace deals are atrocious. The war auto-terminates? Well now that feels awful. Who is enforcing that peace? I have high war enthusiasm. If the enemy folds completely, I should be able to have my way and at least be able to vassalize him. It feels quite bad. 

Besides, getting more cities from opponents is a major headache; tanking your influence at times, unable to merge those cities due to the ridiculous costs of doing so, etc. War itself, while still arguably the strongest approach to winning, leaves the player with less agency than desired and many drawbacks stemming from other systems.

100%. It's why I can't play this game. It gets worse too. We wiped a civ off the map before they had time to "surrender" and the magic referees resurrected them and forced us to give back half of their cities. You know.. just like when France and Poland fell to Hitler the referees resurrected the governments, gave back the major cities, teleported his tanks away, and then forced him to sign peace treaties with the resurrected governments. Totally realistic and fun.

There's a simple fix for this: allow a player to IGNORE peace terms just like IRL. The losing side offers more as the war keeps getting worse. The winning side can choose to take the terms or keep fighting. Civ and countless other games do this. I'll play HK again if they ever add it... but they won't. It looks like a core tenant for them. It's some sort of anti-war-mongering or participation award mechanic. Either way they, and all of HK's fanboys, obviously don't want me to play the way I'd like to play = I'll take the hint and won't. They can enjoy the low player count and reviews. I'll keep playing Civ V, BE, VI, and wait for VII.

It's a pity.. the units are gorgeous and the tactical mini-game is great. I just don't want to spend any more hours using them just to have a sky god wag his finger at me and resurrect my enemy.

36,282 people currently playing Civ6 right now.
20,730 people currently playing Civ5 right now, (which launched in 2010)
3,382 people currently playing Humankind right now, (with a free demo and 20% sale)

Hmmm... maybe listen to us Civ players who want to play your game but can't because of the forced surrender\war score BS and other arbitrary mechanics like hard city caps?
Just an idea. It's not like you're targeting our demographic\market or anything.
I'll be the first to remove my review and sing this game's praises if you do. I just don't see that happening.
Add a dang IGNORE button for peace requests, lower the military unit maintenance so we can make large armies, and remove or highly nerf the city cap = I will play and love this game.

aeonova wrote:

36,282 people currently playing Civ6 right now.
20,730 people currently playing Civ5 right now, (which launched in 2010)
3,382 people currently playing Humankind right now, (with a free demo and 20% sale)

Hmmm... maybe listen to us Civ players who want to play your game but can't because of the forced surrender\war score BS and other arbitrary mechanics like hard city caps?
Just an idea. It's not like you're targeting our demographic\market or anything.
I'll be the first to remove my review and sing this game's praises if you do. I just don't see that happening.
Add a dang IGNORE button for peace requests, lower the military unit maintenance so we can make large armies, and remove or highly nerf the city cap = I will play and love this game.

That is... wow.

If you want to play civ, go play civ. If you have ideas to improve Humankind and make it a better game, in line with the vision of the devs, why not.

Play the game you want to play, do not twist other to fit into games that already exists. -_-

Aeram wrote:

aeonova wrote:

36,282 people currently playing Civ6 right now.
20,730 people currently playing Civ5 right now, (which launched in 2010)
3,382 people currently playing Humankind right now, (with a free demo and 20% sale)

Hmmm... maybe listen to us Civ players who want to play your game but can't because of the forced surrender\war score BS and other arbitrary mechanics like hard city caps?
Just an idea. It's not like you're targeting our demographic\market or anything.
I'll be the first to remove my review and sing this game's praises if you do. I just don't see that happening.
Add a dang IGNORE button for peace requests, lower the military unit maintenance so we can make large armies, and remove or highly nerf the city cap = I will play and love this game.

That is... wow.

If you want to play civ, go play civ. If you have ideas to improve Humankind and make it a better game, in line with the vision of the devs, why not.

Play the game you want to play, do not twist other to fit into games that already exists. -_-

LOL. I literally just suggested ways to make it better in that post. If you like this game and want it to survive you should also want to "twist" this game into something that more than 3,382 people want to play. You do know that it's targeting the Civ player demo right? Game "A" has things in it that 36K people want to play even after it launched in 2016. Game "B" has things in it that 3K people want to play after it just launched and is on sale with a free demo. Suggestion: Add some things from "A" into "B" so more people from "A" will play "B". Or.. don't. Just don't expect a Humankind II or pantheon of DLC's. They can make whatever they want.. I can play whatever I want. I'd like to play this game too but can't.

I'll just leave this here. The data below shows that a lot of people (55,284) jumped right in and wanted to love this game. They all played it a few times and ~50,000 haven't returned. Devs and fanboys can listen to feedback and fix why those people left or they can keep the "vision" pure. Looking at the Civ6 and Endless Legend data you don't see similar drop offs. 100% the drop-off is because it was marketed at the Civ6 demo who took the bait, tried it out, made their reviews, and then bounced. I was one of those people. I'd love to see this number go up but this game needs to adapt to what the ~50,000 people who left want.. or be happy with the current numbers and reviews.

aeonova wrote:

LOL. I literally just suggested ways to make it better in that post. If you like this game and want it to survive you should also want to "twist" this game into something that more than 3,382 people want to play. You do know that it's targeting the Civ player demo right? Game "A" has things in it that 36K people want to play even after it launched in 2016. Game "B" has things in it that 3K people want to play after it just launched and is on sale with a free demo. Suggestion: Add some things from "A" into "B" so more people from "A" will play "B". Or.. don't. Just don't expect a Humankind II or pantheon of DLC's. They can make whatever they want.. I can play whatever I want. I'd like to play this game too but can't.

Your suggestions are maybe focused on Civ players exclusively. I don't think that's what the devs want...for this to be a Civ clone.

That said...there were mistakes made...I suspect it has to do with the delay before launch and the fact that the game needed more time in development. And from a more philosophical point of view, the game's whole marketing shtick that was pushed by streamers and not discouraged strongly enough by the developers, marketing team or publishers that this game is not trying to be a "better Civ" but its own game.

I think they largely pulled in the Civ crowd and that was a mistake. I am a fan of the Endless Universe and I wanted more games in that universe. No one was crying out for a "better Civ" or even a historical strategy game that differentiated itself from Civ. I am not a Civ fanboy and I really find the game to be fun and interesting enough for what it is. But I'm not trying to force it into a mold that it doesn't fit.

The other thing is that the developers maybe overestimated how much people wanted to play the "peaceful" role. When in fact, people want to blast away with nukes and wipe their enemies off the face of the earth, historical realism be damned.

I would have been much happier if they had focused on Endless Dungeon and then brought out a sequel to Endless Legend or Endless Space. I really hope they can turn it around and if not that they and the publishers learn a valuable lesson from this whole rigmarole. And I really hope these forums can get back to some semblance of peace instead of people screaming about multiplayer and stuck endless turns and wishing it could be more like Civ.

Slashman wrote:

aeonova wrote:

LOL. I literally just suggested ways to make it better in that post. If you like this game and want it to survive you should also want to "twist" this game into something that more than 3,382 people want to play. You do know that it's targeting the Civ player demo right? Game "A" has things in it that 36K people want to play even after it launched in 2016. Game "B" has things in it that 3K people want to play after it just launched and is on sale with a free demo. Suggestion: Add some things from "A" into "B" so more people from "A" will play "B". Or.. don't. Just don't expect a Humankind II or pantheon of DLC's. They can make whatever they want.. I can play whatever I want. I'd like to play this game too but can't.

Your suggestions are maybe focused on Civ players exclusively. I don't think that's what the devs want...for this to be a Civ clone.

That said...there were mistakes made...I suspect it has to do with the delay before launch and the fact that the game needed more time in development. And from a more philosophical point of view, the game's whole marketing shtick that was pushed by streamers and not discouraged strongly enough by the developers, marketing team or publishers that this game is not trying to be a "better Civ" but its own game.

I think they largely pulled in the Civ crowd and that was a mistake. I am a fan of the Endless Universe and I wanted more games in that universe. No one was crying out for a "better Civ" or even a historical strategy game that differentiated itself from Civ. I am not a Civ fanboy and I really find the game to be fun and interesting enough for what it is. But I'm not trying to force it into a mold that it doesn't fit.

The other thing is that the developers maybe overestimated how much people wanted to play the "peaceful" role. When in fact, people want to blast away with nukes and wipe their enemies off the face of the earth, historical realism be damned.

I would have been much happier if they had focused on Endless Dungeon and then brought out a sequel to Endless Legend or Endless Space. I really hope they can turn it around and if not that they and the publishers learn a valuable lesson from this whole rigmarole. And I really hope these forums can get back to some semblance of peace instead of people screaming about multiplayer and stuck endless turns and wishing it could be more like Civ.

"Historical realism" != Germany conquers France and Poland with overwhelming force and then a magical mechanic resurrects their leaders from the dead, pushes Germany's tanks away, and forces Germany to give back Paris and Warsaw for.. reasons. Civ allows you to play peacefully or belligerently. It's up to the player. And Humankind could easily do this with a few tweaks.

The studio didn't stop streamers pushing this game at us because 55K initial players = $$. It's all about the $$. They're not making this game for the fun of it. And if they want more $$ from people like me they'll fix the dang game. Again, add a "Refuse" option to peace terms and I'll happily keep giving them my $$.

aeonova wrote:

"Historical realism" != Germany conquers France and Poland with overwhelming force and then a magical mechanic resurrects their leaders from the dead, pushes Germany's tanks away, and forces Germany to give back Paris and Warsaw for.. reasons. Civ allows you to play peacefully or belligerently. It's up to the player. And Humankind could easily do this with a few tweaks.

The studio didn't stop streamers pushing this game at us because 55K initial players = $$. It's all about the $$. They're not making this game for the fun of it. And if they want more $$ from people like me they'll fix the dang game. Again, add a "Refuse" option to peace terms and I'll happily keep giving them my $$.

Right because the Allied forces did not conquer Germany and force them to do just that. Or am I misremembering and Paris is a still a German territory?

Or maybe I am misremembering and there was no resistance from within Paris. The fact is that there are always outside forces and internal forces at work that make it not convenient to conquer whoever you want to and sit on that territory forever without repercussions. The game's objective is to give all players a chance to accomplish something even if they are defeated in war. Yes that doesn't mesh with the Civ mentality and that was the reason I stated that they shouldn't have allowed streamers to go crazy with the notion that this is to be a "Civ killer".

And for the record Amplitude Studios has not ever been all about the money with their games. That may be Sega at work but the way they have always gone about Games2gether is to let the community co-design the games along with them. That they did not put the entire game in early access is another mistake and I hope that they learn from it.

I'll let you get back to shouting how the game should be more like Civ now.

Aeram wrote:

aeonova wrote:
The studio didn't stop streamers pushing this game at us because 55K initial players = $$. It's all about the $$. They're not making this game for the fun of it. And if they want more $$ from people like me they'll fix the dang game. Again, add a "Refuse" option to peace terms and I'll happily keep giving them my $$.

That is an interesting argument.

It would be even more interesting if you didn't thought that being offensive and arrogant was a good way to make a point. The devs had their own communication agenda, the streamers did what most would people would have done anyway, which is to compare it with civ. Stop acting as if this was a willing act of the devs and that cynicaly did so : communication is not something easy to control, especialy when you outsource it to third parties. By the way, do you remember the first teaser for Humankind ? I do. Most people had no idea what it was about. The communication for the game was flawed, do not argue it was some well handled cash grab, because that supposed "cash grab" burned a lot of good will from the usual player base of Amplitude. If you are so cynical and into hard realities, and loving to imagine what other would do without input about their side of the story, you might want to consider that the devs that try to keep their player close on their Game2gether plateform do not actually want to piss their regulars off. But again, we don't know for sure, so don't do any "procès d'intention."

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proc%C3%A8s_d%27intention

"In philosophy, the process of intent is a fallacy consisting in invoking discredit on a person by lending him unspeakable and reprehensible intentions, in any field whatsoever. The invalidity of this construction exists if these intentions are not proven, or even if they are unverifiable. In this case, therefore, they constitute an insufficient premise."

You don't seem to realise that are just being disagreable and making a rant about how the game is not enough like civ., arguing about blunt and sheer economics as if the core designs issues of the game, which are a testament of the will to NOT do a simple "civ clone" were not enough to make your posts "out of vision", so to speak. Humankind, as advertised by the devs, was build uppon their experience on the 4X genra... which mean, the Endless games. The game share more DNA with them than with Civ. Civ is the historicall founder and franchise and you could point at any 4X on a planet and say : why don't they do what Sid Meirs has done ? Because they are not the same team ? Because they want to make a different game ? Their own game ?

The fact that you imagine yourself being the demographic being pandered too do not give rights to be impolite by the way. Please stay civil.

I hope this was constructive in some way. English is not my first langage.

Humankind launched with 55,284 users playing it 3 months ago. It's steeply dropped to 2,176. 50,000 people have not come back. Embrace those numbers however you'd like to.

Looks it's fine. You enjoy this game and it works for you. This game hates the way I play and I get no enjoyment from it. Literally nothing but frustration. I wouldn't care but I'm already in the for the $60 and damn I love the tactical minigame part and it's gorgeous. I'm just saying if they add "Refuse" to surrender terms I'll play it again and maybe more people will too.

PeaceWeaver wrote:

 It's a great base of a game, but it's really rough around the edges.  It's just not really finished.  This is especially true when making the unavoidable comparison to the Civilization games which at this point are all highly polished and refined.

I don't doubt Amplitude will polish and refine Humankind similarly, but it'll probably take a year or two for the game to really find it's footing.

Played a few games in SP and MP at emperor difficulty level. I also felt the game is unfinished and unpolished with lots of rough edges. The diplomacy and independent people mechanics are very rudimentary. The battlefield, pollution, osmosis events are ridiculous. Above all, the game feels to be pointless by the time you reach Industrial or Contemporary era. The player usuallyu snowballs very hard by then. At the same time, everything becomes really expensive and end-game is usually 100 turns away by that time.

Anonymous wrote:

Humankind has been praised by magazines. He has been labeled a Civilization killer. And this long before its release.

So players bought it with confidence.

But it came out buggy, unbalanced, with mechanics that do not necessarily please (the division of the map into zones for example).

And above all, it is not complete. We all suspect that DLC are going to be sold. DLC that will not exist to improve the game, but to complete it.

It is therefore normal that there is a big disappointment from the players.

It's a wannabe Civilization game. It borrows so many ideas from Civ while its novel ideas are not really that amazing (especially the battle system)