Main theory really is that poor pacing in Endless mode is also responsible for other AI problems like producing an impossibly high number of troops.

Anyone familiar with how 4x AI typically works would tell you that the system is usually "spawn x after y amount of turns", so it's probably spawning them quicker than intended on Endless.

Personally, I'm very much torn between wanting to like it - but not being able to enjoy the game.

Some of the things I thought I would enjoy, turned out to be the main reasons I don't.

I liked the idea of being able to swap cultures - up until I realized that if you aren't the first to reach the threshold, you can get locked out of certain cultures.

So I start a new game, and again, the same culture is taken before I get there.

So I start a new game, and again, the same culture is taken before I get there.

So I start a new game....

It's boring. It's repetitive.

I have yet to ever experience some cultures because I simply cannot reach them before the AI does.

Case in point: The current Dia De Los Muertos event.

How can I complete the challenges related to a specific Culture - if I can't ever choose that culture because the AI rushes before I get a chance to?

So when I finally reach the part to choose my next culture, the one I need is already taken so I resign that match and start a new one from scratch, while crossing my fingers hoping I can actually land the culture I want next time.

dustwhit wrote:
I've come to realize that Amplitude really isn't a 4x studio. I mean, yeah they make those games, but they probably would be a lot better in a different genre. They're definitely creative, but these bigger games are too unwieldy for them - they've never really stuck the landing on any of these titles (ES2 is probably their best). I think they would do much better focusing on smaller games (like Endless Dungeon) that aren't as sprawling. Their creativity gets the best of them, and they lose track of fundamentals. That or they constantly have a bad lead designer who doesn't keep the team focused on a core vision. 

ES2 was a really fun game for me to play. My only problem with it is I don't care about fantasy or sci-fi stuff, so I was hyped when they announced Humankind. I'm still having fun playing Humankind, but I do feel they need more elements from ES2 (tech wheel was nice for example - easy to see, and actual reasons to pick different things instead of just a race down a linear path)

The first game I have tried from Amplitude is HUMANKIND. In all honesty, it shows a lot of promise. I know that the game at release will present some balancing issues and bugs, but if done right, HUMANKIND may have the potential of going up against the likes of Civilization.

The game is not nearly polished enough. Bug exploits reported on the forum like the one that allows you to create an infinite number of cities, have still not been solved. Or the fact that the cost of upgrading a unit to a modern unit does not change regardless of the unit (upgrading a warrior to a musketeer does not cost more than upgrading a heavy swordsman to a musketeer).

Because of these multiple problems described on the forum, the multiplayer game has largely ceased to exist.

It's nice to release DLC content, but these problems should be solved first.

What is worrying is that Amplitude is taking so long to release fixes for this. I don't understand why it's taking so long. Either they don't have many people invested in this work, and it's scary for the future success of Humankind, or fixing these problems is taking longer than expected.

Jojo_Fr wrote:
Or the fact that the cost of upgrading a unit to a modern unit does not change regardless of the unit (upgrading a warrior to a musketeer does not cost more than upgrading a heavy swordsman to a musketeer).

I'm not sure that one is an issue, five boxes of rifles will always cost the same, doesn't matter whether the guys you're giving them to were walking around with bows or muskets. I would agree that there needs to be an additional cost to make up for additional population, though.

I'm more annoyed by this being yet another Amplitude game in which combat experience means nothing because it's so easy to train units spitting distance away from max level, if not outright three stars. Serious flashbacks to ES2, in which there was a relatively difficult to get, wondrous building giving massive XP boost, but it was absolutely redundant due to stuff that you unlock just with tech allowing any system to spit out Legendary (max level) ships. Veterancy-schmancy, at least give us access to fourth and fifth levels, so there's some value behind keeping your units alive throughout ages.

This reasoning based on logic has no place here. It is a problem of balance. It is extremely profitable to build dozens of old units and then upgrade them. This is very bad for the gameplay. Upgrading is not an expensive way to recycle old units, it is THE most efficient way to get advanced units.

In addition, population costs are ignored. Upgrading a spearman to a pikeman is not only very interesting in terms of industry cost, but it saves two population points!

No, direct production of advanced units should be the normal and efficient way. It implies to have the tech, then to produce the units, then to bring them to point B.

This is MUCH more difficult (especially if you attack) than pre-building dozens of scouts, and then instantly upgrading them at the desired point, surprising the enemy and crushing him under the number.

I've played like 100 hours in the first 10 days (i was on vacation), loved the art, sound music, early gameplay, city building, luxury mechanics. Reached the point where the design flaws became more frustrating than the fun i had playing. So now like others I havent touched the game since, i'm waiting and reading patchnotes, until it seems the game is fixed or more realistically the first DLC. The main issues are like others have pointed out : snowballing after medieval, the fact that one single ressource is needed to build everything else, combat strength calculation design, the godlike archers, culture, religion, etc.

Jojo_Fr wrote:

The game is not nearly polished enough 

[...]

What is worrying is that Amplitude is taking so long to release fixes for this. I don't understand why it's taking so long. Either they don't have many people invested in this work, and it's scary for the future success of Humankind, or fixing these problems is taking longer than expected.

I'm on the same boat. I played ~30 hours when the game released, then stopped because of balance issues (pacing between eras and techs), bugs, poor UI (managing trades is a nightmare) and frustrating stuff (diplomacy mostly, forced peace).

4 months later, very little has been done to improve the game, and new game breaking bugs have appeared like the peace forced by opponents with non-zero war support.

Amplitude have always been slow to release patches, but this time I hoped for some intense and fast post-release improvements, Humankind being their so-called Magnus Opus. In the end I can't even enjoy the game during the holiday break because of the bugs and balance issues. 

Love the game, it’s a little unbalanced but they’re working on it and it’s getting better. It’s also very pretty and aesthetically pleasing. I didn’t like the patch though, I thought the choice to make tech cost after medieval scale based on the number of researched technologies instead of having it scale based on empire size like in other 4x games was strange. It also made it harder in general to research techs, especially in the late game. You can tell they tried to make science cultures less obvious choices but by making tech cost so expensive in the late game but it made it so you have to make at least half of your cultures science to even reach contemporary techs. I also don’t think they’ve quite got what they want cultural affinities to be. My understanding of affinities is that they were just meant to give cultures an edge in a certain area but other cultures can still relatively keep up, but particularly with research if you don’t pick science cultures it’s very difficult to keep up and part of this is because research quarters are pretty much useless relative to makers and farmers quarters. I think there’s a similar problem with money after the patch, it’s so expensive to upgrade/buy out units you have to save up pretty much the whole game for the last 30 turns. 

DrCron wrote:

The main new element of the game (changing cultures throughout history) was a great idea and I loved it from day one.

You can tell it was rushed due to the huge amount of bug fixes we keep seeing in every patch notes post, and that's a shame because it stopped many players from really enjoying the game.

For my personal taste, they only need to balance the game better, so that we stop having some cultures that are way stronger than others in pretty much every possible map. I can see they are going in the right direction (some Khmer nerfes, for example, have already been done), and hopefully they'll get it right eventually (it took CIV 6 a long time to fix Georgia, Khmer, etc.). Apart from that, the vassal system needs some improvement so it's actually worth it to get a vassal, and the war resolution score might need some adjustment too. 

Overall the game is good right now, but it has the potential to be great very soon, with just a few adjustaments here and there.

Rushed isn't quite the whole story. There was a very dramatic ... 2020?

Also speaking of balance, I wanna say vikings are absurd.

I get they're raiders, and being able to attack without a declaration of war makes sense, but not generating a grievance for it is complete nonsense.

Being labeled the aggressor for killing the units that just attacked your territory is a slap in the face.

So far the game is quite OK for me, not that great but I have played it for 200 hours, so I can say it is worth my money, it just that I hate the starvation notifications. Why do cities keep on producing pop when they're not have enough food? Can we make it slow growth instead? It doesn't give much effect since the pop only lose one at a time, but it's bit annoying.

nuyu wrote:
Why do cities keep on producing pop when they're not have enough food?

that's humans alright

Scheneighnay wrote:

nuyu wrote:
Why do cities keep on producing pop when they're not have enough food?

that's humans alright

I was scratching my head here too, because people don't just stop having kids because you find it inconvenient. Its like they do the opposite.