It seems they have outsourced your Suggestion to mod creators, use a mod like https://humankind.mod.io/triplealliance 

What i rly don't understand is why we did not have a signifficant ballancing patch

Cruor34 wrote:
Also things like new units actually being a DOWNGRADE in ability (Archers- Crossbowmen, Mortars - Howitzers)

Mortars and Howitzers are separate unit chains now, one turns into Siege Artillery directly, the other into Helicopter Gunship (good choice, separating proper arty and units with shatter ability, but both need an intermediate version, imo, and siege artillery needs a contemporary one), Archers are in need of nerf, they really shouldn't have indirect fire, instead they should be allowed to ignore one tick of elevation to allow them to shoot over own units if positioned on a hill.

We still need a whole Classical unit roster, divorcing Swordsmen with Iron makes the Horsemen/Swordsmen spam even more obnoxious and army composition takes a backseat for whole era, because without Emblematic Units you need to either hide or disband your Spearmen, which makes Huns lack a proper counter while Mongols at least have to face Pikemen.

DNLH wrote:

Scheneighnay wrote:
How the deployment lines and battle limits are drawn is completely nonsensical.

Battle limits are a bit arbitrary rectangle (unless there's a city, then it will also get involved and the shape will become more irregular), limited only by terrain unreachable on foot (so it won't go over cliffs), growing when reinforcement arrive. Deployment zone is pretty straightforward, it's also a roughly rectangular shape unraveling from the tiles on which both your armies stand, providing the units could walk there from those tiles (so again, limited by impassable obstacles like mountains and cliffs). If you look at the hexagon of seven tiles, with one occupied by defending army as its center point, attacking one will get both of its neighbouring tiles (that's why attackers can cut the defenders off on a cliff) and the zones spread from there. Again, it becomes more irregular during siege, because then one side spawns within city and other outside of it.

The biggest issue I have with the combat area is how easy it is to cheese the system to exclude armies from the battle for one whole turn or more (you cannot deploy any unit from that army for awhile at all, there isn't even a reinforce pin). This can even happen to yourself if you make a wrong attack order. But I made somewhere a suggestion about this which would also improve placement of armies and a possible inclusion of allied armies (if ever those will be included).

LOL .. slow? that is the understatement of the century. Bugs from last year was not fixed, pollution is still a mess, balance is out of whack. progression is stunted, basic 4x game feature still not implemented .. dude .. I was so hopeful for this game but it proves to be nothing more than a dud,

Slashman wrote:

If I had to venture a guess it may be that Amplitude is just very slow at rolling out updates for the game...so perceived problems along with legitimate ones are fixed with less frequency. Well that's for me personally but I gave the game a positive review and I stand by it.

Otherwise I think it is just that the game is hobbled by people's expectations that it play more closely to Civ 5/6. They are expecting certain conditions to be met within the game that either are never going to be (by design) or that that they may have been told a fix or improvement is coming for but has not materialized as yet.

All that said, I do think that the game is reviewed way lower than it should be and that people have been overly harsh...but I'm not sure what they can do about it at this point. Guess I'll wait and see.

Even if the game was balanced from the start. Even if the netcode was perfect. Even if there were 99% less bugs. I do think the game would've capped at 80-85% positive reviews and ~3-5k concurrent players on steamcharts.

Below is my personal list of things inherent to the game that cripple its potential as a 4X breakthrough:

- Bad UI/UX for managing/observing empire as a whole. When focused on city/unit, everything's readable and well-aligned. However, when zoomed out, the map becomes 50 shades of grey on landscape view and a handful of converging paint splatters on political view. The landscape view is hardly readable and just doesn't want to be seen or used. Political view might look good as a minimap, but it's of little use at such scale.

- Notifications in the ribbon should be vertical, aligned to the right of the screen (there's a reason Civ does that, it's not just personal preference), but most importantly, notifications of different types should have distinct colors and shapes! How can they all be indigo rectangles with different symbols?? Am I truly supposed to drag my eyes through the screen to the ribbon at the bottom and spend time/effort distinguishing those and remembering what each symbol means? Colored icons of different shape are so much more readable and memorizable!

- The AI does not interact with players in interesting ways. And there doesn't seem to be many interesting ways, actually... Also, its personality (what makes it more than a boring computer played bot) is hidden at the bottom right of the screen for some reason, and it does not really try to stand out or get known by the player.

- There's not enough variety early to mid game if you play more than a couple matches. Different openers and strategies don't change your gameplay much: you either go to war or you don't. And when you don't, the game doesn't make it as an interesting city builder. There's little to no variety in situations or combinations of synergies that open up a brand new experience for the player. And things that could do that (wonders, both natural and buildable, and npcs) all provide boring fame/influence bonuses and don't really change much about the experience of the player.

If there's a developer reading that. I want my critique to be useful, not rude or harsh. So I just provide what I feel like facts, without caring too much about how they sound. Because I want it to be sincere. I sincerely like Humankind combats, for example, it's a great game within a ... Ok game for me.

Sorry if it all just seems plain wrong to you, dear reader, for wasting your time.

DragonGaming wrote:

Sorry for possibly Necroing this Thread, but uh, something new just happened, Endless Space 2, a 6-year-old game has now surpassed Humankind a game that's only been out for half a year, in player count.

I've been meaning to fire up ES2 again in just the last few days.  Something in the zeitgeist, or did something come out regarding ES2 recently?

DragonGaming wrote:

Arkalis wrote:

DragonGaming wrote:

RedSirus wrote:

DragonGaming wrote:

Sorry for possibly Necroing this Thread, but uh, something new just happened, Endless Space 2, a 6-year-old game has now surpassed Humankind a game that's only been out for half a year, in player count.

I've been meaning to fire up ES2 again in just the last few days.  Something in the zeitgeist, or did something come out regarding ES2 recently?

I don't know because there are no new updates or patches for ES2, in fact the only thing that's happened recently is that a new event for Humankind was announced. Considering that these events are meant to keep Player Retention, I fear it may have done the opposite and has pushed people away from Humankind and back to playing ES2.

As much as you'd wish that was the case there is a factor you haven't taken into account: the spike matches the beginning of a free giveaway of Endless Space 2 just by signing up to the Company of Heroes mailing list.

Really? then that would explain the sudden increase in player activity, though I wonder why it wasn't also announced here since ES2 is an Amplitude game and, a few months ago COH 2 was given for free on this site.

Yes, here is the link of the Tweet, just in case you are interested