It isn't because the balancing is off. If Amplitude works hard for the next 6 weeks, they can fix the balancing. Decrease tech cost by X%, reduce requirements for some stars, buff/nerf culture bonuses, add some dumps for influence late game, scale vassalization cost etc. That all can be done and just involves changing some values. In fact, it can even get done after the game releases and they collect more data on the meta builds and balance accordingly.

The problem is that this game is actually missing features! And new features aren't something that can get added in the next 6 weeks.

1) Take the main gimmick on humankind - changing your culture every era. This sounds good, but in fact the execution is kind of bland. In fact, I could mod this feature into Civ 5 (something like civs picking unique and mutually exclusive civics every time they advance an era - or something like that). What I mean is that this gimmick really just ends up being some additional modifiers that you accrue throughout the game, it isn't anything ground breaking.

2) Then take the fact that religion is really bare bones and you essentially don't actively interact with it. Religion is literally just click and forget (and maybe remember for a few seconds that it even exists when clicking on grievances for war). This isn't something that can get fixed by buffing the amount of faith holy sites generate. This is something that is seriously lacking feature depth.

3) Ability to influence other nations is also in the same spot. The influence map-mode isn't something you actively interact with and can essentially forget about. It doesn't even have the staple feature of being able to peacefully 'flip' territories from other nations if you eclipse them in culture. And as a secondary effect it essentially makes 'Aesthete' playstyle a gimmick. There is a whole bunch of features missing when it comes to influence.

4) Independent people. Think about the depth of interaction you could have with city states in Civ and then think about how forgettable the independent peoples in Humankind are. Literally just a bump in the first few eras to slow down your colonizing. Once again, this isn't something that can be 'balanced' - there is a whole lot of features missing when it comes to interacting with independents.

This list could go on about all the features that the game is missing. On the flip side, the game does offer a few unique features (casus bellii for war, territory/outpost/city interactions and a few more), but these really don't come close to balancing out how bare bones or at least how similar the game feels to Civ.

The game needs more features and these won't come in the next 6 weeks. If amplitude doesn't push the game 1.0 release back, the game will either fail because it won't sway people to come over from Civ 4/5/6 or we will get milked with DLCs (Religion DLC, Independent people DLC, etc). I also don't see why they can't let the people that like the game currently keep playing the beta, and postpone the 1.0 release for the main audience.

The real problem is that with the Poe dev for the first time, I'm experiencing errors that require me to close and reopen the game to continue. Also, for the first time, I'm experiencing game lag in the mid to late game that's so bad I think the game is going to crash. My computer is working overtime to run it; it's burning up and the fan is running constantly. On top of that, the UI has miniscule fonts that a lot of people have a hard time reading. The issues with this game extend beyond the dev's "vision," which, in many cases, seems set in stone regardless of what players tell them. The game is buggy, runs poorly, is hard on computers, and has a UI that excludes people with less than excellent vision.

I feel that for the performance issues, I would easily blame Unity a little bit there; not to mention that we are playing a build that isnt final. Unity is such a poo-poo engine sometimes it takes a lot of work just to get a decent performance, this is why I prefer Unreal engine hands down. 
Anyway, I think people that are concerned for the bugs and performance issues should be a little bit at ease because im sure those are things that the team should be able to fix for release which is high on the priority list for them im sure.
What im more concert about is the design choices for the game, the features that have been showcased by the OpenDev and ClosedBeta leave me with a feeling of disappointment. The balancing issues and so on, can be fixed within the time the developpers have until release. Bare in mind that the ClosedBeta build of the game is probably even older than the build that they are working on when they released the ClosedBeta version to the public. 
As ToElisium mentioned I think that 6 weeks may not be enough time to implement the in-depth features that a lot of us would like the game to have and I get the sense from playing LucyOpenDev up unti ClosedBeta that the design team is rather confused about what the game plays like.  It's as if they design features because they are expected to be in a 4X game like this, yet they don't know how to make it engaging and have them interconect with eachother. 
Now, I hope that i am completely wrong about this and that the OpenDev/Beta builds were tweaked heavily to test some aspects of the game and that there is a well designed and engaging gameplay in mind, but time will tell. 

Anyway, I always feel a little bit bad about posting my opinion because It feels like im bashing the developpers but I can only offer my honest thoughts and Im glad to see im not alone in this and that there is a real concern for the game. 

I agree with ToElisium. This is beta. There will be bugs, there will be balance issues. They can and will get fixed, so they don't really matter.

The big problem are the lack of features. Right now the only robust and close to done feature here is war and combat. Combat and war are really well done right now. Combat AI is fine most of the cases. Going to war, grievances, all the things that lead to war are really fleshed out. Yes they need some balancing, but they feel mostly done, and done really well. Problem is there is almost nothing outside of that. Literally. Right now it's more comparable to Starcraft with turns than to Civ or EL. Right now this is a wargame, not a 4x. And 6 weeks won't fix that. When a game like Starcraft that is basically a battle strategy game have more options to help your allies (you can trade and give resources there and its more than what you can do here!!!) then there really is a big identity problem for Humankind.

 We need features outside war that work towards different goals than war. And a lot of them. And they won't come in 6 weeks.

And I like the concept of this game. I like the premises of building a civilisation out of different cultures. I care for this game to succeed and be the best it can be. Right now though it's lacking. And bugs and balance aren't the issue.

ToElisium wrote:

3) Ability to influence other nations is also in the same spot. The influence map-mode isn't something you actively interact with and can essentially forget about. It doesn't even have the staple feature of being able to peacefully 'flip' territories from other nations if you eclipse them in culture. And as a secondary effect it essentially makes 'Aesthete' playstyle a gimmick. 

There is a whole bunch of features missing when it comes to influence.

Yes! I feel like I missed a tutorial lesson at some point, and I've felt that way since early in Victor. WHAT. IS. THE. POINT. OF. CULTURE. INFLUENCE??? It doesn't' "flip" city control, it doesn't seem to apply any sort of malus to my nation (I spent a couple almost ENTIRE games under another nation's "influence," and I still have NO IDEA how that affected me, if at all)... so what is it for?

Second, yes, as I have stated in the "diplomacy" thread, having a currency named "influence," that actually isn't used in diplomacy to INFLUENCE, makes no sense. Especially when you consider that by all accounts, we all end up with a TON of Influence by end game...

The lack of multi-player battles is also HUGE, in a game that is (come on, lets be honest) battle-centric. So the alliance I DIDN'T have to spend Influence to achieve, is useless, because neither I can help them break a siege, nor can they help me by joining in a field skirmish? That seems... not well designed. 

***Note*** I have enjoyed the Open Devs and Beta greatly, and I really think Humankind can be a generational piece of 4x gaming, but if it is released in August, it will have a LOT longer road to long-term viability than say, CiV did at launch (which was AWFUL, sans rose-tinted glasses).

I completely disagree with the first point. The combining of cultures is probably my favorite feature of the game and makes me wish it was in all 4x games. Seriously, I think it is an amazing feature. I do agree with you on religion though, I think they should have left religion for an expansion further down the line.

ToElisium wrote:
1) Take the main gimmick on humankind - changing your culture every era. This sounds good, but in fact the execution is kind of bland. In fact, I could mod this feature into Civ 5 (something like civs picking unique and mutually exclusive civics every time they advance an era - or something like that). What I mean is that this gimmick really just ends up being some additional modifiers that you accrue throughout the game, it isn't anything ground breaking.

I seriously doubt they're gonna change this, even if they had a whole year to release, this is the base of the game. I'm not exactly sure what you dislike about it (why is it bland?) and how would you expect them to fix it (what would make it not bland?).

ToElisium wrote:
2) Then take the fact that religion is really bare bones and you essentially don't actively interact with it. Religion is literally just click and forget (and maybe remember for a few seconds that it even exists when clicking on grievances for war). This isn't something that can get fixed by buffing the amount of faith holy sites generate. This is something that is seriously lacking feature depth.

This is in fact annoying, but it doesn't make the game unplayable, in my opinion. Everything doesn't have to be working perfectly for release, there are patches and expansions. Would I like a more fully fleshed out religion system? Absolutely. Is it essential for the game to be good? I doubt it. They could probably just scrap the system altogether and I think it wouldn't make the game experience too different.

ToElisium wrote:
3) Ability to influence other nations is also in the same spot. The influence map-mode isn't something you actively interact with and can essentially forget about. It doesn't even have the staple feature of being able to peacefully 'flip' territories from other nations if you eclipse them in culture. And as a secondary effect it essentially makes 'Aesthete' playstyle a gimmick. There is a whole bunch of features missing when it comes to influence.

This probably has to do with the fact that most of us were consistently outpacing the AI in terms of influence generation, so none of us were on the receiving end of influence pressure. According to what I read on the Wiki, being influenced by other empire means your civic choices have to resemble those of the influencer, otherwise you will incur a stability penalty. Now, you may think this is a bad system, but it doesn't mean it isn't there, we just didn't get to experience it. Same goes for the aesthete affinity, its ability is a defense against outside cultural influence, which was never an issue during this particular build. But the point is, this is not an issue of lack of features/depth, it is actually a balance issue. As for the ability to flip terriotries, they probably didn't want to include that on purpose and, with all due respect, bringing that up just looks like saying that they shouldn't release the game because it doesn't include the features you think it should have, as opposed to a core/key feature that would make the game unplayable if it wasn't there. So, again. Would it be a cool feature to be able to flip territories with influence? Arguably. Does it need to be there? Probably not.

ToElisium wrote:
4) Independent people. Think about the depth of interaction you could have with city states in Civ and then think about how forgettable the independent peoples in Humankind are. Literally just a bump in the first few eras to slow down your colonizing. Once again, this isn't something that can be 'balanced' - there is a whole lot of features missing when it comes to interacting with independents.

I mean, in civ 5 you just throw money at city states for them to become your allies (which is kind of similar to how it works with HK independent people) and that's pretty much it. Civ 6 is not very different, except that instead of money you throw influence (again very similar to HK). The biggest difference is probably the bonuses you get from being allied with a city-state, but honestly, I respectfully disagree that Civ city-states are a super in-depth feature of the games.

Overall, I feel you're making the mistake of comparing a beta release to fully fleshed out games with several years on the market and multiple patches and expansions. Based on the current build, the game could use a lot of improvement, but I feel the core of the game is very much ready (tech tree, districts, infrastructure, units, cultures, civics, events, etc.), of course with the very much needed balancing tweaks, but the essence of the game is very much clear, at least to me.

ToElisium wrote:

Ludovide wrote:

I completely disagree with the first point. The combining of cultures is probably my favorite feature of the game and makes me wish it was in all 4x games. Seriously, I think it is an amazing feature

It is a great feature in theory, but, as I wrote, the implementation is actually fairly bland. I am not saying it is a bad feature, just that it doesn't make this game stand out as a unique game experience - which is what they were going for.

Their implementation just boils down to stacking modifiers that you choose gradully throughout the game. Nothing groundbreaking here. If my example with Civ wasn't convincing enough, just take a look at EU4's 'national ideas'. It is the same exact concept, just stacking modifiers that you unlock throughout the game rather than all at once in the beginning of the game.

And the point is that this isn't a balance issue. The implementation itself is bland because it is missing features/interactivity - you are just picking whether you want better production/science/food every era. There isn't even any potential to roleplay as 'humankind' - you are just purely min/maxing which stacking bonuses help you the most...

That's not really a fair comparison. EU4 national ideas are fixed for each nation (can be swapped out if you change nations, but not stacked), grant a small percentage bonus to something (or another of one of the Envoys). Here, cultures grant varying bonuses, along with a unit and quarter, which are kept on moving onto a new culture (only already built Emblematic Districts, although IMO you should keep the ability to build it, and the Unit still might be obsoleted). I do wish it had more of Amplitude's signature faction asymmetry, but considering there are 60 cultures , that can be combined over 6 eras at launch, while EL had ES2 both had 8, it's unsurprising that individual cultures lack that asymmetry. I'm of the opinion that cultures could use more than one Legacy Trait though. No burden on the art team that way, and helps them feel more unique.

Shataraterevar wrote:

I agree with ToElisium. This is beta. There will be bugs, there will be balance issues. They can and will get fixed, so they don't really matter.

The big problem are the lack of features. Right now the only robust and close to done feature here is war and combat. Combat and war are really well done right now. Combat AI is fine most of the cases. Going to war, grievances, all the things that lead to war are really fleshed out. Yes they need some balancing, but they feel mostly done, and done really well. Problem is there is almost nothing outside of that. Literally. Right now it's more comparable to Starcraft with turns than to Civ or EL. Right now this is a wargame, not a 4x. And 6 weeks won't fix that. When a game like Starcraft that is basically a battle strategy game have more options to help your allies (you can trade and give resources there and its more than what you can do here!!!) then there really is a big identity problem for Humankind.

 We need features outside war that work towards different goals than war. And a lot of them. And they won't come in 6 weeks.

And I like the concept of this game. I like the premises of building a civilisation out of different cultures. I care for this game to succeed and be the best it can be. Right now though it's lacking. And bugs and balance aren't the issue.

I agree with you about the barebones nature of the game outside the combat system. But, even that has issues in that the dev still refuses to just let a civ be removed from the game if they lose their units/cities. Instead, we get this forced surrender. I've been forced to actually return land I won fair and square. In the last game I played, I removed one AI before it could make its first city. I took their outpost and put my city there. For the entire rest of the game, every single turn, that AI kept spawning 4 units in my city that I then killed. Bizarrely, this AI was able to continue accumulating era stars, and he got to the Classical era by the end of the game. I was able to demand reparations for trespassing, and my entire late-game economy depended on the 1000s of dollars I received from him every other turn. Keep in mind, this AI did not have a single city or any units except the four that appeared and died every single turn. This is a fundamental problem, and I don't know why this dev has such an aversion to an AI being removed from the game.

But, yeah, this isn't a 4X game. The stability system makes exploitation and expansion difficult. Any exploitation/expansion must be accompanied by the tedious spamming of barracks and custom quarters. And don't even get me started on exploration or anything to do with ocean/coastal-related play.

The reason I'm concerned about how well a computer can run this game and the bugs is that these issues were not present in the Victor dev. To me, the Poe dev was a step backward. The reason I'm worried about things like the UI and fonts is because players have reported the same issues throughout the betas, and these issues have not been addressed. It makes me feel that it is unlikely they ever will be. I like the concept of the game too. But, in its current incarnation it seems like the time before release is insufficient to deal with the wide range and depth of the issues it has.

I seriously doubt they're gonna change this, even if they had a whole year to release, this is the base of the game. I'm not exactly sure what you dislike about it (why is it bland?) and how would you expect them to fix it (what would make it not bland?).

I mean, in civ 5 you just throw money at city states for them to become your allies (which is kind of similar to how it works with HK independent people) and that's pretty much it. Civ 6 is not very different, except that instead of money you throw influence (again very similar to HK). The biggest difference is probably the bonuses you get from being allied with a city-state, but honestly, I respectfully disagree that Civ city-states are a super in-depth feature of the games.

For your first point, I am not a game designer, but take a look at how choosing Huns and Mongols actually significantly changes your game experience. You actually play the game differently going a horde (even if it isn't currently balanced). This is a type of feature that they need more of to make it actually a full-fledged standout feature of the game rather than just some additional modifiers. Or you could add things like conquistadores, which are military units that allow you to settle cities - not just forgettable units that offer +1 combat strenght over their base variant.

Also you are being disingenuous about city-states in Civ 5. Yes you could throw money at them - if you had money. But you could also conquer them for easy expansion. You could liberate them for easy diplo. You could ignore them even, but they would still be a presence on the map and annoy you, unlike HK independents which just disappear after a while. If you went the alliance route, you could get a whole set of different bonuses and even unique units from them. You can't possibly be making a claim that independents in HK are anywhere close to how fleshed out they are in Civ.

I am glad you like the game, I don't think the game is that bad either. But it is a forgettable experience, and playing it in fact made me want to go back to playing Endless Legend or Civ 5 rather than starting up another run of HK.

AOM wrote:
I agree with you about the barebones nature of the game outside the combat system. But, even that has issues in that the dev still refuses to just let a civ be removed from the game if they lose their units/cities. Instead, we get this forced surrender. I've been forced to actually return land I won fair and square. In the last game I played, I removed one AI before it could make its first city. I took their outpost and put my city there. For the entire rest of the game, every single turn, that AI kept spawning 4 units in my city that I then killed. Bizarrely, this AI was able to continue accumulating era stars, and he got to the Classical era by the end of the game. I was able to demand reparations for trespassing, and my entire late-game economy depended on the 1000s of dollars I received from him every other turn. Keep in mind, this AI did not have a single city or any units except the four that appeared and died every single turn. This is a fundamental problem, and I don't know why this dev has such an aversion to an AI being removed from the game.

I actually eliminated two nations from my war focused try of the game just before the beta ended. Soo i didn't encouter that problem. I found out that they live as long as they have a unit. Kill all the units, they're gone. But you don't get a penalty or even a badge for doing that. Also in one of my previous games i left green on one City and NEUTRALS eliminated him (with was hilarious actually), but from that I found out it can be done. Thing is, you need probably more than one war for that in most cases. Also it's a balance issue. The score for taking territory and such goes as high as 200. And no more. When a single territory cost between 40 and 80, that is a problem, that the max you can get out of war is 200. The war support limits should be higher (like you can start a war at 100 or something, but you can go up to 200, maybe 300 war support). Also you should lose war support when the war takes a long time and with your units dying, not only when you lose a skirmish or retreat.

What I mean is, those are actually balance issues. The system is there. And it's actually quite good. Just not balanced. Too bad it's the only system that is fleshed out and done that well.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I've eliminated Civs. It's just frustratingly tedious, because you have to do it over time with these annoying forced surrenders in between wars no matter how militarily superior you have become. Plus, then you have to ransack the city you took to the ground if you're over the city cap unless you have the Influence to handle the hit. I tend to eliminate any hostile AI that settles near my borders, and, in this game, given the AIs aggressive forward settling and mindless hostility, I was eliminating them from the first time I played this beta. I had just never removed one before they started a city before, and I was surprised that doing so didn't remove them. I was even more surprised that the disembodied AI continue to progress through the eras and produce endless amounts of cash. It gave me insight into how loaded with cheats the AIs really are. At the end of the game, they still showed this guy going through each era including the Classical, and his little badges had no stars. If he never earned stars, how did he get to the next era?

The AIs are uniformly repugnant in this game. No one is reasonable. No one wants open borders. No one wants to trade (they'll make a treaty, but they usually don't follow up by buying anything). I have zero interest in the vassal system. If an AI starts up, I remove them. That way, I can continue the rest of the game with the things I want to do - build my cities up, balance my pop number/employment, build some wonders and infrastructure, and explore the world. I don't really like constant border wars with a neighbor. With this AI, elimination is the only way to ensure I don't have that. This isn't a balance issue. It's more of a "vision" issue to me. The game holds the AIs up as these red flags in front of a bull, and then stops the bull from ripping up the flag over and over. It's frustrating. Further, it focuses the game entirely on war, which isn't what I'm looking for in a 4X game.

I disagree. The "features" that you say are missing are exclusively coming from your experience with Civ games. You are quoting Civ 5 and Civ 6 games and comparing HK 1 to a franchise that has had DECADES to build up those features you think are lacking. 

There are PLENTY of avid Civ players (myself included with 1800 plus hours in VI alone) who are looking forward to the Aug. 17th release of this game because we won't be bogged down with 1 leader, 1 building aesthetic, a religion layer where we have to train missionaries to spread religion on top of managing armies and builders and traders and static city-states that stay in-game from beginning to end unless you conquer them. 

HK is creating a dynamic world that doesn't need the player to get deep into the weeds of an already deep game. Things are happening due to the decisions you make at the macro level. Don't want religion, don't build holy sites. Want religion? Build holy sites, focus on faith bonuses and watch how the populations in your procedural world start following. Want to trade resources, click. Don't worry about what city this trader is going to, you have more important issues to attend to, let the trader figure out how to get Ebony from that empire into yours, just pay the fee.

The depth comes in city management, which is leaps ahead of Civ, and combat, which also leaps ahead of Civ. 

The dynamic appeal of independent people rising up in unclaimed territories adds excitement for any playthrough, and the fact that they can be patronized, hired mercs, or conquered is on par with Civ. The fact that independent people can go into decline and crumble is part of the alternate history in the procedural world, that's exciting.

The concept of HK is spot on. The systems need balancing, everyone will agree, but to be comparing the limited access we've gotten with Civ's V and VI is wrong and incredible at the same time. HK 2 is going to be something insane, but they will never get there if they keep delaying HK. Folks need to allow this game to come out, enjoy the fact that the waves they are making will be felt in Civ VII and VIII. If you want extra spice on the culture picks, make the civ V mod - be sure to thank HK for that in the description. But don't give the devs this idea that they have to, or should consider delaying the game AGAIN when they really don't have to. HK is not going to be Civ VI. It's going to be HK. Compare HK 2 to HK and then talk about the features they have, lost, changed.

AUG. 17TH!