Logo Platform
logo amplifiers simplified
Humankind
Universe banner wording

Improving Humankind Gameplay 2Gether

Copied to clipboard!
3 years ago
Aug 20, 2021, 3:42:52 PM

Since the launch of Humankind, we've seen many of you eagerly dive into the game, and have received many kind words, but we have also received a lot of constructive criticism (as we expect from a dedicated community like you.) While there is much talk about quality of life and interface, there is just as much talk about gameplay. We want to know what gameplay improvements are most important to our players, so we invite you to share the improvements you would like to see in this thread.


Let us know what you think, so that together we can make Humankind a better game!

0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 20, 2021, 3:50:46 PM

We do need an option to create random AI oppnents in solo games :(

Not like I hate Mommy Ocllo (she's the supreme granny), but it gets tiresome really quick to play with one and the same AIs. And in addition to this, to let both players and AIs truely poor themselves into avatars we need more biases, just like I've already suggesten in another thread. 

0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 20, 2021, 4:06:49 PM
Zabolotskiy wrote:

We do need an option to create random AI oppnents in solo games :(

Not like I hate Mommy Ocllo (she's the supreme granny), but it gets tiresome really quick to play with one and the same AIs. And in addition to this, to let both players and AIs truely poor themselves into avatars we need more biases, just like I've already suggesten in another thread. 

This would be a great option, along with allowing for specifying a difficulty (normal/advance/expert)!

0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 20, 2021, 4:09:33 PM

Balancing definitely needs a pass on a variety of topics.


1. Districts and late game.  With the current system, you get to a point where you have gone vertical and can build / research multiple things in about 1 turn by late game.  It removes any idea of opportunity cost.  Also please, nerf the Turks unique building.  It's like, 5-10x more powerful than it should be (21X science?!?!?)


2. Pollution is terribly broken, the penalties are far too harsh and there is not enough counterplay.  Missed opportunity with climate change affecting the map.  Perhaps penalties are too harsh because building 80 districts in a city standard late game wasn't forseen.


3. Luxuries are way way way too easy to get and also double to pacify AI.  The one time cost you spend for a luxury is worth it 10,000 times over.  Stacking luxuries are just stupidity strong.  In the same vein, strategic resources for units is good, but the player gets upset when you can't build buildings with lack of strategics.  Maybe impose a harsh production or stability cost to building without prereqs instead.


4. More varied uses for influence late game, although the current uses are fine.  Perhaps increase cost?  Or add higher influence to Diplomatic actions.


5. This is really just me, but the huns seem to be just a little too good.  The hordes have so much health, they might as well be invincible if you aren't behind walls.  But they're pretty close to where they should be.



0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 20, 2021, 4:25:17 PM


Zabolotskiy wrote:

We do need an option to create random AI opponents in solo games :(

+1 to this.


  1. Also, at the beginning of a new game, it should be possible to have your slots of AI players be random so that you do not know exactly who you will be playing against.
  2. Balancing the length of Eras, as they just feel to quick. Perhaps some kind of option or slider where you can adjust it based on some variables. There's a lot of other good threads on this forum discussing the issue of Era length.


0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 20, 2021, 4:30:58 PM

The main gameplay issue for me is the boring city building. All you really do is put as many districts as possible into the territory of a city (and theres a ton of tiles around a city). Adding the fact that resources were very scarce in my game there wasn't much to do with the environment around your cities. Would love to see that changed some time.


Another thing is the fact that you have to change your culture every era. I can see the benefits of it (the cultures actually existed in the era you're in and the unique units aren't just there for one era) but there was no real bonding between me and the opponent AI anymore ('Oh so you're the mexicans now instead of the japanese. Got it'). That kind of rivalry or bonding only existed in the last era when cultures didn't change anymore. It would be cool to have an option where you can play a culture from beginning to end.


Besides Humankind is a good game. The combat system, art style, diplomacy, events, avatars and especially the technical level are really well done and I am definitely having fun with it at the moment! Looking forward to coming updates.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 20, 2021, 4:52:38 PM
This game is fantastic. I'm stoked to see where it goes, and I'm happy to provide feedback.


1. As many others will say, the game pacing and overall balance definitely feels off. In my experience, Science and Eras are often misaligned. And in the late game, stability really becomes a non-factor. Stability is such a strong, interesting part of early game considerations, so I think it needs to ramp up in severity in the late game. For example, we could use the already-excellent mechanic of changing stability gradually, and apply it to era changes. Once you hit Early Modern era, have the stability penalties of districts increase from -10 to -15, slowly over the course of 10-20 turns so the player can react accordingly. Then in Industrial era, increase it from -15 to -20. Then -25 in Contemporary. This makes it so that building infrastructure and keeping society happy never becomes an afterthought. It would help prevent the late-game FIMS explosions that players are currently experiencing by forcing them to pace themselves when building new districts, necessitating stability infrastructure, etc.


2. Forced surrender is a great mechanic to stop military steamrolling, but forcing the victor to also end the war with no other options is not satisfying. At the very least, I think this needs a "Just 5 More Turns" option so that if the winning side is close to capturing a city or just needs a few more killed units for a militarist star, they can wrap those up. During this period, I could imagine there being a large and rapidly-increasing penalty, such as decreased Money, Influence, Stability, etc. Another cool thing would be that if the winning side screws up and loses any units or battles during this final aggressive push, the losing side gets huge war support gains and the forced surrender is canceled. If this happens, the losing side's units could also get some kind of morale buff, and the warmonger who screwed up could suffer a demoralizing debuff to their units as well.


3. I think the diplomacy in this game has incredible potential. To that end, I think Influence should play a much stronger role in interacting with other empires; by late game, I have tens of thousands of it sitting around doing nothing (especially because absorbing cities becomes unbelievably expensive). I could see Influence becoming a currency for late game diplomacy. For example, paying a super high Influence price to purchase a resource from an empire that has refused all trade with you. The people want trade because of infulential pressure, so they open up black markets under the government's nose to get it.


Additionally, there should be more options to stop Influence spread from other empires besides a single civic. Whether it's through more expanded civic effects, or through various buildings that are only unlocked when you tilt heavily toward Homeland on the axis, there need to be additional measures to halt cultural influence when you choose to not lean heavily into Influence yourself.


4. Resource trading needs some balance. Right now it's entirely too easy for someone to buy a resource, while the owner of said resource receives a paltry amount of money for it. Buying resources should also have a maintenance cost to keep that trade route; if anything, this would actually make Merchant cultures more viable, because it would mean they can afford to sustain many trade routes when others can't afford to. That is juxtaposed to the current situation: resource trade routes are almost equally accessible to everyone, since they only require one-time purchases and there are few things worth more to every empire than permanent resource access. Another element of balancing: I'd say that the Stability provided by copies of a luxury resource should diminish after the first 2-3 copies, preventing trade routes from becoming a unilateral answer to stability issues and forcing players to actually build infrastructure (fountains, aqueducts, etc.)


5. The ocean is currently barred from being useful or fun; that's doubly disappointing because I've never seen Civilization make ocean empires viable either, and I'd love to see a historical 4x game really nail this.

For the early game, I can't ever see myself playing a seafaring culture when tech requirements and Lost at Sea penalties are so oppressive. There is historical precedent for being able to cross smaller stretches of deep ocean in the Ancient era, and I think this should be more viable through one simple change: for seafaring cultures, make embarked land units turn into their Emblematic ships (or if they don't have one, a more navigationally-equipped basic ship). Locking land unit sea travel behind the Trade Expeditions tech, and then only letting those land units travel via Transport Galley, renders the entire concept of early game island- and continent-hopping null and void. The Phoenicians' Bireme and the Norsemen's Langskip don't do anything for exploring and expanding when those ships can't actually ferry land troops, which was the entire reason ships were so useful in real life history. If you're averse to allowing land units to become Emblematic sea vessels, then I think the Emblematic sea vessels should be allowed to disembark as land units—units focused on scouting and outpost establishment, but that are also very weak in combat. By making one of these changes, naval cultures can actually beat others to the New World or unexplored edges of continents, making them much more viable.

Besides actual travel, many others have pointed out that the oceans seem empty. Islands need to be expanded to become viable settlements, and empty ocean territories should be able to be attached to those islands—perhaps as another ability of naval/expansionst cultures to help them stay competitive. That said, those island cities also need to be assailable; their invincibility is also a problem right now. More luxury and strategic resources should be available at sea as well. Without changes like these, I just don't see why I would ever play the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Norsemen, or Dutch with the ocean's current lack of advantage and early game barrier to entry.


6. Tradition/Religion is currently outclassed by Progress/Science. Once you grab all 4 tenets, that's...it. The only cultures that really scale with Religion are the Aksumites and the Teutons; otherwise, it seems inevitable that your empire should flip over to Progress in the late game. That might be pretty natural for a lot of real-life societies, but I want to be able to win with a theocratic dictatorship fueled by the zealotry of my massive following! Faith just needs more uses and benefits. Science is a win condition, but Faith is not. This inherently makes Progress/Science more valuable than Tradition/Faith. I don't think Faith and religion need to be their own win condition, but they need to play a much more prominent role in the current win cons.


7. Expansionist stars need to have their requirements tuned down in the later eras, to reflect how increasingly difficult acquiring new territory becomes. Nothing insane—dialing it back by 1 or 2 territories would make a world of difference. This would help differentiate the expansionist playstyle from the militarist one; annexing territories won't garner as much territory as military conquest, and if the expansionist star requirements stay as high as they are, war will be superior to annexation for acquiring territory in the late game.

Looking forward to DLC: Spies! Subterfuge! I feel there is little I can do to stop enemies that are ~1500 fame ahead of me and geographically far away. Being able to use Influence or Money to sabotage their progress would be a great playstyle. I also think the accessibility and effectiveness of spies could be a core part of diplomacy—namely, the more treaties you have, the more resources you are trading, and the more cultural influence you have on them, the easier it is to send spies to their cities and carry out missions.

Updated 3 years ago.
0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 20, 2021, 4:52:56 PM

Just posted in a different discussion about tile adjacencies and thought of this idea:


Have various different options for the basic districts -- look into the board game suburbia as an example. In that game, there are similar divisions for basic "types" of district tiles, but each of them have different adjacency bonuses and penalties on top of slightly different yields. Having such system would make the district placement far, far more interesting and engaging rather than just spamming the same industry or farm tiles over and over again.


This could be gated by research tech, and allows for more crossover between techs. For example, at the moment there are basically dedicated streams for industry, science, and food. You could keep those in spirit but also have maybe a food tile unlock on the military path that provides extra bonuses when next to a science tile. Or a food tile that unlocks in the industry path that gets a bonus when next to food tiles, but a penalty if next to industry. Etc.


To keep the interface in the build menu from being too cluttered, have these tiles as a separate drop-down menu when you select the corresponding base district type in the build menu.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 20, 2021, 5:21:13 PM

There is definitely some overlap between the two threads, sorry for that.


For me, the gameplay problems I noticed first were infrastructure costs (they scale way faster than they should, if anything they should barely scale at all), and pollution. I never build anything polluting because the last eras went so fast and I just never had time to build those things, but there is no explanation of how it works and how it works appears to, in fact, not work (basically an auto-loss for building anything polluting)


Some other ones that come to mind:


Enemy surrendering is definitely super weird. The "bargain" or whatever screen you are forced into isn't clear and the options it forces don't always make sense. I was at war with a civ for many turns, I sieged and took a territory right in the midst of my civ (on a completely different continent than anything else they owned), and then proceeded to beat all their armies on their "homeland" until they surrendered, but I couldn't keep the territory I initially took, instead having to take one in the middle of their actual empire (rather than the one in the middle of mine). I think the idea behind no infinite wars is a sound one but the implementation (particularly of surrendering, and gain / decrease of war demand) needs some revisiting.


A rebalancing of some of the civs unique bonuses and buildings. The Turk one surely is a typo bug but it's not encouraging such a severe yet simple problem made it this far. Many civs just don't have good unique bonuses for any playstayle. Expansionist seems problematic past the first 2 eras yet are constantly represented.


Systems like culture influence and religion spread are opaque and not explained well. What is causing my religion to spread or not? Is that good for me? Is it good for the other civs if they follow my religion that has good tenets? One of the mentioned effects of sphere of influence conversion is the osmosis thing except that seems to happen no matter which way the influence is spread (my city near another civ kept getting science and ideal osmosis events despite my culture having influence over the entire continent, and I also got those events on a different city back when influence was more even).


Strategic resources are definitely too rare, but it'd be pretty easy for it to swing to too common.


Luxury resources are strong because of trading, trading is overall vastly rewarding right now. There need to be renewal costs or maintenance costs or something. This would let merchant civs have a stronger mechanic as well, as right now I have only ever used money to buyout things as much as I can (which is good, but single minded).


It feels like it takes way too late in the game for embarked units to be able to cross any modest ocean. Maybe one of the in-between techs could give them 2 turns in the water instead of 1, and another tech could give embarked units an extra move speed earlier


There are sections of water that were considered "out of gameplay area" on my first map, which actually completely closed off the north and south edges of a continent if I didn't have open borders with that civ. Meaning I couldn't circumnavigate until much later (unfortunately while at war). I don't understand why the north and south edges of the map aren't the edge of the gameplay area.

Updated 3 years ago.
0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 20, 2021, 5:36:32 PM

I've got a few multiplayer games under my belt and here are a few issues that I've seen. (These comments are on the "Fast" game mode)


1.) Building production buildings and districts is the meta at the moment as their cost doesn't go up as you build them and you don't need population to use them. Maker's quarters need to go up in production cost as you build them or the civ just scales out of control. Players are dropping 8-9 districts per turn endgame and can build 20 military units in 1 turn if attacked. (in fact, all districts should go up in production as you build them, but maker's are the most egregious).  Another solution would be to not allow production to carry over to the next thing in the queue or limit carry over in some way.


2.) Currently very little reason to do anything in the ocean. Should allow boat units to make outposts, ransack costal tiles, claim ocean tiles (would make expansionist actually work), or transport ground units.


3.) Reduce territories needed for expansionist stars or a huge buff to expansionist ability. Currently, the ability costs a huge amount of gold, and takes 5-6 turns to complete. Any battle even remotely close to this unit will stop the ability and you have to pay the gold cost again. People can just send 1 horseman at a time at you, and the ability will never finish.  Needing to get 14 territories (on large map) for your first star in the first age is ridiculous.


4.) Vast nerf to research in the later eras (I'm talking 5-6x more research required for techs). Game is over in 10-11 turns once 1 civ hits contemporary before any end game units can be used. I've never even seen any units beyond musketeers as the game is over too quickly after that.  Sweden's building needs a HARD nerf as currently it gives 3 science for each other district in the whole city and you can build 1 per territory.  900 science per district * 9 or so districts anyone?


5.) A bigger differential between fame generated between primary stars and secondary stars, but make the primary stars harder to get (as your civ is doing those stars by default).


6.) An increase in the number of military units slain needed per star. You can get all 3 stars for an age in 1 battle with 2-3 turns of production.


7.) A rebalancing of the pyramids of giza wonder. At the moment, getting that wonder claimed first tends to be a enormous increase to win rate. All other wonders are very meh.


8.) Pity stars need to come way faster. Even though 1 player is in the contemporary age (on his own island) when most players were still in the medieval age (skriming over land), on fast, pity stars came every 50 turns. I think this is a bug with game speed.


9.) If a distant battle even slightly overlaps your cities territory, production stops for the turn. This can be a bit silly as endgame battles have a huge area.


10.) Would be nice to know opponent's military score compared to yours in the same way as against AI. You can get sneak attacked by a gigantic army with very little cues.  Additionally, it is tough to make the call to go to war with someone as you don't have a good idea of their strength.  Makes war much more risky.


Does anyone agree with these points? Disagree? More game design changes you'd like to see?

Updated 3 years ago.
0Send private message
0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 20, 2021, 7:06:46 PM

Turn limit is too low on normal speed, at 300 turn had  no AI entered the contemplary era and even I had just unlocked it. It was just before 1800AD when game ended.


I suggest you increase number of turns or let us increase it. The other conditions(like game ends on mission to mars) will ensure the game will end earlier when needed anyway.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 20, 2021, 7:08:47 PM

I think that the generation of ressources should be more balanced. Last game I was playing as the Soviet culture which needs to have 2 Oil to produce it's unique unit and there was only one unit of oil on the whole map :(

0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 20, 2021, 7:18:32 PM

Ive played about 24 hours of single player on standard speed, and a little multiplayer. All of this comes from that experience.

Pollution definitely needs some tweaking. I would like to see the effects on local per district stability to be much less, Maybe -2 stability per district per level of pollution, and then add more global levels of pollution. Going from low - high - dead feels fast, not enough time to build up tension. How about more, faster levels; low - moderate - high - extreme - dead, and then you could shift lots of the stability penalties to here (maybe up to -200 at the max for example). Also, destroying the world feels anti-climatic. The game is over, the end. You also missed a huge opportunity with how pollution could have changed the landscape, with desertification, rising sea levels, wild fires, sea garbage patches, land fills that block districts, smog clouds that roll across the country, etc. Without this the pollution mechanic feels very disconnected with the actual game. Some of these changes, along with a pollution overlay like with culture and religion, could make the pollution mechanic feel like a real driving force in the contemporary era.

Resources! I know they are supposed to be scarce, but they are so scarce to the point that you can't build many of the contemporary units because there is not enough in the entire world. If you feel that fixing that would ruin the dynamic of wars for resources, you could do something new: Make an event that slowly destroys resources in the contemporary era, after all resources are not infinite. You get to keep the units you have made, but making more will be a challenge. You could even tie this event to the pollution mechanic if you want. Just make sure that the total number of resources in the entire world never go below the minimum required to build something, and you should be fine.

The scaling for later eras is still off, some tweaking is required there. Producing districts in 1 turn, researching the end of tech tree techs in 1-3 turns, etc. Also I feel we are getting stars too fast. In every game I have played I reach the contemporary era with 90+ turns left in the game, which doesn't feel right at all. I agree with all of User Sixpointfive's points in this regard.

Very little reason to do things in the ocean. I also think that Sixpointfive has an amazing idea here: let boats make outposts and claim ocean tiles and transport ground units. Also, put resources in the ocean like oil. Then we will see much more naval combat, and have more reason to build boats other than to explore.

One thing I would like to see is a few changes to the saboteur: I feel it should be able to enter the borders of another nation and cause havoc without you being at war. If it gets caught, it could generate a grievance. This would add a huge angle to mid-late game hostility, and spying actually feels like spying. and spy shenanigans are always fun.

Also I think that we should be able to demolish districts (with a influence/gold cost if you guys think it needs it). Having to plan for the ICBM test from the very beginning of the game feels totally wrong and unrealistic. Also, in the vein of nuclear war, one of the techs should add a very production heavy task of cleaning out a wasteland tile. It is possible in real life, Nagasaki was rebuilt after a long hard process.

Those are currently my thoughts on the game. I am having a blast currently, but I would love to see this game rise to its full potential. Anyone feel free to comment and add to my points.

Updated 3 years ago.
0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 20, 2021, 7:20:50 PM

Suggestion: Streamline Infrastructure projects.


At a certain point you can get bogged down with infrastructure projects. I noticed that when you build a new city using a settler, none of the older infrastructure projects are available, yet the older cities could still have some ancient era projects not completed - especially if you have to be more aggressive.


I suggest something like this: With certain eras, you phase out infrastructure projects from one or two eras prior, and give a bonus to constructing current era infrastructure based on what you've built already - IE upgrade to later stuff. This could also mean having to add more era specific infrastructure. Maybe not everything should be phased out.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 20, 2021, 7:24:04 PM
yelichman wrote:

Ive played about 24 hours of single player on standard speed, and a little multiplayer. All of this comes from that experience.

Pollution definitely needs some tweaking. I would like to see the effects on local per district stability to be much less, Maybe -2 stability per district per level of pollution, and then add more global levels of pollution. Going from low - high - dead feels fast, not enough time to build up tension. How about more, faster levels; low - moderate - high - extreme - dead, and then you could shift lots of the stability penalties to here (maybe up to -200 at the max for example). Also, destroying the world feels anti-climatic. The game is over, the end. You also missed a huge opportunity with how pollution could have changed the landscape, with desertification, rising sea levels, wild fires, sea garbage patches, land fills that block districts, smog clouds that roll across the country, etc. Without this the pollution mechanic feels very disconnected with the actual game. Some of these changes, along with a pollution overlay like with culture and religion, could make the pollution mechanic feel like a real driving force in the contemporary era.

Resources! I know they are supposed to be scarce, but they are so scarce to the point that you can't build many of the contemporary units because there is not enough in the entire world. If you feel that fixing that would ruin the dynamic of wars for resources, you could do something new: Make an event that slowly destroys resources in the contemporary era, after all resources are not infinite. You get to keep the units you have made, but making more will be a challenge. You could even tie this event to the pollution mechanic if you want. Just make sure that the total number of resources in the entire world never go below the minimum required to build something, and you should be fine.

The scaling for later eras is still off, some tweaking is required there. Producing districts in 1 turn, researching the end of tech tree techs in 1-3 turns, etc. Also I feel we are getting stars too fast. In every game I have played I reach the contemporary era with 90+ turns left in the game, which doesn't feel right at all. I agree with all of User Sixpointfive's points in this regard.

Very little reason to do things in the ocean. I also think that Sixpointfive has an amazing idea here: let boats make outposts and claim ocean tiles and transport ground unit. Also, put resources in the ocean like oil. Then we will see much more naval combat, and have more reason to build boats other than to explore.

One thing I would like to see is a few changes to the saboteur: I feel it should be able to enter the borders of another nation and cause havoc without you being at war. If it gets caught, it could generate a grievance. This would add a huge angle to mid-late game hostility, and spying actually feels like spying. and spy shenanigans are always fun.

Also I think that we should be able to demolish districts (with a influence/gold cost if you guys think it needs it). Having to plan for the ICBM test from the very beginning of the game feels totally wrong and unrealistic. Also, in the vein of nuclear war, one of the techs should add a very production heavy task of cleaning out a wasteland tile. It is possible in real life, Nagasaki was rebuilt after a long hard process.

Those are currently my thoughts on the game. I am having a blast currently, but I would love to see this game rise to its full potential. Anyone feel free to comment and add to my points.

To add to this, I'm not sure if it was an AI issue or an issue with vassal states as I have not had a vassal before, but give the civilization with power over the vassal state the ability to build infrastructure - if this is already allowed normally, make sure the AI can do it. I had a game where an AI That obviously could use oil - they bought it from me after all - refused to upgrade the oil in their vassal's territory. Unless there's a benefit to keeping your vassals in the stone age in game.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 20, 2021, 7:25:08 PM
minimallyviable wrote:

Suggestion: Streamline Infrastructure projects.


At a certain point you can get bogged down with infrastructure projects. I noticed that when you build a new city using a settler, none of the older infrastructure projects are available, yet the older cities could still have some ancient era projects not completed - especially if you have to be more aggressive.


I suggest something like this: With certain eras, you phase out infrastructure projects from one or two eras prior, and give a bonus to constructing current era infrastructure based on what you've built already - IE upgrade to later stuff. This could also mean having to add more era specific infrastructure. Maybe not everything should be phased out.

It's not that the infrastructure isn't available, it's just built automatically when you settle. The same tech that gives you settlers also gives this ability (automatically build all previous era infrastructure when creating a new city).

0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 20, 2021, 7:27:53 PM

This might go under quality of life.

With the rename tool, add an option to it that will automatically rename a city to one on your current culture's city list. Maybe even a way to do that with all cities.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 20, 2021, 7:34:16 PM
minimallyviable wrote:

Suggestion: Streamline Infrastructure projects.


At a certain point you can get bogged down with infrastructure projects. I noticed that when you build a new city using a settler, none of the older infrastructure projects are available, yet the older cities could still have some ancient era projects not completed - especially if you have to be more aggressive.


I suggest something like this: With certain eras, you phase out infrastructure projects from one or two eras prior, and give a bonus to constructing current era infrastructure based on what you've built already - IE upgrade to later stuff. This could also mean having to add more era specific infrastructure. Maybe not everything should be phased out.

Yes! I completely agree with this. One thing you could do is let units that build cities with infrastructure pre-installed (like settlers and construction workers) "modernize" a city. An example of this mechanic could be consuming the unit to build a few free infrastructures, or maybe it could take multiple turns like chopping down a forest but you are building infrastructure.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Aug 20, 2021, 8:17:12 PM

The main thing I think the game needs is more customization for the players. The option to create and save unique avatars to both play as and play against would be an amazing addition to the game. I like creating identities, and the only way for me to play against the different characters in my head is if I convince a friend to adopt the identity for me to download. It's just a fun idea to be able to get creative with the system you created and to allow others to share in the fun by publishing them.


Then on the game settings, you allow us to create a few modifications, but allowing the game's set up to be curated by a player may be a better option. The pacing options are good, but the hard limitation on time limits can put some people off who want to play for longer periods. Even endless mode has a hard time limit. The option to choose a pace and to set the time limitations would be a great start. Setting victory conditions would also be a great option to have. You have preset victory conditions, but all of them have a time limit, and while each has it's core idea, to set your own victory conditions for a game and the ability to save it as a preset is a key setting to have I believe.


These customization abilities I believe would elevate the game further and would allow more repeatability while increasing community interaction as more avatar ideas would be shared, as well as talks about the perfect win condition settings.

0Send private message
Comment
0Send private message