No no, do go on about how attempting to optimize is "lazy" and "shameful", while picking choices more arbitrarily isn't. It should be interesting.
Of course, someone complaining about their attempts to optimize is silly.
I think perhaps some of us think the tech tree seems to be, or ought to be, a little more situational, such that there is no optimally efficient path through its entirety. It's lazy just to rush feudalism every game, and shameful to think that's good game design and see nothing changed.
What basis do you use to conclude "does it work?". Let's set aside the unambiguous fail mode junk like the game UI. What makes you conclude one mechanic "works" and another "does not work", aside from the literal sense like "UI lies" or "game desyncs every other turn in MP"?
Like I said, it's more subjective. It requires a goal that we were aiming for to begin with. Since we're talking about the Samurai, let's go with that. If they're just there to add Japanese flavor, I suppose they suffice. If they're supposed to add some uniqueness or flexibility to Japanese playstyle, I think they sorely fail, and tweaking their stats isn't going to change anything.
Still not getting away from number crunching. Most of the trivial choices are such because the numerical ROI is consistently disparate in favor of one or a few options over alternatives.
You number crunch after the fact, and try to cut down on the disparities. The point is always: Do not start with the number crunching.
Some people consider the small efficiencies interesting too. They smash deity dozens of turns earlier than typical players believe possible.
And? You just seem to be implying that these are somehow the authoritative Civ players.
If you crunch numbers poorly, you do poorly. The decision of whether to use UU or not under optimal play is determined by whether it confers more benefit than alternative investments. Bad upgrade paths can make the cost prohibitive or limit the return, but if this is the sole basis for the decision you can miss a window of strong usage.
The insults do you no favors. Again, you act as though this is the authoritative style, and there is only one logical choice, and the rest of us are stupid for not agreeing. It's that attitude that's so infuriating to folk like me and Marzen. It does sound as if you're handing off the game to a calculator and watching the result. Would the game not be richer if there was no true optimum?
What "makes the samurai interesting"? You can make something interesting, then balance it...assuming it matters enough to the person doing the work.
Their UU passive really doesn't. It was killer the entire Civ in 5, but barely a flash in the pan for one unit. They need something else. But we'll have to think of it before there are numbers to crunch.
People make that complaint because they want something to be viable, but it isn't because of where it's placed. As such pursuing it can harm their position...why make a known poor choice on purpose? Variant play and not much else.
Nah, see here, you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. The so-called casuals want that stuff to be viable as well, but get looked down upon for doing it anyway. The optimizers want the game changed to fit their playstyle, but this is apparently fine, and completely different from what the filthy casuals want.
Variant play. You make it sound like such a bad word. We should be encouraging it, to make as many variants as viable as possible.
Players do often say something "feels like cheating". This is not the mark of a casual player. It's mark of an irrational/incoherent player, as they virtually never understand even their own framework for what is cheating, or even what feels like it. I've even seen such players claim some things "feel like cheating" while other things that confer a significantly greater benefit are fine in their book. It's a necessarily incoherent position.
Nah, again. People have opinions, and they're not irrational just because you don't agree with them. But I guess I really should expect this from a guy called "TheMeinTeam".
