Do we really need two additional player crisis types?

[Space Cartographer]

I generally really like the ideas for the new DLCs we get in Season 9. There is just one thing I don't get. Why do we get two additional player crisis types?

For me personally, the 'become the crisis' idea was always kind of a meme. I'm quite sure it was partly designed because Paradox knew it would get the attention from streamers and influencers. I guess it is fun to play as a crisis for a game or so, but I always found playing a normal empire way more meaningful and interesting. So I was a little suprised when Machine Age added a second crisis type and am extremely baffled now that we get 'become the crisis 3.0' and 4.0. So is playing an empire that tries to destroy the galaxy not at all a niche thing anymore and is becoming more and more the main way to play Stellaris?

I guess, I really would have appreciated other features much more than additional player crisis types, but I'm really interested in what you think about this.

 

[Fenris_SE]

I generally really like the ideas for the new DLCs we get in Season 9. There is just one thing I don't get. Why do we get two additional player crisis types?

For me personally, the 'become the crisis' idea was always kind of a meme. I'm quite sure it was partly designed because Paradox knew it would get the attention from streamers and influencers. I guess it is fun to play as a crisis for a game or so, but I always found playing a normal empire way more meaningful and interesting. So I was a little suprised when Machine Age added a second crisis type and am extremely baffled now that we get 'become the crisis 3.0' and 4.0. So is playing an empire that tries to destroy the galaxy not at all a niche thing anymore and is becoming more and more the main way to play Stellaris?

I guess, I really would have appreciated other features much more than additional player crisis types, but I'm really interested in what you think about this.

TLDR: Turns out I wrote a lot without really saying much. I usually play the "bad guy" and feel like several others do as well, but could take or leave all the crisis types. I usually become the crisis by how I play and not from any particular perk.

I started playing Determined Exterminators, Swarm, Driven Assimilators , and various other types of "kill everything" empires awhile ago. Dealing with federations, alliances, and factions (back when they could wreck your empire) was just frustrating when trying to deal with the AI doing stupid stuff ..... but mostly factions back in the day. And I haven't looked back. The closest I get is playing a pirate type of empire that steals pops, but it is still me against the universe.

And while I do miss out on a lot of the interactions with other empires, I do like the challenge of going up against the whole universe eventually. I've tried the peaceful federation builders from time to time, but those runs usually last less than 50 years before I delete that save. Usually it is my empire being surrounded by the "kill or eat everything empires" and by the time I find a friendly they are either almost dead or in a large federation. So I go back to killing everything that is not me .... and weirdly I find that more relaxing than dealing with the AI.

I won't speak for others but I have seen similar comments from others saying that is why they play the kill everything empires as well. So while I don't know the exact numbers of people who play "bad guy" empires (would be an interesting poll), there are more than a few.

That said, even with my play style I've only chosen become the crisis once. A few years back I realized I've been playing this game almost since release (actually 6 months after release) and have never "officially" won the game. I'd get wrecked in my early days, or get to a point were I realized there was no way to lose ..... or the lag would hit. So I became the crisis thinking it might be a quicker way of getting an "official" win.... and honestly I think that was more work than just killing off other empires the old fashioned way. Although ..... Cosmogenesis does look interesting ......

 

[Calvax]

I've completed galactic nemesis maybe once and didn't enjoy it. I've played cosmogenesis a few times and had fun with it. Two more crisis types doesn't particularly bother me so long as they are well designed and distinct from regular gameplay. I think that's the problem with galactic nemesis, sure you get the scrap ships and the hypercubes to build the engine but gameplay wise it feels virtually no different to a regular genocidal empire (and tonally it's a mess). Which does mean that often people seem to take it when they're playing genocidal because it's just a straight up buff to that playstyle.

Stellaris always has to walk the line between being a sandbox and giving more pre-scripted stuff. The latter can really be fleshed out for a coherent theme when done well but it does limit things. If the two new paths are as well made and distinct as cosmogenesis then I don't really care. And if there not...well I probably won't play them and will just hope it doesn't indicate a trend of more railroady stuff (which I very much doubt it would).

 

[Thiend]

I'd probably prefer midgame or endgame crisises.

I'm not specifically opposed to player crisis paths, at least as long as no more take the Cosmogenesis route of "blatantly OP even if you don't want to use it as a win condition to the point that you should literally always take it" while simultaneously taking the entire design space of matching Fallen Empires in tech for itself. I'm not excited for them, but I'm usually not excited for 100% of any DLC so that's basically fine.

The origins all sound interesting, and it's the two ascensions that were my favorite before Machine Age this year. Plus, bioships that nobody said were locked to genetic ascension and a species pack that it appears will be rather gameplay-impactful.

 

[Kataclyszm]

No, the answer is we don't need it. But that's not the right perspective: It's a video game, and a DLC, so we don't 'need' it. Is there an argument that the dev-time could've been better spent elsewhere? Of course.

The REAL argument is why they're so stuck on this idea of 'crisis that is an ascension perk' when to date, half of the 'crisis paths' they've given, Nemesis and Cosmogenesis, aren't even properly a crisis! Future development doesn't seem like it'll add much more.

 

[jedavis]

Basically agree with OP. Become Crisis was fun once, Cosmogenesis was fun once. They feel like cheat codes. I find myself unsatisfied with a win after having used them. I have little to no interest in additional player crisis paths, even as someone who plays ~50% of my games as omnicidals (I do wish it were a little easier to make a committed heel turn towards a total war CB by other means; Become Crisis at 4th ascension perk feels like the right timing, but it's usually a while until Colossus Project comes out after that. I guess I just need to get better at getting the senate to declare me one).

 

[Thiend]

Basically agree with OP. Become Crisis was fun once, Cosmogenesis was fun once. They feel like cheat codes. I find myself unsatisfied with a win after having used them. I have little to no interest in additional player crisis paths, even as someone who plays ~50% of my games as omnicidals (I do wish it were a little easier to make a committed heel turn towards a total war CB by other means; Become Crisis at 4th ascension perk feels like the right timing, but it's usually a while until Colossus Project comes out after that. I guess I just need to get better at getting the senate to declare me one).

You can use favors to force someone to vote to denounce themselves.

Theoretically, there's nothing stopping you from collecting favors and forcing them to vote to declare you a crisis, as long as you can get someone to put forth the resolution.

 

[Skeletr0nKing]

I wish the AI was way more competent at using the "Become the crisis" paths so you could actually play against them.
When an AI player goes for crisis I wish the devs would allow an optional way of letting them *cheat* a bit to keep things interesting.


Also, there is this:
A Cosmogenesis vs Nemesis Vs. Behemot Fury Vs. Burning worlds Vs., End of The Cycle Vs. War in Heaven Vs. Pretorhyn Vs. Cetana Vs. Unbidden playthrough. See if you can save anything at all of the galaxy after defeating them all, or play as one of them and try to destroy it first.

 

[jedavis]

I wish the AI was way more competent at using the "Become the crisis" paths so you could actually play against them.
When an AI player goes for crisis I wish the devs would allow an optional way of letting them *cheat* a bit to keep things interesting.

I was thinking the other day about fiddling with the AI weights for the crisis perks. What sort of self-respecting fanatical materialist or science network machine intelligence wouldn't want to do Cosmogenesis? What kind of militarist spiritualist with psionic ascension wouldn't want to harness the power of the Shroud for war?

Even if the AI is bad at using them, giving it more frequent attempts might help it occasionally pop off.

 

[Lazy Name]

I personally like it, for all the times I do want to pick a crisis path but none of the current ones match the flavour of the empire I'm building.

I would've preferred it even more if there was only one Crisis perk and then you can choose options to shape exactly what kind of crisis you become, but that ship has already sailed, and having a variety of potential Crisis paths seems a decent enough alternative.

 

[jedavis]

as long as you can get someone to put forth the resolution.

That's always tough, even as an exterminator. I've never looked to see if I can propose it on myself if I'm on the council; I'll have to the next time I load up the game.

 

[Ryika]

I don't think having more crises is a bad thing, but I also wonder whether it's really the best thing that can be done with the development time that is available. It seems like that's a lot of time spent on a feature that does not do anything in your game UNLESS you specifically choose to activate it, and does absolutely nothing to improve the more general late-game which generally still doesn't have that much too offer.

More generally, the focus is way too heavily on funneling the player into going up against the rest of the galaxy until everything explodes and you're declared the winner over actually having features that facilitate interesting developments in the galaxy with factions that work towards shared goals.

 

[Bitzo]

More generally, the focus is way too heavily on funneling the player into going up against the rest of the galaxy until everything explodes and you're declared the winner over actually having features that facilitate interesting developments in the galaxy with factions that work towards shared goals.

This. All of this.

On a somewhat related note, I still hate the decision from half a decade ago to add a "victory year" and the arbitrary point score system that came with it. Congratulations! Because exactly X amount of years have passed and you specifically, at this point in time, have the most points from devastating the most systems and having the biggest number of overcompensators flying about and are knee-deep into repeatables, you are the winner of this video game! Always found it nonsensical for a sandbox to have a determined "end" to it. It's somebody else's story imposing itself on something you are trying to tell.
"My people are total pacifists that live fulfilling, free and equal lives in utopian conditions! Soon, my second Ring World will be online for even more idyllic living space acquired with no force at all." - "Yeah but you dident conquer half the galaxy and purge every alien and steal every relic so you lose (in this sandbox!!) get rekt n00b1!"
Unsurprisingly, I always turn that shit off.

Consequently, I also despise Galactic Nemesis. The nonsensical nature of an incorrectly built dyson sphere summoning Naval Capacity out of thin air and all Menacing ships having fixed build costs regardless of components (which is not how that works you cheating bastards!) and similarly egregious weirdness aside, their own victory condition ending the game for everybody else unconditionally has got to be one of the worst decisions the developers ever made. The Victory Year can be turned off. The Devouring Swarm across the galaxy pressing an "I win" button in the campaign that I sunk a dozen hours into and literally deleting my empire despite never having laid a finger on just one of my extensive defense platforms like any of the actually well designed Crises have to (i.e.: Prethoryn, Unbidden, Contingency, the Khan, Gray Tempest, Voidworms, Reckoning) is aggravating.
I shouldn't have to install a mod to disable something that feels like it is a mod.

Overall, I am abivalent towards player Crises. They are fun once and I do like the idea of struggling to survive in a galactic wasteland left behind by a Cosmogenesis. I just sincerely hope the two new Crises don't get to cheat their way to victory like Nemesis does and that if they want to wipe out players that did not choose to interact with their mechanics, they will have to do it the old fashioned way.

 

[Nyrael]

I just hope the Galaxy's answer to the Crisis is sharper than it is for Cosmogenesis where you lsoe some opinions, but only the Fallen Empires get hostile... and by the time they do, you're stronger than them.

As some said, there is little reason to not go for Cosmogenesis. It's not as risky as it should be.

I mentioned it in the Dev Diary itself, but I feel like there should be more anti-Crisis mechanics, especilly if the Crisis Paths will be so heavily supported. Custodian and GalCom in general need to be able to have more fangs.

 

[Ikael]

I won't lie; the new crises were met with a big fat "ooofff" from me.

Don't get me wrong, I feel happy for those players that will enjoy more crises, they tend to be fun to play at least once.

But I would rather we could work towards a goal or "victory condition" that won't become the ultimate extermination of every single thing in the galaxy. To build something rather than tearing it down. We need more victory conditions that don't involve intentional or collateral genocide.

That was, for me, one of the biggest appeals of Cosmogenesis. Despite being a galactic crisis, you moved towards a goal rather than destroying the galaxy for the shake of it. I would like more good guy stuff to do and less grimdark content, but that's just my personal taste.

 

[Calvax]

I just hope the Galaxy's answer to the Crisis is sharper than it is for Cosmogenesis where you lsoe some opinions, but only the Fallen Empires get hostile... and by the time they do, you're stronger than them.

As some said, there is little reason to not go for Cosmogenesis. It's not as risky as it should be.

I mentioned it in the Dev Diary itself, but I feel like there should be more anti-Crisis mechanics, especilly if the Crisis Paths will be so heavily supported. Custodian and GalCom in general need to be able to have more fangs.

That was my comment and while it’s not super popular I stand by it. I think a small tweak is that applied infinity thesis should be required a certain number of times. Currently there’s no real need to do it multiple times since you can get advanced logic better from the lathe, or just research/scholarium. The AIT is meant to be what weakens relationships and makes it more likely the AI will fight to defend itself.

 

[tanny]

I think having multiple player crises would be fun in a multiplayer game. It turns the game into a race where anyone could win from anywhere instead of a war game.

 

[The Bored Chairman]

I do like the idea of adding more threats to the galaxy, especially ones that give agency to the empires themselves, one of the biggest issues plaguing late game Stellaris is stagnation in the game, where alliances were formed and the strong rule the galaxy uncontested, at least until a Fallen Empire awakens or the Crisis spawns.

More threats means more action, which creates a better gameplay loop.

That being said, I would certainly like for more outside factors to impact the late game as well, the issue is figuring out what that could be. Either that, or take another look at victory cons, as the vanilla conditions are all about owning territory. Maybe create victory conditions tied to the Congress/Empire, unique win cons tied to Empire Ethics, after the Internal Politics rework of course. An end goal of the most influential faction that fully establishes your empire's place in the galaxy could be a fun idea.

 

[Beauty Nova]

I still kind of hope for a diplomatic crisis path that culminates in declaring the empire, and an "anti-crisis" path possibly unlocked by defender of the galaxy, but more flavors of "hahaha! we're evil now!" should be amusing. The game needs more alternative win conditions and cosmogenesis works as a pseudo technological victory. Kind of.

 

[Random Players]

Yes we do, why is this even up for question?