Do we really need two additional player crisis types?

[Thiend]

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

Because we objectively actually don't need them. We have two already, a better split would have been one new player crisis and one new midgame crisis.

The question isn't whether anyone at all will play them, it's whether we need them (and, implied, whether it was the best use of resources). It probably wasn't, because a midgame crisis would impact everyone and a player crisis impacts only a very small subset of people who actually play with that specific perk. Not everything is for everyone though, I probably won't play them (I only use Cosmogenesis because they locked all the FE stuff behind it for no good reason and you can play relatively normally with it) but that was going to be true of at least something in an entire season of DLC so it isn't especially noteworthy beyond that making only one would probably be better resource allocation.

 

[Random Players]

Because we objectively actually don't need them. We have two already, a better split would have been one new player crisis and one new midgame crisis.

The question isn't whether anyone at all will play them, it's whether we need them (and, implied, whether it was the best use of resources). It probably wasn't, because a midgame crisis would impact everyone and a player crisis impacts only a very small subset of people who actually play with that specific perk. Not everything is for everyone though, I probably won't play them (I only use Cosmogenesis because they locked all the FE stuff behind it for no good reason and you can play relatively normally with it) but that was going to be true of at least something in an entire season of DLC so it isn't especially noteworthy beyond that making only one would probably be better resource allocation.

That's like saying we didn't need megacorps because we already had regular empires. Different flavors and mechanics.

 

[Thiend]

That's like saying we didn't need megacorps because we already had regular empires. Different flavors and mechanics.

Correct. We didn't need them. It was a question of what was the best allocation of resources. Once the bugs were ironed out, megacorps added gameplay a lot of people are interested in that they couldn't get elsewhere.

The same is not true of these, both because fewer people play a crisis path than a megacorp and because we already have two (and will already have three when the second of these releases), while we had 0 megacorps.

This is probably not the best allocation of resources compared to a midgame crisis and a single player crisis. Depends how detailed they are though - it may be that these were less involved than the existing player crises to make (the biological one appears to be an expansion of Devouring Swarms plus mechanics used elsewhere in the DLC, at least from the name and description). If so, they may have required less effort than a midgame crisis would. I still don't think two was better than one and something else, but a midgame crisis may not have been an option.

Perhaps next year we'll get a midgame crisis, or an update to the khan to be more relevant or have more than one outcome. Personally, my hope would be for a pacifist FE that occasionally joins the galactic community just to screw with regular empires, thus creating a midgame "diplomatic crisis" that could also be used to accelerate the galactic community by trying to influence what it does.

 

[Calvax]

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.

Stuff like this sounds like going too far in the direction of a preset quest line rather than a sandbox. I'd love there to be an ability to form a Galactic Commonwealth as an opposite to the Imperium, but I really don't think things like that need to be a set path with pre-written story and linear steps. They should be mechanics that we can interact with in unique ways depending on how we approach them.

 

[Beauty Nova]

Stuff like this sounds like going too far in the direction of a preset quest line rather than a sandbox. I'd love there to be an ability to form a Galactic Commonwealth as an opposite to the Imperium, but I really don't think things like that need to be a set path with pre-written story and linear steps. They should be mechanics that we can interact with in unique ways depending on how we approach them.

My suggested path would by no means replace the existing custodian/emperorr mechanics. It might interact with them, or be an alternative route to them, but would not replace them.

At least if I got to design it, anyway.

 

[Kataclyszm]

Stuff like this sounds like going too far in the direction of a preset quest line rather than a sandbox. I'd love there to be an ability to form a Galactic Commonwealth as an opposite to the Imperium, but I really don't think things like that need to be a set path with pre-written story and linear steps. They should be mechanics that we can interact with in unique ways depending on how we approach them.

Not to mention it's like... people want everything to be a 'crisis'. "Diplomatic crisis" "Research crisis" "Economic crisis". When everything is a crisis, nothing will be.