Why Not Always Be The Crisis?

[Revontulet]

This is my first play through as the crisis and I put it off because I'm kinda new to playing the game seriously and I wrongly assumed that everyone would instantly hate you and you would become....well the crisis...and everyone would declare war on you.

Then I saw a video and leaned that is last step and it is optional.

The build up to that point gives you INSANE advantages and no seeming disadvantage.

A few battles to build up my "badness" and I can make cruisers out of minerals that do +50% damage?! WTF

No war exhaustion? I mean so little exhaustion my foes are at 100% when I am at 7%.

+50% ship build speed. Better Destroyer tracking. Cruisers and Destroyers that don't cost more when you upgrade them.

I have no desire to blow up the galaxy or destroy planets, which is the last step which pisses off everyone.

This is totally OP.

Other than role playing issues, why not always be the crisis?

[Sgt. Sarge]

It does eventually give opinion debuffs, but its not hard to upset other empires anyways

[Nolo Contendere]

The main reason is "because I want to do something else". Same reason why you wouldn't take cosmogenesis for the fallen empire tech.

[Geoff]

Originally posted by Revontulet:

Other than role playing issues, why not always be the crisis?

I mean, that's the answer, though. It's a very specific person who spends their recreational energy annihilating everything instead of saving it. It's not a thing most people want to do with their time.

[mss73055]

To add: if you are genocidal then nemesis Crisis allows you to take on subjects.
Thereby creating a moat, so you can strike where you want.

[Wat]

Originally posted by Revontulet:

I have no desire to blow up the galaxy or destroy planets

Yes. Not everyone has a "destroy the galaxy" agenda.

[Sir Snuffles]

it's for power fantasy RP playthroughs. Cosmogenesis is one i've been wanting for a long time without the need for mods. Now i can be the Fallen Empire

I imagine in multiplayer games crisis modes are either outright not allowed in their game or you'll soon get teamed up on and stomped into star dust

[Razorblade]

If you're just using Galactic Nemesis to get a powerful navy, there are a thousand other ways to do that. Personally, I think going Galactic Emperor is a better choice in that case.

If you just want galactic domination without the early win from Crisis level 5, you'll save a lot of tedium by forceably disbanding all Federations before vassalizing everyone, and the GDF fleet wil give you plenty of free ships to make that happen.

Now if your argument was "Why not always take Cosmogenesis?" I'd say you have a bit more of an argument there. All of the power of a Crisis; none of the tedium.

All that being said, if your only goal is to win Stellaris in the most optimal way, you won't be playing more than a handful of games anyway.

[Kaelmato]

Wait until the OP learns about the second player crisis, cosmogenesis and 300k+ research a month it grants.

Cosmogenesis makes the first crisis look like little ants trying to play god in comparison.

But yeah, unless you're roleplaying picking one of the crisis is kind of a nobrainer.
The first crisis if you're planning to play aggressive, cosmogenesis if... Well, I don't see any reason not to pick it up, every single time.

[Oakshadow]

I think stages 4 and 5 for both crises' label you a crisis in the eyes of other empires. So even if you don't go the whole way things will start to trigger.

Keep in mind taking the crisis perks flags you as a crisis. Meaning any damage buffs that apply to crisis empires also applies to you. In addition there are several in game events that trigger in response to you being the crisis should to take too long to accomplish victory.

None of these things are insurmountable. But if you're playing with other people, choosing the a crisis perk is a good way to get ganged up on and spanked. Which is why people don't just pick the perk every time they play.

[Revontulet]

I knew I would get absolutely great responses from this.

For some of these responses I don't even possess the vocabulary to understand them.... Cosmo.. huh??

I'm just saying: What Perk gets you more of what you need to survive than +50% ship damage and mineral boats? No matter what your play style is. I mean, even if you are friendly, doesn't that mean your Federation's Fleet would do +50%? +10% Technology or that? Not even a choice.

Many posts assume an aggressive play style is part of being the menace. I stopped being militarily aggressive a hundred years ago. I'm playing a criminal syndicate. I don't want to attack anyone because I've got the team living there. I can't figure out how to win without attacking whoever is 1st or second place mid game and breaking them up into vassals. Then when I get ahead just use espionage and manage stuff.

But, really, the question was seeking any downside of the perk. Given how many perks you get, and how crappy many are, why not always have +50% ship damage (and destroyers with +30 tracking).

Oh no! Those two extra envoys was way better... Really? When?

Whatever the build, why not always have that huge advantage?

[TcT Goth98]

Role-playing plus being the crisis locks you out of some things.

[Carog the Fat]

the main downside is the fact that you are a crisis and so hated, now if you are playing GA x25 endgame crisis then being hated isn't going to worry you.
Also many players don't just choose perks because they are always best. Choosing one thing locks you out of other stuff you can do for fun.
like i was playing ACME Inc the mad robots making giant mounds of toasters choosing become the crisis with that empire would feel wrong to me for my internal story, but i choose cosmogenesis(the new crisis) on some individual robot traders after they helped the infinity sphere get to a new dimension.

[VoiD]

At this point, there is no reason not to pick a crisis path unless you're aiming to form a galactic empire.

The 3 paths are now very close to the 3 ascension paths, either you want to be the nemesis, or start cosmogenesis, or be the emperor, not picking one of the paths isn't an option, it's just dumb.

Same as not taking any ascension paths (or the new trait to make your species naturally stronger instead)

[TcT Goth98]

Originally posted by VoiD:

At this point, there is no reason not to pick a crisis path unless you're aiming to form a galactic empire.

The 3 paths are now very close to the 3 ascension paths, either you want to be the nemesis, or start cosmogenesis, or be the emperor, not picking one of the paths isn't an option, it's just dumb.

Same as not taking any ascension paths (or the new trait to make your species naturally stronger instead)

Not true at all. It's mainly a single player roleplaying game.

[VoiD]

Originally posted by TcT Goth98:

Originally posted by VoiD:

At this point, there is no reason not to pick a crisis path unless you're aiming to form a galactic empire.

The 3 paths are now very close to the 3 ascension paths, either you want to be the nemesis, or start cosmogenesis, or be the emperor, not picking one of the paths isn't an option, it's just dumb.

Same as not taking any ascension paths (or the new trait to make your species naturally stronger instead)

Not true at all. It's mainly a single player roleplaying game.

No, it's not even related to any of that.