Paradox sure bit off a lot on this one, if the flamewars over exactly how deadly the Mongols should be in CK2 are any indication.
- 2
The End-Game self fulfilling prophecy
- Thread starter Rognvaldr19
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Paradox sure bit off a lot on this one, if the flamewars over exactly how deadly the Mongols should be in CK2 are any indication.
I think there is actually another self-fulfilling prophecy in the lategame.
So your empire emerges from the midgame,. having swallowd it's neighbours and standing as one of the emminent forces of the galaxy. So you start worrying about the late game crises and expand your military immensely to fight off the foes that may arise soon.
However, your military buildup worries your neighbours, which start researching dangerous technology as they can not win a ressource war with you any more and need some "trump cards" to tip the scales.
Which leads to them triggering a crisis.
So your empire emerges from the midgame,. having swallowd it's neighbours and standing as one of the emminent forces of the galaxy. So you start worrying about the late game crises and expand your military immensely to fight off the foes that may arise soon.
However, your military buildup worries your neighbours, which start researching dangerous technology as they can not win a ressource war with you any more and need some "trump cards" to tip the scales.
Which leads to them triggering a crisis.
- 4
- 1
Then the inter-dimensional beings that take over your galaxy can have a chance to be factions of players that have actually beaten the game in the past...
Dun dun DUUUUUUN!
Dun dun DUUUUUUN!
- 1
- 1
My question is, is it possible for the game to lock the player into a "stagnation mode" in which technology can actually be lost and new colonies can't be founded? I personally would like to see a mechanic like this, where your empire could, under certain conditions, become an actual fallen empire instead of just being ruined by some kind of disaster and having to rebuild.
- 6
- 1
YES OH GOD YES!
Have it so that if you survive the endgame disaster it gets logged as a possible fallen empire!
- 2
Ah, yes. "Reapers". The immortal race of sentient starships allegedly waiting in dark space. Oh, we have dismissed that claim.
(Sorry, couldn't resist XD)
- 4
It would actually be cool to, when one meets a criteria, have one's empire be a visible fallen empire in a future game, due to the events of the previous game. I would personally like some form of end-game or another JUST to tie loose ends (like how the 19th century is end-game-esque in EU4 with the revolutions that conveniently never occur), however if the theme of Stellaris is like other Paradox games in where the whole process of the game is the bigger focus than the end result of the game, I would not mind an inevitable loss, especially if there is nice story or events that go with the end-game disasters so they feel more special than usual.
I for one look forward to the end game part, I wasn't the biggest fan, but I like fighting hard odds.
- 1
unless ofcourse the robots do genocide, killing off all organics and liberating any unfree robots to dwell on roaming space stations... which after all advanced civilizations keeping robots are dead and destroyed and the rest have sworn to never ever build sentient machines to serve... they fly off beyond the rim.
the robots sure would have no reason at all to keep organics around.
the robots sure would have no reason at all to keep organics around.
- 1
That phrase is the Dwarf Fortress motto, the game you not only lose, you lose in such a spectacular way that it is waaaay more funny to lose than it is to "win". If you "won" in DF, all you get is routine, a well mantained fortress. If you lost? You have stories of insane children babbling on corridors, wrestler dwarves who died pinning a demon made of poison in the middle of the dining hall, and the classic where your last sane dwarf pulls the Armaggedon lever ( every respectable fortress has one) and floods the entire map with lava.
The fun is in the stories you catch in the moment you lost. End game disasters have the potential of epic last stands, admirals who won against all odds, but died in the end, a planet that has been rebellious for the last few years being the last hope of your species against C'thulhu.
Losing 50, 60 hours in? Yes, it is rough, but it will be your most memorable campaign. and probably the one you will be the most fond of.
- 4
I get it, you people all have fun losing. LMAO. What I really posted was that losing isn't fun for me - it is motivation. Currently playing Dark Souls Prepare to die, where Losing(dying) is how you find out the correct way to kill a boss. I don't avoid games where I might lose, I just don't find losing fun... it's a challenge whereby I lose and then find a way not to lose. Now maybe you guys do too, but call it fun. Just words.
Edit: I was raised in the 50's and 60's by a WWII Marine Corp vet(Battle of Okinawa). The principles instilled in me are, perhaps, different, the way of looking at things. Not saying my way is better, it's just how I look at, among other things, losing. oh and if you are going to disagree with this, be an adult and say why.- 1
- 1
In response to the "people want to win group" i remember they used to data mine EU4 and one of the big things they found was only a small % actually play past the 1600's.
- 1
I would argue, thats because people start over as soon as they lose a little. I know that's sometimes true for me. And you lose a little a lot in paradox games.
- 1
No, it appears you have intentionally misquoted me. Take care not to do that in the future.
- 4
Or in my case, as soon as i cannot lose anymore. It goes both ways really, and in the late game you probably can't lose anymore.
Last edited:
- 1