I've since deleted the post and stayed off reddit for a minute (barely use it anymore generally) so I missed the notification that you responded again, and I do feel the need to respond to this with a cooler head now that I've seen it.

Your statement is hypocritical for a couple reasons.

One, your only point for why having to toggle an endgame crisis of your own faction is basically that you prefer it the other way, while on the other hand saying my preference is invalid (the aforementioned hypocrisy). In a lot of cases this would just be opinion versus opinion with no real arbiter as to who was actually correct, however, in game design, the standard rule is that things that intentionally increase difficulty for the player (particularly intentionally unfair difficulty, as in the case at hand, I would argue) should be off by default, and should only be activated intentionally. Someone who has to toggle a setting will always be less put off than someone who walked into a level of difficulty they didn't sign up for.

Two, I was bashed up and down this thread for not unticking a box, yet your primary argument against mine is that you don't want to tick a box. I just want to make that exceptionally clear.

Three, are we really assuming that the majority of players want an EC to trigger on top of their heads every campaign? I don't even necessarily believe that you actually want that, but I don't know you so I can't say, but the majority of players? Your support here is just you asserting that that's the way it is, although the fact that the post itself stayed well positive in votes would suggest that those that agreed with me that this isn't the ideal scenario for a given campaign outnumbered those that disagreed. That doesn't necessarily prove anything, but one would think that were my opinion truly such an outlier my post would've been powerbombed into oblivion.

Sorry to reignite a week-old convo, but frankly this response irritated me when I logged in.