Mission trees are a curse

[afiugs]

It seems that quite a lot of people want to see mission trees in the game in one form or another, and I'm almost certain that this feedback comes from incorrect assumptions based on the gameplay of EUIV. I've nothing against the mission trees in EUIV, because the game is a map painter, there's no way in that game to create a narrative other than with missions, it wouldn't be interesting to play another nation, to start another playthrough in a starting position similar to the starting position of a nation you've already played, there's almost nothing to create a story from, basically.

EUV promises to be a way more reactive, way more simulative (is that a word in English?) game, it doesn't need missions to create a narrative for the player, it doesn't need missions to create a believable history (or it shouldn't need them, at least). If mission trees were added to the game, a lot of complex decision making would be erased. You'd be declaring war, building stuff and revoking privileges not because it makes sense in your position, but because a mission says so.

And no, the problem is not mission rewards. I can imagine a mission tree without rewards at all that would still make the player follow a strategy that is imposed upon him by the game, not one that the player has developed. The solution is not "make better missions", the solution is "find other ways to create flavour", and there are other ways.

People seem to imagine an EUIV without missions when talking about MTs in this game. This is not EUIV, and it shouldn't be, I believe. The developers seem to think the same, but I'm rather worried that this feedback from the community might make the game worse.

 

[afiugs]

Sorry for the English, by the way, I'm not a native speaker.

 

[SAmaster]

Nobody has explained to me why mission trees are bad. Nobody has explained to me what their inclusion takes away from the game.

Like, I'm not a huge fan of the vehicle designer in HOI4. But I don't begrudge its existence since I don't have to engage with the mechanic super in depth if I don't want to, and people who enjoy it can have their fun with it.

I just keep hearing people complaining about 'optimal ways to play' and 'gamey rewards' and it sounds like pure autism. I'm not saying that EUIV mission trees are perfect, I'm sure there's room for improvement, what I don't get is people going 'NO, we MUST throw the baby out with the bathwater'.

You're just saying 'there should be other ways to create flavor and historical narratives' and I think that's a reasonable thing to say. I don't get how then we have to entirely ditch mission trees to accomplish that. I also disagree with the premise that it's better to remove any sort of structure to have a free-form sandbox gameplay at all times. That's just gonna result in countries feeling the same to play- this is my problem with Crusader Kings. Playing as England has no real difference than playing as Hungary, since both are catholic nations. You get access to all the same mechanics and events, the only difference being the geography. I don't know if Crusader Kings should have a mission tree system or something similar to it, or even how you'd implement it, but I do think it needs something that makes playing as different kingdoms feel distinct from one another. Of course- that's part of the design philosophy, where you are meant to play as a 'dynasty' rather than a nation, but that sort of mindset doesn't really appeal to me, specifically because the focus on families de-emphasizes culture and national history.

 

[afiugs]

Nobody has explained to me why mission trees are bad. Nobody has explained to me what their inclusion takes away from the game.

It takes away decision making by the player. If you're given a path to expand, if you're given directions, you're just doing micromanagement to achieve goals that you didn't set.

You're just saying 'there should be other ways to create flavor and historical narratives' and I think that's a reasonable thing to say. I don't get how then we have to entirely ditch mission trees to accomplish that.

What I'm saying is that EUV doesn't need mission trees to create flavour, not that flavour without mission trees would be better.

I also disagree with the premise that it's better to remove any sort of structure to have a free-form sandbox gameplay at all times. That's just gonna result in countries feeling the same to play- this is my problem with Crusader Kings. Playing as England has no real difference than playing as Hungary, since both are catholic nations.

That's exactly what I'm trying to adress when I say that EUV can do flavour without mission trees. You can (I assume, I'm not a game developer) create unique gameplay for different nations. Major nations in EUV already have around two hundred different events, if I recall correctly, they have unique government reforms and units. None of this impedes the sandbox experience while creating unique flavour and gameplay.

 

[SAmaster]

It takes away decision making by the player. If you're given a path to expand, if you're given directions, you're just doing micromanagement to achieve goals that you didn't set.

What I'm saying is that EUV doesn't need mission trees to create flavour, not that flavour without mission trees would be better.

I don't get it.

If I have spanish missions that reward me for colonizing Mexico (like what happened historically' that doesn't stop me from conquering China if I want. It just doesn't give me a bonus for doing so because the Spanish had no reason to do so historically. What sort of bonuses are you arguing Spain should get for invading China?

I really don't understand what you people want. Because it sounds to me like y'all trying to achieve CHIM or something.

 

[LordThanatos]

I don't care for rewards for missions, myself, and I think overly mechanically rewarding missions are boring as they make non-mission gameplay seem non-ideal. Worse yet is if missions provide outcomes which cannot be reached without normal mechanics. EU4 had a few like this, and I'm hoping it's different this time.

That said I do love having mission trees as an easily accessible 'walkthrough' on the historical path you might take for a nation, while getting flavour which help to introduce the country, its religion and its culture to the unfamiliar. I don't think other mechanics give the same experience. It's a soft guidance which can be ignored if that's what's preferred, or opted into if the player feels directionless, or - in my case - might be in the mood for a more narrative, guided experience for once.

Alt history is also fun, but not my usual reason for interacting with a mission tree, personally.

 

[resand]

Nobody has explained to me why mission trees are bad. Nobody has explained to me what their inclusion takes away from the game../snipped for lenght

If the missions give flavor rewards like titles or maybe a small temporary boost of some kind I'm fine with them.
Its the ones that give out cores, claims and permanent modifiers that annoy me. It then isn't a fun historical option to play or a directional nudge for the player to give some purpose. It becomes the "correct way" to play, as not doing the missions means losing out of A LOT of power

 

[A Pink Duck]

Nobody has explained to me why mission trees are bad. Nobody has explained to me what their inclusion takes away from the game.

In moderation mission trees can be fine. Early EU4 mission trees were fairly inoffensive and relatively ignorable (no permanent modifiers).

However, PDX has proven repeatedly that they can't maintain moderation. New EU4 mission trees (and HOI4 focus trees) are game warping monstrosities that totally negate core gameplay features. On top of that, power creep makes new trees overpowered to such a degree that they need to release DLC with new versions of the trees to keep up with the times.

And even apart from that, some trees can't be ignored. Part of the core design of the nation is tied up in doing the mission tree. Whether that be disasters, or government reforms, or unique estates. You can't ignore them if you want to take advantage of the nation's uniqueness.

That's why I consider mission trees to be poisoned fruit. As soon as they exist, devs won't be able to resist all the bad things, and to be honest, I don't consider the good things to be particularly worthwhile.

 

[resand]

In moderation mission trees can be fine. Early EU4 mission trees were fairly inoffensive and relatively ignorable (no permanent modifiers).

However, PDX has proven repeatedly that they can't maintain moderation. New EU4 mission trees (and HOI4 focus trees) are game warping monstrosities that totally negate core gameplay features. On top of that, power creep makes new trees overpowered to such a degree that they need to release DLC with new versions of the trees to keep up with the times.

And even apart from that, some trees can't be ignored. Part of the core design of the nation is tied up in doing the mission tree. Whether that be disasters, or government reforms, or unique estates. You can't ignore them if you want to take advantage of the nation's uniqueness.

That's why I consider mission trees to be poisoned fruit. As soon as they exist, devs won't be able to resist all the bad things, and to be honest, I don't consider the good things to be particularly worthwhile.

basically what I meant, just expressed 10x better

100% agreed

 

[afiugs]

If I have spanish missions that reward me for colonizing Mexico (like what happened historically' that doesn't stop me from conquering China if I want. It just doesn't give me a bonus for doing so because the Spanish had no reason to do so historically. What sort of bonuses are you arguing Spain should get for invading China?

I don't care for rewards for missions, myself, and I think overly mechanically rewarding missions are boring as they make non-mission gameplay seem non-ideal, but I do love having mission trees as an easily accessible 'walkthrough' on the historical path you might take for a nation, while getting flavour which help to introduce the country, its religion and its culture to the unfamiliar.

If a game is good enough of a simulation, you don't need to get bonuses for making historical decisions, you are motivated to colonise Mexico because it's beneficial to your economy, not because a mission says so and you have to complete it to progress the narrative. Both flavour and some understanding of history can be given without making the player take the historical (or any other specific) route of development.

 

[LordThanatos]

If a game is good enough of a simulation, you don't need to get bonuses for making historical decisions, you are motivated to colonise Mexico because it's beneficial to your economy, not because a mission says so and you have to complete it to progress the narrative. Both flavour and some understanding of history can be given without making the player take the historical (or any other specific) route of development.

I don't feel you read my message before quoting it. I specifically said I don't care for bonuses and I like missions simply as a flavourful guide to the historical path to save me a little googling on a side monitor while introducing me to a country's situation. A purely simulationist approach will not inform me about the historical path and guide me when I feel like a more guided, narrative experience. Without missions it's a sandbox, and I welcome that being available - but it's a different playstyle for a different mood.

 

[Jarvin]

Nobody has explained to me why mission trees are bad. Nobody has explained to me what their inclusion takes away from the game.

Different people will have different answers to this, but what I don't see mentioned that much is that mission trees in EU4 make the player predestined to be the main character, and AI countries to be pawns in the player's story.

I guess even to this some people will say "But that's good! I don't want AIs to do stuff that would bother me too much" but to me that runs in the direct counter to one of the ideas that Johan mentioned in the first TTs, that EU5 should have a world that feels "lived in".

Complex mission trees by nature are going to be impossible to be done by AI, unless a very disproportionate amount of time is spent teaching it how to navigate each fancy requirement for it. For reference, outside of like claim-based missions, AI in EU4 can't really do them at all, and a bunch they are explicitly forbidden from doing even if they accidentally walk into meeting the requirements.

I, as a player, can do fancy things like getting overpowered cavalry as Poland, or form Angevins as England, but the AI cannot because of implicit or explicit blockades placed on it.
EU4 makes you the designated main character, and to me, personally, a better game is one where the player is one of several "main characters", and they have to earn that position by actually doing something special.

As a side note, this goes for a good chunk of fancy complex flavor.
AI in EU4 doesn't know how to do events, government reforms, it's literally unable to recruit special units~~

I think ideally we should strive for a situation where the player and AI at least are playing the same game. History was never told by one country just slapping its version of reality on others. Rather, it was always about different countries and entities acting and reacting to each other. Any system that disproportionately promotes the player over AI runs counter to that.

 

[afiugs]

I don't feel you read my message. I specifically said I don't care for bonuses and I like missions simply as a flavourful guide to the historical path. A purely simulationist approach will not inform me about the historical path, it's a sandbox, and I welcome that being available - but it's a different playstyle for a different mood.

Unfortunately, while mission trees can give you some idea of history, they impede the historical sandbox, they impede the simulation. What I meant is that there are ways to give the player both agency and historical context. I do agree that the latter would be made worse without missions, but I don't think that giving historical context is more important than allowing the player to freely interact with the game and make their own decisions.

 

[Warthull]

In moderation mission trees can be fine. Early EU4 mission trees were fairly inoffensive and relatively ignorable (no permanent modifiers).

However, PDX has proven repeatedly that they can't maintain moderation. New EU4 mission trees (and HOI4 focus trees) are game warping monstrosities that totally negate core gameplay features. On top of that, power creep makes new trees overpowered to such a degree that they need to release DLC with new versions of the trees to keep up with the times.

And even apart from that, some trees can't be ignored. Part of the core design of the nation is tied up in doing the mission tree. Whether that be disasters, or government reforms, or unique estates. You can't ignore them if you want to take advantage of the nation's uniqueness.

That's why I consider mission trees to be poisoned fruit. As soon as they exist, devs won't be able to resist all the bad things, and to be honest, I don't consider the good things to be particularly worthwhile.

This is my fear as well. They can also become all-powerful when it comes to designing content and/or flavor, crowding out most other options and making content and DLCs a one-trick poney (with missions, on their own, having the issues you mentioned).

 

[Foke]

In moderation mission trees can be fine. Early EU4 mission trees were fairly inoffensive and relatively ignorable (no permanent modifiers).

However, PDX has proven repeatedly that they can't maintain moderation. New EU4 mission trees (and HOI4 focus trees) are game warping monstrosities that totally negate core gameplay features. On top of that, power creep makes new trees overpowered to such a degree that they need to release DLC with new versions of the trees to keep up with the times.

And even apart from that, some trees can't be ignored. Part of the core design of the nation is tied up in doing the mission tree. Whether that be disasters, or government reforms, or unique estates. You can't ignore them if you want to take advantage of the nation's uniqueness.

That's why I consider mission trees to be poisoned fruit. As soon as they exist, devs won't be able to resist all the bad things, and to be honest, I don't consider the good things to be particularly worthwhile.

That's not an issue with mission trees, that's an issue with power creep. That can happen to every system. In EU4 it was mission tree that the devs used to satisfy players need of getting more powerful bonuses.
If mission trees are gone, and the underlying issue of devs not resisting the urge to impress the playerbase by one-upping the bonuses every patch, then that issue will just materialize in another system like advances, religion mechanics, unique buildings/units etc.

 

[LordThanatos]

Unfortunately, while mission trees can give you some idea of history, they impede the historical sandbox, they impede the simulation. What I meant is that there are ways to give the player both agency and historical context. I do agree that the latter would be made worse without missions, but I don't think that giving historical context is more important than allowing the player to freely interact with the game and make their own decisions.

Then ignore them? You can freely interact without them if you just don't open that menu, and if the team doesn't have the missions give insanely good rewards that reward that style of play over others, there's no downside to ignoring them. Both styles of player can be happy. Nobody is forcing you to open the mission menu and play a preset path.

 

[Ivashanko]

Non-dynamic tag-specific Mission Trees are bad game design.

Dynamic context-specific Mission Chapters are incredible for gameplay.

Imagine you're playing as an Orthodox tag and you reconquer Constantinople from the Sunni Turks. If there's a non-dynamic Mission Tree it won't be able to handle this gracefully: the game won't be able to ask the Orthodox player via missions to reclaim Constantinople because the Byzantines might never fall in the first place!

But if there is a Mission Book, with Mission Chapters the player can choose to pursue or not, then all of a sudden the developers and modders can create engaging gameplay. When Constantinople falls all Orthodox nations can unlock a MC (Mission Chapters) detailing the reconquest of Constantinople. When conquered, several new MCs might be added to the MB (Mission Book) giving the player options.

One MC can revolve around kicking the Turks out and reviving the Byzantines. Another could be creating a more tolerant metropolitan. A third could be making Constantinople your new capital. The options are limitless!

The absolute best part of implementing a MB system, in my opinion, is that it lets Paradox add in new content via DLC for every nation and not just the region the DLC focuses on. Say a DLC is centred on the Iberian experience. In EU4, the DLC would add new MTs (Mission Trees) for the nations in Iberia and only the nations in Iberia. With the new MB system outsiders conquering into Iberia, or being conquered by Iberian nations, or allying with Iberian nations, or trading with Iberian nations, or have relations of any type with Iberian nations can also get new content! And that is really darn cool!

 

[afiugs]

Then ignore them? You can freely interact without them if you just don't open that menu, and if the team doesn't have the missions give insanely good rewards that reward that style of play over others, there's no downside.

A game with missions is created around them to some extent. More than that, the player is mostly rational, if a path of action gives them bonuses not achieved through other paths, they will generally follow it. EUIV players play the game from mission to mission, quite a lot of people play every nation once just to complete the mission tree. The variety of gameplay in that case turns into an almost uniform path for any given nation. As regards mission rewards, even if a mission tree doesn't give the player rewards at all, it presents a path, allowing the player not to think about one themselves and just follow the presented narrative, it creates the right way to play.

 

[Inquerion]

I like mission trees, but only if they are well made and offer both historical and plausible aternate history paths.

Pure sandbox with no flavour (like Civilization or...Victoria 3 at launch) is just not that fun to me. Almost every nations feels the same. It's boring.

A good compromise would be that in EU5 we could have both EU4/Hoi4 style mission trees, as well as some additional generic/randomized dynamic missions like in EU3 (just more balanced and rewarding).

 

[dbruser]

The issue with mission trees in EU4 (other than being very samey in that they often gave a bunch of claims/cores) is that the rewards for them were very substantial for following the path. This meant choosing between following the mission tree and not had drastic differences in the power levels/rewards, and that not following them felt like intentionally gimping your nation in many cases.

If mission trees just gave small bonuses or flavourful rewards I don't think people would have as big of a problem with them. Or even more varied rewards/conditions so that most of them weren't conquer something and get tons of free claims/cores.

They are basically event chains, but the mechanics to spawn them are not hidden on some wiki/in the code. If event chains had been given the same rewards as mission trees, people would be clamouring to remove unique events from the game.