Missions are so toxic to good gameplay

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

I agree with everything you say here, which is why I think missions are good.

I like missions too, but I don't like it when they are OP. Like with Gotland. Especially because many countries that are already powerful happen to have OP missions as well. I would like it if the work:reward ratio for some trees could be adjusted but if I had to chose between keeping missions as they are and having no missions I would chose to keep them.

What would you be doing in Gotland without mission trees? Without mission trees most nations would not have the "full experience". Especially if the people who hate ideas and unique reforms and what have you get their way as well. It'd just be the same playthrough every game with a marginally different location and power base. That's what Imperator 1.0 is for.

But I don't think flavour has to be done all through missions. There are other ways. For example, instead of having to complete a mission to unlock the Teutonic Horde reform, it could become available when you have so many steppe provinces/a certain country size. I don't think it is fair to lose out on flavour just because you don't play the game in a certain specific way.

I guess I would sum up my views as such: I like moderate mission trees with a reasonable work:reward ratio. I don't like trees that give you large amounts bonuses for little work. And I don't like lots of flavour being locked behind trees.

Especially if the people who hate ideas and unique reforms and what have you get their way as well.

I've never understood getting rid of national ideas entirely. I am in favour of making them more dynamic but scrapping them altogether reduces flavour.

 

[Cuke]

Yes, they are optional in a very literal sense, but missions are by design not optional to the extent you seem to suggest. Because it is intended that the player does complete the missions.

I've got to point out: it's easier to consider missions 'optional' if you didn't intend to do what they ask in the first place. Like, I have no beef with Austrian Emperor, or I don't want to conquer Moscow as France, or I can't be bothered with expanding in Asia as a colonial Westerner.

 

[Oporto]

I've never understood getting rid of national ideas entirely. I am in favour of making them more dynamic but scrapping them altogether reduces flavour.

A nation constructor for EU5 is what we need: every tag has pre-set traditions which cannot be changed (because you can't change the past), but you can define what NI you will have by fullfilling certain conditions - some will be easier to fullfill for historically-maritime countries, some for millitary-visioners, for example. This way each tag will retain it's unique image and won't be too heavily railroaded in following either direction. The same would apply for missions.

 

[themrspartan]

You forgot that long time ago, the game was more dynamic with more different outcomes along the course of the years (in game) with regional power and alliance web. Each time you had to think how to go through somehow new setup.

I don't really agree. There are a limited number of ways to overcome a challenge in EU4. You build your economy to fund an army and making the right alliances to help in wars. You fabricate claims on the areas you want and repeat that process to conquer them. If you're playing Gotland, literally all that changes is having to go into debt to win the first war, then it's the same as every other "hard start". All of this still happens with missions, but with missions there are things to do besides repeating the same core gameplay loop for 3000 hours.

I guess I would sum up my views as such: I like moderate mission trees with a reasonable work:reward ratio. I don't like trees that give you large amounts bonuses for little work. And I don't like lots of flavour being locked behind trees.

I also agree that the power creep is a bit excessive. I think it started with Leviathan, personally.

A nation constructor for EU5 is what we need: every tag has pre-set traditions which cannot be changed (because you can't change the past), but you can define what NI you will have by fullfilling certain conditions - some will be easier to fullfill for historically-maritime countries, some for millitary-visioners, for example. This way each tag will retain it's unique image and won't be too heavily railroaded in following either direction. The same would apply for missions.

That's what idea groups are though.

 

[Oporto]

That's what idea groups are though.

Not quite. Idea groups are just an addition to the pre-set NI, which you unlock with first 3 grouos. If they could actually influence what NI you would have - that's another thing.

 

[Brynjar]

Well, chess has the same barebone rule since centuries and people are still playing this not updated game.

Chess has had plenty of rule changes, even in the past 200 years. Among those changes is a change in legal moves, changes to pawn promotions and who starts the game.

If a change is considered to be good enough for the game it should be introduced. Unfortunately mission trees are bad for the game and should be changed.