Missions are so toxic to good gameplay

[st360]

Again there is one part of the mission tree that mentions the army. This is the mission that will give you western units. Now you can argue that it doesn't say it gives western units which is what I assume you are referring to. If you already know that you will get better units to I assume reading a dev diary (where I am pretty sure its mentioned) or watching a guide looking at the missions will tell you that this is the only possible path.

I see this as much better than having random events or decisions tied to secret invisible triggers or slider positions (this one is from EU3) because now I actually have the chance of seeing what I can get throughout the game. Instead of having to read up on the wiki I can look at the mission tree to check out what events or goverment reforms (or whatever else) I might get and the description will give me an idea what comes out. Then I can look it up if I need a 100 detailed answer.

So the answer is no. There is zero way to know you can get western units, which is a huge deal, as Ethiopia. Having the word "army" in a mission tree doesn't tell you anything, no more than the Papal States having the word "navy" in their mission tree means they get an ability to become pirates.

 

[Vulkandrache]

Thats not even considereing the fact that there are multiple nations with a "Reform the Army" mission.
They range from new Techgroup units to some permanent Military bonus to getting 200 Mil
with no real consistency or reason for or against one or the other.

 

[EarlKonrad]

Thats not even considereing the fact that there are multiple nations with a "Reform the Army" mission.
They range from new Techgroup units to some permanent Military bonus to getting 200 Mil
with no real consistency or reason for or against one or the other.

I Was thinking about that yesterday. At this point there are quite a few missions that share the same art or the same name but have entirely different requisits and rewards. Same can be said for government reforms (of which there are about 700 right now) The more they build upon these systems, the more inconsistent and confusing they become.

 

[iClipse]

The most obvious way of differentiating nations by geography. How many provinces do you start with? What's their terrain type? How much Dev. do you have? Do you start with a CoT? How good is your starting trade node?

Well yes, but you have to account for these things regardless of mission trees, so I'm not sure what that has to with it.

HRE is a very good example of a place where playing an OPM in every direction can give you a different experience.

Is it though? For me it would be: look for weak links in the diplomacy or military techs. Decide to pile on them until you're big enough to blob in the direction you want. Setting some attitudes to threatened or picking a different ally depending on threatening countries isn't a 'vastly different experience'. At least not for me. At least not when I want to experience 100s of different playthroughs.

Other options are: do you start as a free city? Are there any free cities around you to block expansion? Are you close to any big aggressive tag or surrounded by small tags?

In this is all just in Europe. Playing an OPM in the New World (even with all unique mechanics off) will give you a vastly different game then a HRE OPM. Or play in India if you want fast expansion going up against a few strong tags, or in the middle east if you want a mil challenge.

Sure, they're different. But what about your 5th time playing a North American tribe? It's there that missions can differentiate your plays.

Same about India. I can think of a few ways how to play in India. But not 10 different ones. And having different mission trees will make it more replayable.

 

[iClipse]

I have a small problem with your post, in that you start it with "you like mission trees" but I feel like you end up defending the concept, and individual small ways it was implemented, rather than the system in the game as we have it overall.

You are absolutely right that some form of missions wouldn't be bad. I like your example with HRE minors. I quite enjoyed doing the mission tree for Lubeck, as it didn't try to too much wild stuff, it didn't go too far into the game(it mostly covered your first 50-100 years) and didn't gave you overly op bonuses (still too strong for my liking).

This is a minority of mission trees in this game at this point.
The challenge of playing most nations, especially ones reworked in more recent patches, has been almost completely negated by what you are now provided with MTs.
Poland, for instance, was already a country with one of the highest military potentials even before their first update back in 1.27. The 1.33 mission tree made them so hilariously broken, Poland now feels like an anime protagonist surrounded by measly tertiary characters.
Mutapa used to be a tougher-ish start, given its placement in Africa, but now hey you get a mission that makes you get dev for building buildings.. which makes you earn more money for more buildings for more dev. Sure, it's "cool" I guess? but it's also incredibly brainless.
It adds to the game at the expense of turning other parts of the game irrelevant.
Oh cool, I now have magical wizard funi horsies that can cast avada kedavra on their enemies, but now the entirety of warfare & combat boils down to just moving an army on top of your opponent's army without thinking.
I have a cool mechanic that makes me stronger by building buildings.. but now I don't need to worry about not being able to afford things, because that mechanic gives you one of the most insane snowballs possible in this game.


This is more important than I feel you might realize. The AI doesn't complete its mission trees because it straight up doesn't know how to.
Mission trees are nearly exclusively a player-only mechanic. Almost anything that you get through a mission tree can be considered an unfair advantage over other participants in the game, that being AI for most players.
It is wild to me that we're seemingly fine with the player countries being made massively stronger compared to AI in EU4, when it's supposed to be a strategy game.
It's like we played chess, except I get a 3rd row of pieces consisting solely of queens. Enjoy. (yes, I get that EU4 shouldn't be fully symmetrical, no it doesn't mean that EU4 should turn into an arcade game).


Moreover, sure, I can agree mission trees can be just skipped. Let's ignore just how not great it feels to do that.
Doing so, would mean that the game for me has remained functionally nearly unchanged in 2 years, and in some aspects got even worse.
As you also indirectly pointed out, almost every single "cool" thing we've been getting is locked behind mission trees.
If you really push it, I can agree that complaining about MTs existence is off, but in this case I think it's fair to complain that better things don't exist in their place.

You are right that mission trees added come cool-ish mechanics, which in turn slightly alter the tired gameplay loop
but... why do they have to be locked behind following a railroaded storyline written by someone else, and why can only I get them, and not all the other participants in the game - like AI?

Well, I was in fact defending the concept as a whole. Poland is in its current state probably the strongest (depending on what you're measuring, obviously) nation in the game. And it becomes that way through its mission trees, so there is a balance concern there. Where with the average nation I say I've 'won' the game in the 1600s, with Poland it's around 1500. Which makes for a short game. But it's also where I call it quits myself and start with another nation. Not every nation gets half the world handed to them, even if they have powerful missions.

I a purely single player game, I don't see how it's an issue where nation X is more powerful than nation Y. How it gets its power, does it matter? Before mission trees were a thing it was because of Geography (remember westernizing), because of events (remember no limit on absolutism and France or Sweden with its unique event), or tech groups, or whatever else you can think of. Now it's mission trees, where at least there's a lot of player agency.

Remember the example another poster said that you first need to conquer X, then Y, then Z to complete missions in order? Well, a good player might be able to conquer X and Y in one go, forgoing the permanent claims reward, but getting to Z more quickly. It's stuff like that that increases player agency, not reduces it.

 

[Vulkandrache]

Remember the example another poster said that you first need to conquer X, then Y, then Z to complete missions in order? Well, a good player might be able to conquer X and Y in one go, forgoing the permanent claims reward, but getting to Z more quickly. It's stuff like that that increases player agency, not reduces it.

That is already the wrong way around.
Im not being promted to conquer X, Y or Z because the situation is fitting for it.
Im looking for situations that let me conquer X, Y and Z in a resonable manner because the Mission says i should
and not doing so means i lose hundreds of Dip and Adm one way or the other.


Im not doing something because it would improve my situation in a cost-effective manner.
Im doing it because i get to click a button if i do.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

So the answer is no. There is zero way to know you can get western units, which is a huge deal, as Ethiopia. Having the word "army" in a mission tree doesn't tell you anything, no more than the Papal States having the word "navy" in their mission tree means they get an ability to become pirates.

So I take it that logical thinking is out the window then? Like actually using your head for some basic task like combing the information westernisation is possible and there is a mission that modernises your army.
My bad I assumed that was something that someone who plays this game is able to do.

Also you are aware people have been playing this country without western units before Origins? Like without all the buffs and they still managed it.

 

[Vulkandrache]

Also you are aware people have been playing this country without western units before Origins? Like without all the buffs and they still managed it.

Are you aware that Ethiopia has a mechanic that hamperes your LA anywhere but your Capital state?
And that you meant for complete large parts of your Tree to get rid of it because it grants you huge amounts of
the Reformprogress required to do so.

Yes, people played Ethiopia. But that was before they got a redesign centered around they Missions.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

Are you aware that Ethiopia has a mechanic that hamperes your LA anywhere but your Capital state?
And that you meant for complete large parts of your Tree to get rid of it because it grants you huge amounts of
the Reformprogress required to do so.

What does that have to with the army modernization?

The goverment is also part of origin DLC and not in base game.

 

[Cuke]

So the answer is no. There is zero way to know you can get western units, which is a huge deal, as Ethiopia.

The answer is yes because it's written in the event description which is linked from the mission tree which is in Ethiopia's entry in wiki.

 

[grommile]

The answer is yes because it's written in the event description which is linked from the mission tree which is in Ethiopia's entry in wiki.

If you have to view a community-maintained external resource (Paradox do not write the wiki articles), or open the event scripts in a text editor, to know what completing a mission actually does (because it's buried in event mechanics rather than directly applied in the mission reward), then there is a serious problem.

 

[Cuke]

If you have to view a community-maintained external resource (Paradox do not write the wiki articles), or open the event scripts in a text editor, to know what completing a mission actually does (because it's buried in event mechanics rather than directly applied in the mission reward), then there is a serious problem.

IIRC this is the game which has a YT tutorial to doing a tutorial. That's the kind of game we're playing. This is not a problem but a part of the homework to begin playing the game in the first place.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

If you have to view a community-maintained external resource (Paradox do not write the wiki articles), or open the event scripts in a text editor, to know what completing a mission actually does (because it's buried in event mechanics rather than directly applied in the mission reward), then there is a serious problem.

It's also in tje dev diary and most of the guides on YT. Which OP must have been watching before anyway since he was already aware that it's possible to westernise the army in the first place.

 

[Jarvin]

How it gets its power, does it matter?

Yes, because AI could use events and others to a degree, but it cannot use mission trees.
I reiterate: you are playing a game in a world based on history, except only you, the player, are given the protagonist powers.

Also I just don't know how you can compare the few events you'd get in the past, or maybe some special govt reforms (I remember when peeps in the MP community were complaining about unique indian govt reform that gave you whole 5% discipline) to a literal list of claims, modifiers, custom mechanics and others that you get for doing mission trees. Quantity and scale matters here.

Also yes, westernization sucked. We've had a lot of bad mechanics in the past, but i don't think that's a valid reason to justify other bad mechanics existing in the game right now

It's also in tje dev diary and most of the guides on YT. Which OP must have been watching before anyway since he was already aware that it's possible to westernise the army in the first place.

This is a very weird way to defend a clearly poorly designed system from QoL-perspective.

Even if you are OP, or yourself, or others here, who are clearly more commited members of the playerbase and know where to find information like this -> this is a hassle, and there's a clear lack of QoL.

But most people aren't OP, yourself or others here. For them playing videogames might be about just... y know, buying them and playing. They'll read some info on new DLCs and whatnot, but that's about it. For those people missions' tooltips lacking meaningful gameplay-related context is an even a bigger problem.
It's bad if the player doesn't know what he can expect to get in a strategy game, and has to use external resources for it. And yes, this was also a problem with old events, though luckily we didn't have as many super important ones.

I am very clueless as to why yall seem to be arguing against the experience of using mission trees being objectively made better, unless you are trying to claim that it'd ruin your experience if aforementioned Ethiopian mission for army reform did specifically tell you about its rewards. It's literally a matter of adding one or two sentences to the localization, and this somehow caused a discussion across like 15 posts.

 

[Banedon Runestar]

I am very clueless as to why yall seem to be arguing against the experience of using mission trees being objectively made better, unless you are trying to claim that it'd ruin your experience if aforementioned Ethiopian mission for army reform did specifically tell you about its rewards. It's literally a matter of adding one or two sentences to the localization, and this somehow caused a discussion across like 15 posts.

You’re arguing to make Mission Trees better.

Problem is, how do you define “better”? You’ll get a different answer from every poster. For some, “better” is more bonuses, or bigger ones. Some want them smaller and less substantial. Others want trees that are more “realistic” (however they define that, and it’s usually not consistent), others want more “flexibility” or “options” or…

OP just straight wants Mission Trees gone, and will open threads on a semi-regular basis to whine about their existence and gripe that they’re not gone yet.

 

[Maxxie42]

OP just straight wants Mission Trees gone, and will open threads on a semi-regular basis to whine about their existence and gripe that they’re not gone yet.

This is so real. We've had a thread on this exact same topic less than a month ago, and the exact same people expressed the exact same opinions back then ; I get that the whole point of the forum is to discuss things, and I also understand that some disgruntled players feel very strongly about this topic, but do we really need to rehash the same tired arguments every few weeks ? At this point mission trees represent several years of the game's development, they're obviously not going anywhere ; it's time to let it go already.

 

[grommile]

At this point mission trees represent several years of the game's development, they're obviously not going anywhere ; it's time to let it go already.

We are not going to shut up and take what we're given like good little boys and girls.

 

[Jarvin]

At this point mission trees represent several years of the game's development, they're obviously not going anywhere ; it's time to let it go already.

Honestly I know that these threads might be annoying to a lot of peple

But I personally find them quite nice, so long as they don't derail into overly emotional and/or toxic territories

It's obvious that at this point it's far, far too late to change the course of EU4's development, and that EU5 will likely be much different than EU4 in terms of MTs - based on Johan comments.
However, I still personally enjoy reading these threads simply to get the perspectives of other people. I "know" the arguments commonly brought up by people who share my sentiments (that mission trees are currently a bad system), but in each of these threads I always find something new to learn about the "other" side, the kind of things they enjoy in the game, what's important for them etc., which is quite nice.

 

[Banedon Runestar]

@grommile

That’s about the only point on which we can both agree. But how about, instead of asking (repeatedly) for something that is NOT going to happen, you try something new?

You don’t like Mission Trees, fine. Ignore that they exist, don’t open the tab, and turn off the alert when a mission completes.

Boom, problem solved.

Or, revert to a version of the game where Mission Trees don’t exist.

Boom, problem solved.

Or, stop playing the game entirely if it’s moved so far away from what you think it should be.

Boom, problem solved.

 

[st360]

You’re arguing to make Mission Trees better.

Problem is, how do you define “better”? You’ll get a different answer from every poster. For some, “better” is more bonuses, or bigger ones. Some want them smaller and less substantial. Others want trees that are more “realistic” (however they define that, and it’s usually not consistent), others want more “flexibility” or “options” or…

Which poster will give you this different answer of "I want missions to be poorly explained in the tool tips, its more fun that way?"

OP just straight wants Mission Trees gone, and will open threads on a semi-regular basis to whine about their existence and gripe that they’re not gone yet.

I explicitly never said that.