Among all the issues facing this game at the moment, one that hasn't had enough scorn dropped upon it is the building quest system.
And not because they're a bunch of repetitive, unimaginative, un-'interesting' decisions with large balance issues.
But because they're hidden information, that players can't easily see or know about without experience playing the game and a good memory/much needed UI mod.
Sid Meier, he whose name is on the product, has talked about interesting decisions in games:
That's great Sid. But how exactly are we to make interesting decisions about, say, what technology to research and what building to build when the full consequences of those decisions are hidden.
If a player of Beyond Earth has decided that trade routes are what they want to pursue in their current game, and they're looking at the decisions they have to make to weigh up to execute that plan against other options, how on earth are they to make informed choices when vital things like 'your trade routes don't get attacked by aliens' is hidden away under a building that sometimes has no obvious or reasonable connection to such a game mechanism or plan?
Who thought that this system would make the game more 'interesting'? There's nothing here but a lucky dip, or a serious of tedious actions for experienced players that likely involve no decision making at all:
a) You either have no idea about the quest when you choose your building, and thus it contributes nothing to you decision at all, and it is a forced decision that you have to react to, not plan for
or
b) you know about it already and it informs your decision making at the building stage, and has no need to be further distinguished in to a later discrete query.
The supposed intention of these quests, if I can speculate, is to add narrative elements to the game, and give players more points to distinguish their different games.
But the narrative elements are very poorly executed, do not integrate with the rest of the game, and quickly become intrusive.
The decisions are obvious, unbalanced, or just inconsequential.
The decisions are needlessly complicated, opaque, and actually hinder the player's ability to engage with interesting decisions.
Think about this for a second from the perspective of a new player.
I'm playing Civ 5. It is one of my first couple of games and I don't really know how everything works. I need to research a technology and so I look at the tree. I mouse over the technology - it tells me what it does. I mouse over the buildings and units - they tell me what they do. I make my choice because I decide that I want to build unit/building x and get the other change a technology gives me. I research and then build said things.
I'm playing Civ: BE. It is one of my first couple of games and I don't really know how everything works. I need to research a technology and so I look at the tree. I get lost and confused because the UI is a mess. I recover, and I mouse over the technology - it tells me what it does. I mouse over the buildings and units - they tell me what they do. I make my choice because I decide that I want to build unit/building x and get the other change a technology gives me. I research and build said things. X turns later the game pokes me in the eye and say 'hey, actually it also does y or z too! Surprise!'
Or consider an experienced player.
I play Civ 5. I just play the game because, very high level play excepted, the game tells me what I need to know.
I play Civ: BE. I play the game with a web browser open so I can read up on all the quest benefits and don't make stupid choices, because the game is playing hide and seek with me.
And not because they're a bunch of repetitive, unimaginative, un-'interesting' decisions with large balance issues.
But because they're hidden information, that players can't easily see or know about without experience playing the game and a good memory/much needed UI mod.
Sid Meier, he whose name is on the product, has talked about interesting decisions in games:
That's great Sid. But how exactly are we to make interesting decisions about, say, what technology to research and what building to build when the full consequences of those decisions are hidden.
If a player of Beyond Earth has decided that trade routes are what they want to pursue in their current game, and they're looking at the decisions they have to make to weigh up to execute that plan against other options, how on earth are they to make informed choices when vital things like 'your trade routes don't get attacked by aliens' is hidden away under a building that sometimes has no obvious or reasonable connection to such a game mechanism or plan?
Who thought that this system would make the game more 'interesting'? There's nothing here but a lucky dip, or a serious of tedious actions for experienced players that likely involve no decision making at all:
a) You either have no idea about the quest when you choose your building, and thus it contributes nothing to you decision at all, and it is a forced decision that you have to react to, not plan for
or
b) you know about it already and it informs your decision making at the building stage, and has no need to be further distinguished in to a later discrete query.
The supposed intention of these quests, if I can speculate, is to add narrative elements to the game, and give players more points to distinguish their different games.
But the narrative elements are very poorly executed, do not integrate with the rest of the game, and quickly become intrusive.
The decisions are obvious, unbalanced, or just inconsequential.
The decisions are needlessly complicated, opaque, and actually hinder the player's ability to engage with interesting decisions.
Think about this for a second from the perspective of a new player.
I'm playing Civ 5. It is one of my first couple of games and I don't really know how everything works. I need to research a technology and so I look at the tree. I mouse over the technology - it tells me what it does. I mouse over the buildings and units - they tell me what they do. I make my choice because I decide that I want to build unit/building x and get the other change a technology gives me. I research and then build said things.
I'm playing Civ: BE. It is one of my first couple of games and I don't really know how everything works. I need to research a technology and so I look at the tree. I get lost and confused because the UI is a mess. I recover, and I mouse over the technology - it tells me what it does. I mouse over the buildings and units - they tell me what they do. I make my choice because I decide that I want to build unit/building x and get the other change a technology gives me. I research and build said things. X turns later the game pokes me in the eye and say 'hey, actually it also does y or z too! Surprise!'
Or consider an experienced player.
I play Civ 5. I just play the game because, very high level play excepted, the game tells me what I need to know.
I play Civ: BE. I play the game with a web browser open so I can read up on all the quest benefits and don't make stupid choices, because the game is playing hide and seek with me.
Not for you it would seem. I'd bet that had they included that litte feature in Civ V in a patch, most folks would be lauding the designers. 
So you actually think that because YOU don't think it's a meaningful enough bonus that it should be bigger? In my example of free maintenance or one extra science per turn per library, that would be a bonus on a similar scale of meaning. So you'd want it to be free maintenance and +1 GPT or +2 science per turn to make the decision matter more? Given the problems this game already has with balance, this seems to be one of the occasions when they erred on the side of caution and we're hurling turds at them?
