Re: Is 100% Planet Viability Earned to Easily?

---

@PretzleMe wrote:

---

@Nykara360 wrote:

Its designed so people don't have to do all of the side tasks. The whole game is pretty much designed around doing the parts you want to do. You don't even really have to do 100% viable to finish rhe story.

---

It would be designed that way regardless.  You don't need to get 100% viability on any planet but if you want 100% viability then it would only make sense that you would have to do 100% of the missions that affect viability.

It's like, what game let's you get credit for 100% completion but you don't need to actually do 100% of the goals in the game to get it?  At the same time, in order to beat a game, you don't need to get 100% completion.

-----------

@lagruej

"...If Viability actually meant something tangible, I might say it's too easy - but since it's really nothing to lose sleep over, it doesn't matter..."

Which is why I also suggested that some very tangible awards be given for doing this other than a cut scene that you only get when you get all planets to 100% viability.

But you're right, it is kind of a non-point because it pretty much means nothing, but that's a problem in of itself isn't it?  That a game where your only job is to make planets viable has made viability both easy and meaningless at the same time, lol.

And I am staying up all night because of this and you're all staying up with me!  We will lose sleep over this together!!!!

Kidding people.  Put your Reegars away.  Have yourself a Dirty Squirrel instead.

---

Thank the stars they didn't do it that way. I can still get 100% viable without having to chase down those blasted unwaypoint marked quests and that makes me a very happy camper. I do the side quests I wanna do, I make the lives better for those I wanna help - but the planet and what thd outpost produces is still 100% viable in that it helps other outposts and the nexus - makes perfect sense to me. Pretty sure finding someone's dead body at x location won't change how many resources the outpost can send to the nexus (planet viability) but will put that persons family memeber at ease to know what happened so they can move on with their lives (individual andromeda viabily - to which the points still go to once a planet is 100%)

Then to me you don't deserve 100% viability if you don't do 100% of the viability work regardless as to why.

There's plenty of games (most actually) where I don't get every collectible, do every quest, or do every optional challenge.  In many cases, I will hardly do any of the optional stuff because to me they usually suck something fierce... but I don't expect to get credit for 100% game completion in those cases.

I am just having a difficult time understanding your logic that you feel it makes sense that you get 100% credit for doing 85% of the work.

I don't think I've ever been scored at 100% on anything where I actually didn't answer all the questions.

I could see your point if you needed 100% to beat the game but you don't.  From what someone else said, you don't really need any but establishing an outpost at every planet you can would definitely be enough.

So why is it important/fair/logical to you to be able to get 100%?  I feel like this would be like my kids wanting credit for cleaning the entire house when (of the rooms they're allowed in) they only cleaned 3 out of 5 of them.

Consider the extra viability bits extra credit? Maybe they are grading you on a curve... and wish you'd do the same for them too.

---

@PretzleMe wrote:

Then to me you don't deserve 100% viability if you don't do 100% of the viability work regardless as to why.

There's plenty of games (most actually) where I don't get every collectible, do every quest, or do every optional challenge.  In many cases, I will hardly do any of the optional stuff because to me they usually suck something fierce... but I don't expect to get credit for 100% game completion in those cases.

I am just having a difficult time understanding your logic that you feel it makes sense that you get 100% credit for doing 85% of the work.

I don't think I've ever been scored at 100% on anything where I actually didn't answer all the questions.

I could see your point if you needed 100% to beat the game but you don't.  From what someone else said, you don't really need any but establishing an outpost at every planet you can would definitely be enough.

So why is it important/fair/logical to you to be able to get 100%?  I feel like this would be like my kids wanting credit for cleaning the entire house when (of the rooms they're allowed in) they only cleaned 3 out of 5 of them.

---

Big difference between playing a game thats for fun and enjoyment, then doing required chores.

A game shouldn't feel like a chore and the 'reward' for 100% viable on planets - to me, is a fairly significant one to my character.

The in game reward for doing the extra credit, is opening more cryo pods. But after doing 94% of the game which btw for me was over 120hrs of game play you bet your * my Ryder deserved that planet name for all she did for everyone. I even got all the remenant data cores, but ill be damned if I was gunna spend another 20+ hrs just looking for a couple of canisters and other unsignificant junk just to hit 99% (cant even get 100% game complete due to broken quest hand ins anyways, of which I also did.)

There is plenty enough work already in the game and hours of time sink to reach 100% viable on planets without having to force the more chore like quests on people.

Its a game, its supposed to be fun. If its fun for you to see 99% complete on your game save over 94% complete, thats on you. The amount of time and effort I sunk into my game play so far is more than enough to be rewarded with a planet name.

@Nykara360

I think he meant to say that quests for Viability must be design for such thing. Viability will, inevitable, count towards the story, how you evolve. The additional thing, if any, should not be counted for Viability, but the whole % for completion. However, some missions, even not mandatory for story, should impact on those 100%. The choice is yours for doing them or not. But the likelyhood of having everything placed coincidently on your path, so you can get 100% viability, without having to make any choice is basically making the game linear again. There's a choice of trying or not trying to make the game 100% viable, but the story could continue even with 70 or 80%. The fact that it might feel like a chore or that the things left to complete 100% would be ludicrous, that's not a problem with %, but with the design of the quests themselves. Suppose that all quests regarding % viability were super cool, but you knew that you only had 60% mandatory to keep playing, it would all come to this: you do the rest if you wanted. What's happening now is that all quests, including thingst that have nothing to do with viability or that have not a Strong feel about completion, these things are pouring all around, designed to be done as viability. However, where some of these tasks may be boring for a few, others may find them ok. At least, for some people, they would have more than one way to achieve 100% viability. Anyway, I think Viability should take mainly big and important tasks and quests. The rest ... would be bonus.

@jpcerutti1

"...and wish you'd do the same for them too..."

Haha, yeah.  Lol, I like this theory.

---------

@Nykara360

"...without having to force the more chore like quests on people..."

But it wouldn't be forced because you wouldn't have to do it in order to beat the game.  You also focused on my chore example, but didn't address my game ones.

Another way to look at this would be that this would be like trying to argue that if you spent more hours playing than someone else, that is what matters not what you actually did.

So say you spend 150 hours playing the game but you never beat it, your argument is that you deserve the credit for beating the game just like the person who actually beat the game if they didn't play as long as you did.

That isn't logical.

Okay, you collected remnant cores, but so what?  You get credit for collecting all the remnant cores.  It's like you're arguing that you should get credit for finding all remnant cores if you only manage to find 85% of them.

It just seems wrong to want full credit for something that you only partially did whether we're speaking about something fun or not.

if you and I decide not to do all the viability quests, how do we deserve the same exact rewards in regards to viability as the person who did take the time to do every viability aspect of a planet?

But, look, I can't see me understanding your point of view.  I do thank you for taking the time to share it and if you have anything else to say on the matter, I will read it of course, but since I cannot think of any other way to explain my point of view, I won't be responding on this issue.

It isn't that I'm upset, offended, or anything of the sort.  I just have no other way to explain why I find your view on this illogical and thus there's nothing more I can say to help you help me understand where you're coming from on this and for that I am sorry.

Thank you again for your time.

Doing the 'extra' should be cosmetic rewards. Things that show up on the ship or in Ryders cabin. Things she can wear or use. Not something thats essentially story significant - like Ryder recieving the story reward of a planet named after her that'll carry into future games. Thats my point.

I don't know any game that'd force you to do 100% of collections etc for a story reward but for cosmetic stuff that impacts only that game? Sure.

Am fine with the way things are, until things are fixed and all task are given map markers, I cant imagine not getting 100% simply because I cant find the damn little mouse datapads, or the corpse of all colonist or the rokkar manifestos.

Maybe what really should have been done was two levels of viability.

Planet survival viability - simply the ability for an outpost to be placed - and survive.

Planet or even overall Andromeda Thriving viability - where they are no longer just surviving but also thriving. Maybe each planet could have given Ryder their own little gift as a thank you for the extra assistance once all tasks there are complete and making life easier on them, something cosmetic.

My issue with it being harder would be my Ryder not being rewarded with the story aspect of having a planet named after her. Something story shouldn't require 100% game complete and Id be really upset if that was the case because I would feel the need to do that for my char. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a reward for continuing to make Andromeda a better place to live, just not something thats a lasting story reward, something a player can work towards just for themselves. More paint jobs for nomad, clothes, armor etc.

---

@Nykara360 wrote:

Maybe what really should have been done was two levels of viability.

Planet survival viability - simply the ability for an outpost to be placed - and survive.

Planet or even overall Andromeda Thriving viability - where they are no longer just surviving but also thriving. Maybe each planet could have given Ryder their own little gift as a thank you for the extra assistance once all tasks there are complete and making life easier on them, something cosmetic.

My issue with it being harder would be my Ryder not being rewarded with the story aspect of having a planet named after her. Something story shouldn't require 100% game complete and Id be really upset if that was the case because I would feel the need to do that for my char. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a reward for continuing to make Andromeda a better place to live, just not something thats a lasting story reward, something a player can work towards just for themselves. More paint jobs for nomad, clothes, armor etc.

---

Unless I am mistaken, the name doesn't actually change on the map. It is just a mission and a little cheer.

-Just rechecked. It remains Habitat 7 on the map.

I think it is too easy because the system they used provides a viability increase for every completed task. It seems silly to me that I still get viability increases on a planet that is already 100% or AVP when I'm at the maximum Nexus level of 20, or skill points for my squad mates when they already have everything upgraded to level 6. These aren't serious problems but it does seem pointless.

What would've made more sense is if they had viability tasks similar to loyalty missions, i.e. a smaller set of tasks on the planet that clearly help with the viability. E.g. activating the vaults and destroying kett strongholds clearly helps the colonists in a significant way. I think it would have been okay to have only 4-6 tasks on a planet that contributed to viability in addition to establishing an outpost, turning on the vault and defeating the architect. If you do all of those then you get 100% viability on that planet. You shouldn't be required to do every single task though; most of them don't have a significant outcome for the colony overall and are more focused on helping an individual or small group. Establishing a forward station also makes sense because it provides a safe haven from the environment as well as a place to resupply. This is obviously helpful for colonists since they'll need to explore rather than just stay at the outpost 24/7.

---

@jpcerutti1 wrote:

---

@Nykara360 wrote:

Maybe what really should have been done was two levels of viability.

Planet survival viability - simply the ability for an outpost to be placed - and survive.

Planet or even overall Andromeda Thriving viability - where they are no longer just surviving but also thriving. Maybe each planet could have given Ryder their own little gift as a thank you for the extra assistance once all tasks there are complete and making life easier on them, something cosmetic.

My issue with it being harder would be my Ryder not being rewarded with the story aspect of having a planet named after her. Something story shouldn't require 100% game complete and Id be really upset if that was the case because I would feel the need to do that for my char. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a reward for continuing to make Andromeda a better place to live, just not something thats a lasting story reward, something a player can work towards just for themselves. More paint jobs for nomad, clothes, armor etc.

---

Unless I am mistaken, the name doesn't actually change on the map. It is just a mission and a little cheer.

-Just rechecked. It remains Habitat 7 on the map.

---

I think yours is bugged because I checked it after my first PT and the planet name said Ryder1.

---

@Nykara360 wrote:

---

@jpcerutti1 wrote:

---

@Nykara360 wrote:

Maybe what really should have been done was two levels of viability.

Planet survival viability - simply the ability for an outpost to be placed - and survive.

Planet or even overall Andromeda Thriving viability - where they are no longer just surviving but also thriving. Maybe each planet could have given Ryder their own little gift as a thank you for the extra assistance once all tasks there are complete and making life easier on them, something cosmetic.

My issue with it being harder would be my Ryder not being rewarded with the story aspect of having a planet named after her. Something story shouldn't require 100% game complete and Id be really upset if that was the case because I would feel the need to do that for my char. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a reward for continuing to make Andromeda a better place to live, just not something thats a lasting story reward, something a player can work towards just for themselves. More paint jobs for nomad, clothes, armor etc.

---

Unless I am mistaken, the name doesn't actually change on the map. It is just a mission and a little cheer.

-Just rechecked. It remains Habitat 7 on the map.

---

I think yours is bugged because I checked it after my first PT and the planet name said Ryder1.

---

Maybe. I just checked again with an earlier save than the NG+ one I used to check the first time and, while "The World is Waiting" is flagged as complete, it remains Habitat 7 both on the system and the individual planet scan maps.

---

@jpcerutti1 wrote:

---

@Nykara360 wrote:

---

@jpcerutti1 wrote:

---

@Nykara360 wrote:

Maybe what really should have been done was two levels of viability.

Planet survival viability - simply the ability for an outpost to be placed - and survive.

Planet or even overall Andromeda Thriving viability - where they are no longer just surviving but also thriving. Maybe each planet could have given Ryder their own little gift as a thank you for the extra assistance once all tasks there are complete and making life easier on them, something cosmetic.

My issue with it being harder would be my Ryder not being rewarded with the story aspect of having a planet named after her. Something story shouldn't require 100% game complete and Id be really upset if that was the case because I would feel the need to do that for my char. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a reward for continuing to make Andromeda a better place to live, just not something thats a lasting story reward, something a player can work towards just for themselves. More paint jobs for nomad, clothes, armor etc.

---

Unless I am mistaken, the name doesn't actually change on the map. It is just a mission and a little cheer.

-Just rechecked. It remains Habitat 7 on the map.

---

I think yours is bugged because I checked it after my first PT and the planet name said Ryder1.

---

Maybe. I just checked again with an earlier save than the NG+ one I used to check the first time and, while "The World is Waiting" is flagged as complete, it remains Habitat 7 both on the system and the individual planet scan maps.

---

Ill go back and check both my saves when I have a chance. Right on lunch time here atm fam is hungry. 🙂

P.S. just checked. Both PT say hab 7 now. Weird because I def remeber seeing Ryders name there right after the naming while still in the system, why change it back again? O.o

---

@Nykara360 wrote:

---

Ill go back and check both my saves when I have a chance. Right on lunch time here atm fam is hungry. 🙂

P.S. just checked. Both PT say hab 7 now. Weird because I def remeber seeing Ryders name there right after the naming while still in the system, why change it back again? O.o

---

SAM glitched again and didnt update the system lol...

I was mulling over another thing related to planet viability and enemy level scaling. Maybe relate these 2 concepts.

The idea, I think, for enemies leveling up accordingly to us revolves around the fact that both us and the enemies are not stationary. However, what if making viability hinder the process of enemy level escalation? At least reflect on it somehow? It would be based on the concept that when you make things viable for you, enemy will have a harder time to keep up. The difference between planets would be that if you wanted to grind too much a single planet, other planets would remain unchecked, and fiends there would get stronger. This setting would require you to try and level all planets similarly, giving them the same attention to avoid enemies grinding their levels.

It would allow you to judge if you had to make a planet completely viable before moving away, of leaving a planet with a fair viability % and get to another and have its viability raised to keep enemies in check.