Is 100% Planet Viability Earned to Easily?
I returned to Eos and once the viability was at 100% it seemed I kept "raising" the viability after that. Repeatedly and this is wrong to me.
These numbers need to be re-calibrated so that you ne...
Forum Discussion
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.
@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.
-----------
"...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.
@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.
-----------
"...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.
@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.
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.
"...and wish you'd do the same for them too..."
Haha, yeah. Lol, I like this theory.
---------
"...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.
