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
@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.
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.
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 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.
