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.
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.
