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
Yup there's talk about Advent's request on mining gas being bad for the environment, but nothing seem consequential. Viability doesnt go down, Hainly doesnt seem bothered, seem like we gained an ally, so why not...
I think we may be confusing Viability with Game Completion. There are two different statistics. You can have 100% viability and only 80% game completion in your stats. In my opinion that is how it should be. Viability was only meant to relate to the Pathfinder's ability to make a planet livable. They explain in a few different conversations the exact things needed for viability and they make sense to me. You need to be able to support life (radiation, heat, cold, etc. need to be addressed), you need to be able to establish a colony, and you need to minimize threats from wildlife, Kett, etc. Viability isn't a measuring stick for us as gamers. It's an abstract measuring stick for in-game leaders to best make decisions on where to send colonists and what type of colonists to send.
@VitesseLumiere wrote:
I think we may be confusing Viability with Game Completion. There are two different statistics. You can have 100% viability and only 80% game completion in your stats. In my opinion that is how it should be. Viability was only meant to relate to the Pathfinder's ability to make a planet livable.
That's true, but for me specifically the issue was hitting 100% on Voeld way way early. I had not even cleared the Kett base or defeated the Architect and it had been 100% for quite some time. Other worlds a little too fast too, but not as blatantly (propably did things in different order).
I would like a bit harsher counter, atleast require the "major" things and hold at 95% or something before those are done. And not just get it to 100% automatically doing only the little fetch quests and stuff.
Yeah, I don't disagree with that. A better balance could have been struck, definitely.
@Vellu78 wrote:
@VitesseLumiere wrote:
I think we may be confusing Viability with Game Completion. There are two different statistics. You can have 100% viability and only 80% game completion in your stats. In my opinion that is how it should be. Viability was only meant to relate to the Pathfinder's ability to make a planet livable.
That's true, but for me specifically the issue was hitting 100% on Voeld way way early. I had not even cleared the Kett base or defeated the Architect and it had been 100% for quite some time. Other worlds a little too fast too, but not as blatantly (propably did things in different order).
I would like a bit harsher counter, atleast forced to require the "major" things and hold at 95% or something. And not just get it to 100% automatically doing only the little fetch quests and stuff.
Voeld let me establish a colony on it without even asking/it being offered. It was the second planet I visited and it didn't even dawn on me that I probably should of until it was already there. I don't know if that decision was based off of viablilty or just a bug.
Hmm, I still needed to go interact with the thingy on the outpost site (required 40% viability or so for it to become available) for the outpost to actually be established. Glitched for you maybe?
I'm not confusing Viability with Game Completion just because I compare the two at times. I am also comparing the viability aspect with every other mission.
The planet is livable enough at 40% once you can drop an outpost on it which raises viability again. By what you're saying, they could have made that the 100% viability mark.
All I am saying is, I had Eos at 100% and hadn't gotten every forwarding station (I had several I hadn't gotten) and did a great deal of quest that were shown to "add viability" and to me that will not make sense.
100% to me should mean 100% just like collecting 10 items should mean you collected 10 items not 7 or 8.
I get wanting more than one way to accomplish something, but that isn't what we truly have here. What we instead have is wanting to not have to do everything that affects viability but still get the same thing that those that do everything concerning viability would get. Like people who put more effort into playing the game don't deserve more/special things. Their time wasn't superficial. Why should their reward be? We aren't stopped from completing those things.
It's similar to if we decide to get standard edition instead of the deluxe ones of a game. I could have spent more, others chose to do so, they deserve more and it shouldn't just be superficial in my opinion.
In fact, thanks to your comment, I think that's what should have happened. They should/could have replaced Game Completion entirely with Viability. You get a planet's viability to 100% it means you completed every task and assignment on that planet... same with Andromeda as a whole.
-------------
But some people do put that effort in and they don't do it because they see it as fun per say. I can't speak to their motives, I just look at it as bottom line, they did more than I did, they deserve 100% since they were willing to put forth the effort. If I'm not, I don't.
-----------
I like the idea of viability being able to go down or fluctuate, but eehh I'd lean towards just wanting it to be the way completion is measured in this game in general. I think while being a minor change, it would have been an interesting one that fit the game and it's story. Almost like making the Game Completion stat more immersive similar to how they made the choice in gender more immersive and less outside the game.
@PretzleMe wrote:
-------------
But some people do put that effort in and they don't do it because they see it as fun per say. I can't speak to their motives, I just look at it as bottom line, they did more than I did, they deserve 100% since they were willing to put forth the effort. If I'm not, I don't.
I hear you, but how many of such quest are broken? All I am saying is I am ok with the current state as a lot of the quest are in fact broken and even if some of them could be completed, without map markers you will need to drive around literally for hours and hope to get the next little mouse datapad or next corpse to scan. The 100% viability score is important for us as a completion which leads to an important ceremony of naming a planet after the Ryder name. I am happy as it stands now, have put in enough effort to complete this. For those that make the extra effort of driving for hours to complete the little mouse datapad treasure hunt they probably have their reward as well... few hundred exp, some remnant lubricant to sell as junk? LOL.
Some of the missions are broken but others may not be (not sure if some of them not having markers qualify as broken as this may have been intentional) but I can see the point of view of wanting to be able to get 100% even though the game is broken in some places where you can't finish the mission.
But I still feel like that Viability being the measurement of game completion in this game is how it should have been from the beginning which is why the broken aspect doesn't factor into what I'm saying because the game shouldn't have been so broken either haha.
But I get your motives completely. And that, while I don't agree with it, makes perfect sense to me.
So thank you for giving me another way to look at it.
Featured Places
