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
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.
Sorry, I just don't agree in this case. Viability was never meant to be about completion in any respect (what does the number of forward stations you have mean towards viability - that's convenience for you, not the planet or the colony). Viability has a specific purpose in this game, agree with it or not. To the title of this post, is it earned to easily? Yes. Should it mean that you need to complete everything on the planet to get it? Absolutely, 100% no IMO. Might fit your view of what you would personally like to see out of Viability and I can understand that, but it doesn't fit the game's own understanding of Viability 🙂
"...(what does the number of forward stations you have mean towards viability - that's convenience for you, not the planet or the colony),,,"
You would have to ask them that because they made it so that every forwarding station adds 2% to the planet's viability.
Regarding viability having a specific purpose in the game, as someone else pointed out, you don't even need it to beat the game and having 100% on all planets doesn't change the ending at all. So what specific purpose do you think it is serving?
In all honesty, because it is affected by things like forwarding stations (which as you pointed out wouldn't logically affect viability) and other missions that similarly affect viability but logically wouldn't, it almost appears as though they did intend for it to be an immersive way of stating game completion.
I mean, aside from the one aspect I complain about it works almost the exact same way as a game completion score. The same way you don't need 100% to beat the game. The same way that it is linked to even the most mundane tasks.
And viability is not the same as 100% viability. I'd argue that Earth isn't at 100% viability but it is at a viability high enough for us to live on.
It's kind of like drinkable water isn't water that is completely absent of contaminants, it is water that has a toxicity below a certain amount.
So no, you shouldn't have to do every little thing to make a planet viable enough to sustain our people or complete the game, but just like how water filters cannot claim to remove 100% of contaminants just because they remove 99.8% of them... we shouldn't get 100% viability for only doing 85% of the things that affect viability.
