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
The 100% completion on all planets does trigger an additional quest at the end. For story lovers who don't care about combat and all that jazz, it would probably be a bad thing if they couldn't get to this additional quest at their normal pace.
Some people don't want or need the challenge, they just want to experience the stories and worlds.
Again it comes to balance. Some people want it easier than others and when it comes to casual story play, this probably was the right decision. It's a community thing and you can't expect everything to be the way you like it. Bioware probably want to sell enough games to make the investment worth it. You don't achieve that by excluding various player types that exist in your fan base.
If you want challenge, there are other things for that. It still comes down to how many people you're gonna tick off when you make change. Players have a tendency to see themselves as the representative of some fictituous majority but in reality Bioware has to do a bit of a balancing act there.
With that, I think there are more serious issues than this that need to be addressed in this game. This isn't exactly game breaking in my view and I'd rather they continue fixing certain bugs, the character creation options, character animations, multi-player issues and the clunky UI (Press Esc 4 times to get from your quest log back to the game for example).
We all have our priorities I'm sure, but I don't honestly believe that in the total of the game, this is something that should be high on their priority list to look into.
Just my opinion of course.
Talking about any aspect of a game does not somehow mean that one believes that there are no other and or more important things that need to be resolved in any situation. For instance, discussing bugs in a game and wanting them to be fixed does not mean that a person doesn't think that things like world hunger, cancer, and poverty are bigger issues than game ones.
If I had stated I felt this was the most important thing, I could see why people might mention there are more pressing matters in their opinion.
But more pressing matters or not, to me, based on the fact that I haven't encountered anything that gives you 100% for doing 85%, is in fact an issue.
It's like saying, "Sure, it's optional but don't make the reward for doing it something I might want or that's just not fair because I don't want to have to do everything to get everything."
Why have the option to do or pay more at all? This logic makes it sound like having different editions is wrong because what if they have something in that edition you want, but you don't want to have to pay more than regular price?
Or why not make it to where you don't have to do every main mission to beat the game?
It's like this logic is applied virtually no where else, but for some reason it makes sense here? It makes sense that doing less should mean the same as doing more?
That isn't logical at all.
It's just a matter of putting it in perspective for me.
You find it important enough to start a thread about it. Never said it was the most important thing for you that needs fixing but for me after thinking about it, it's not really worth worrying about.
That's my opinion. You don't have to agree with that. I'm not trying to convince you, just explaining how I see it.
I just think that with the perspective of a game needing to appeal to a broader audience, that this is something that makes sense in that context and doesn't need changing. Other topics I see that changes are needed. This issue...I don't actually see it as an issue really, but there you are.
I wasn't trying to imply that you think I have to agree with you, or that you were trying to convince me, and apologize if I gave you that impression. It's just I feel like certain things are obvious enough to be assumed such as some thinking there are more important things to work on. People not needing to agree. That sort of thing.
I started a thread because I do believe it a significant issue. I explained why. Logic as well as a shortage of examples anywhere else that matches this desire to be able to not have to do everything to get everything or do less and get the same as those that get more.
So your opinion is what it is and some agree with it and others don't. Regardless, I appreciate you sharing it.
Evidence across all bioware games does at least show - to an extent - that discussing all aspects of the games and how thungs could been handled better etc tends to improve those areas for the next game. So its totally worth talking about them.
Sometimes itll mean updates to the current game, other times better for the next game 🙂
I think in a lot of areas this game would have been better than the previous if they'd just had a little more time. Its easy to see the areas they tried to improve based on previous feedback, but due to whatever constraints were in place also left some other vital parts more lacking. Don't think it was intentional so much as it was out of time, game needs to be done etc.
Anyhow keep talking about all the little things 🙂
@PretzleMe wrote:
I wasn't trying to imply that you think I have to agree with you, or that you were trying to convince me, and apologize if I gave you that impression. It's just I feel like certain things are obvious enough to be assumed such as some thinking there are more important things to work on. People not needing to agree. That sort of thing.
I started a thread because I do believe it a significant issue. I explained why. Logic as well as a shortage of examples anywhere else that matches this desire to be able to not have to do everything to get everything or do less and get the same as those that get more.
So your opinion is what it is and some agree with it and others don't. Regardless, I appreciate you sharing it.
Hehe, well assume nothing on the internet 😉 And it's all good, since we can still talk to each other in a very civil manner and that's appreciated.
You say you explained why you see it as a significant issue. Well, when I read your OP, I see not explanation why. You explain that you see it as an issue and that it's wrong and should be different, but I don't really get the sense of a reason behind that. What makes it wrong?
Another person here mentioned that it's possible to gain 100% viability without doing the vault. Now that's something I can understand because that's an integral part of getting the planets back to life and even though it's not a direct part of the main story itself, it certainly goes along with it.
But I don't see the reason why anyone would think that it's problematic to have some room to play with. So for example that you can get to 120% if you do everything but don't have to do everything because that would be considered tedious by a number of people. So I see why they did it and I don't experience it as problematic at all.
However, being able to make a planet viable without doing the vault for a planet actually makes no sense in the context of the story. I would suggest doing something about that like putting viability points in reserve until the vault is actually completed, which then frees the points up.
That I can follow easily. But I am still wondering why it's a problem for you that you can get more points than you need. I suspect most people are not that completionist and the game needs to be manageable for them as well. That's why I am not opposed to this as it doesn't really hurt things.
What needs to be considered is that beyond the vault, it's the quests and teleport points that you unlock that give you viability points. The tele-points are a logistics issue and the quests are a social-political element. So viability isn't just the planet's physical viability as in clean air and water etc, but also the exploration/logistics and the social-political situation with the other inhabitants. So perhaps by going over 100% the rating should count further and have some additional beneficial effect that is not important to the main story but could unlock some extra resources or friendlier allies or whatever. In that sense we could treat this situation not as a problem but an opportunity.
Just some additional thoughts on the topic really.
Featured Places
