Is 100% Planet Viability Earned to Easily?

---

PretzleMe wrote:

@EgoMania

Even online, lol especially online, I'd argue those assumptions are true unless otherwise stated.

Regarding whether or not I explained my view, I did explain it several times (with examples) in multiple posts here.  There's even an aspect of that explanation in the post of mine you quoted.

But no, you will not find a thorough breakdown of it all in my very first post before anyone else said anything.

---

I suppose my mind works differently. I just don't make such assumptions. If that makes me weird or different then I'm ok with that.

Now, I've gone as far as to go back and read all your posts in this thread and I still can't say I've seen anything that indicates a major issue objectively speaking. The only issue I recognise as a valid concern was raised by someone else as you saw. I definitely can follow that being able to make a planet viable without using the vault is not right, because it goes against the core of what's happening in this game. Even if not required by the main story, the vault system and meridian are at the heart of what's going on here. To build something in the game that allows you to bypass that is not a good thing.

But this concern about what should or shouldn't be 100% is a personal preference issue. I get that it's a real issue for you, but in the larger view of the game and a broad player base my opinion remains that this is a very minor issue. Could they've tackled this differently? Sure. Would it have been better if they had done it differently? Sure. Does it really create an issue for the game? No way.

As a sidenote, although I do find the discussion about the topic interesting, aside from apparently being able to bypass the vault entirely on a planet, I've seen nothing even remotely convincing that this is a real issue of any significance. It comes down to your personal opinion of what 100% should mean and clearly here it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. That can be a minor nuisance I'm sure, but I really can't see that as more as a really minor issue for the game and its overall quality.

We won't agree on this topic I'm sure, but thanks for the interesting discussion just the same. It was something interesting to think about for a bit.

---

@trackboy186 wrote:

---

@Atfricks wrote:
I agree completely, I actually got Elaaden to 100% without ever doing the vault there, which is pretty ridiculous when you think about it.

---

You know, of all the locations, Elaaden seemed the most likely to be difficult and hostile, but completely viable on its own. It is essentially just a hot desert world. If we can currently have a population live in locations like Death Valley, why is Elaaden so difficult to believe with the massive technological differences?

---

That's a good point. Eos was radiated, Voeld frozen over, Kadara acidic. Eladeen....just a desert, albeit entirely "on the sunny side".

Who else is interested on what's like on the other side being tidally locked (so eternal night instead of eternal day)?

---

@trackboy186 wrote:

---

@Atfricks wrote:
I agree completely, I actually got Elaaden to 100% without ever doing the vault there, which is pretty ridiculous when you think about it.

---

You know, of all the locations, Elaaden seemed the most likely to be difficult and hostile, but completely viable on its own. It is essentially just a hot desert world. If we can currently have a population live in locations like Death Valley, why is Elaaden so difficult to believe with the massive technological differences?

---

I suppose the Turian golden rock or Habitat7/Ryder would be harder, but there is only a single source of water and your blood boils in 75 seconds unshielded. Continual sand geyser eruptions that bury things. You could live there, and they do, but it is *not* low hanging habitability fruit even after a vault restart.

Where it confused me was: Why doesn't it have a twilight/perpetual dawn/dusk zone where it is habitable (or a side with perpetual night and maybe ice?) Even if that was some sort of moving target due to orbit/rotation it would probably be preferable to continually baking sun.

Also creating a migrating colony of habitats on wheels would of been pretty cool. 🙂

@trackboy186

"...It is essentially just a hot desert world. If we can currently have a population live in locations like Death Valley, why is Elaaden so difficult to believe with the massive technological differences?..."

I haven't reached it yet on this play through, but I hope it is more complicated than that since our suit doesn't stop it from hurting us.  I mean I hope the heat significantly exceeds that found here on Earth.  I'll be paying attention now, lol.

But granted the vault is supposed to adjust the temperature and nothing else does, I'd have a hard time believing that these worlds should be habitable (for humans) if we don't turn that AC on.

I mean, heat on Earth kills people sometimes.  I remember one year, during a summer the power had gone out due to a severe storm and the power remained out for a week or so and people were dying because of the heat.

---------

@Vellu78

"...Who else is interested on what's like on the other side being tidally locked (so eternal night instead of eternal day)?..."

I wasn't before but now that you mention it, oh it would be awesome to venture over there for a peak or even a mission.  So me!

----------

@jpcerutti1

"...Also creating a migrating colony of habitats on wheels would of been pretty cool. 🙂..."

It's the little things sometimes.  This addition could have been a bit of a minor one, but one I definitely would have liked.  It just seems like all over this galaxy we tend to encounter the same folk living the same way basically.  This would have been a welcomed difference in my opinion.

-------------

@EgoMania

"...Now, I've gone as far as to go back and read all your posts in this thread and I still can't say I've seen anything that indicates a major issue objectively speaking..."

I know in your opinion this is not an issue, which is why I wasn't addressing that aspect at all.

I was addressing where you incorrectly claim I didn't explain my point of view and the fallacy of focusing on my original post despite me not indicating that I was solely referring to my original comment:

"...You say you explained why you see it as a significant issue. Well, when I read your OP, I see not explanation why..."

If someone explains to me why they hate breakfast, whether I agree with (and/or understand) their explanation or not, they still provided one.

You personally not seeing why this is an issue (or a significant issue), doesn't mean I didn't explain why it is one to me.