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
@PretzleMe wrote:
"...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.
It's +50deg C in hazard areas. As far colonization goes, it not just the heat but the total lack of surface moisture (due to perpetual sun) so no farming etc without signicant shelter construction. I due like the hazard being properly dynamic, like if you drive into shadow behind a cliff or something the shaded area is non-hazard. Same principle as heaters in Voeld, but provided by landscape or buildings.
"...It's +50deg C in hazard areas. As far colonization goes, it not just the heat but the total lack of surface moisture (due to perpetual sun) so no farming etc without signicant shelter construction. I due like the hazard being properly dynamic, like if you drive into shadow behind a cliff or something the shaded area is non-hazard. Same principle as heaters in Voeld, but provided by landscape or buildings..."
I could see that being an issue as well. I was just looking at it like I'd assume our protective suits could protect us from just about any environment on Earth (except from things like sulfuric acid pools or volcanic heat) so if this place wasn't even as hot as the hottest desert we have, that would be disappointing for/to me.
-------------
"...Well, I would like to make a clear distinction between what is a major or important issue to you and what would constitute an actual issue of importance that needs to be addressed by BW as in fixing it...."
All you can do is explain what constitutes an actual issue of importance to you and/or why this isn't an issue to you. Doesn't mean it doesn't constitute an actual issue. Same applies in reverse. This is why I didn't address the difference of opinion, only the fact that you made a false claim regarding whether or not I explained myself.
@PretzleMe wrote:
"...It's +50deg C in hazard areas. As far colonization goes, it not just the heat but the total lack of surface moisture (due to perpetual sun) so no farming etc without signicant shelter construction. I due like the hazard being properly dynamic, like if you drive into shadow behind a cliff or something the shaded area is non-hazard. Same principle as heaters in Voeld, but provided by landscape or buildings..."
I could see that being an issue as well. I was just looking at it like I'd assume our protective suits could protect us from just about any environment on Earth (except from things like sulfuric acid pools or volcanic heat) so if this place wasn't even as hot as the hottest desert we have, that would be disappointing for/to me.
-------------
Agreed, the numbers aren't that high actually. Same goes for Voelds -50deg C. Heck even I experience -40-45 couple of times every year living in Northern FInland. Certainly don't need an enviro-suit to survive. Arctic gear yes and multiple layers, but nothing "actively" heated like a powered-armor. Propably true for deserts on Earth aswell, I'm thinking +50 occurs occasionally (Sahara, Australia, where ever).
Make it -70 and +70 and then we're an in truely hazardous range.
@Vellu78 wrote:
@PretzleMe wrote:
"...It's +50deg C in hazard areas. As far colonization goes, it not just the heat but the total lack of surface moisture (due to perpetual sun) so no farming etc without signicant shelter construction. I due like the hazard being properly dynamic, like if you drive into shadow behind a cliff or something the shaded area is non-hazard. Same principle as heaters in Voeld, but provided by landscape or buildings..."
I could see that being an issue as well. I was just looking at it like I'd assume our protective suits could protect us from just about any environment on Earth (except from things like sulfuric acid pools or volcanic heat) so if this place wasn't even as hot as the hottest desert we have, that would be disappointing for/to me.
-------------
Agreed, the numbers aren't that high actually. Same goes for Voelds -50deg C. Heck even I experience -40-45 couple of times every year living in Northern FInland. Certainly don't need an enviro-suit to survive. Arctic gear yes and multiple layers, but nothing "actively" heated like a powered-armor. Propably true for deserts on Earth aswell, I'm thinking +50 occurs occasionally (Sahara, Australia, where ever).
Make it -70 and +70 and then we're an in truely hazardous range.
That is very disappointing to hear. I'm a numbers guy after all, lol. I'm sure it was just a small oversight on their part but still. That far in the future, Earth temps should be a non issue.
@PretzleMe wrote:
"...Well, I would like to make a clear distinction between what is a major or important issue to you and what would constitute an actual issue of importance that needs to be addressed by BW as in fixing it...."
All you can do is explain what constitutes an actual issue of importance to you and/or why this isn't an issue to you. Doesn't mean it doesn't constitute an actual issue. Same applies in reverse. This is why I didn't address the difference of opinion, only the fact that you made a false claim regarding whether or not I explained myself.
Nah, that's not a fact. That's just your opinion.
You seem unable to see beyond your single explanation of what 100% should mean. What you don't seem to get that 100% by itself doesn't really mean anything in the real world until you've decided what that 100% represents.
If I take a cake and split it in 4 equal parts, they represent 25% of the total cake, but when I give a piece of cake to you for you to eat, then the 25% of the total becomes also 100% of your share. So then in one context a piece of the cake is 25% and in another context it's 100%.
Of course if you apply it to a cake you don't like and don't want to be rude, you made decide to eat half of your share. So eating half of the original 25% is now your goal. So now 12.5% of the total is your personal 100% as that's your achievement to you want to reach.
So really, to reach the 16.6% needed on each planet you don't have to do all the quests, but reaching that goal by itself can be seen as 100%.
Do you like that? Clearly not. But does it go against logic or numbers? No, even from a numbers point of view this can be done. It's just a matter of what the goals are that are set and what that goal completion means. That's not determined by the numbers.
Beyond that, there's nothing more I can say on the matter. You'll have to forgive me that I cut it short here and announce that I won't reply to you on this matter anymore, but the reality is that as far is this is a forum about the game, this discussion has lost traction because it's not going anywhere. It's just going in circles. I accept my share in that so I choose to break it.
Enjoy your views, they are yours after all. I have no expectation that you will offer anything that makes the actual topic worth worrying about and I am sure that you have no hope that I can make any sense.
So yeah, best to leave it at this and move on. Perhaps we do better on other topics.
"...Nah, that's not a fact. That's just your opinion..."
It is a fact that I explained myself. A fact you acknowledged in the same post where you stated the above. You initially incorrectly claimed I hadn't explained my point of view, and this error is implied to have occurred due to illogically focusing solely on my original post as a basis for the claim.
Considering I hadn't addressed your opinion on viability (other than to say I know it is different from mine) for several posts (and pointed out that I wasn't), I appreciate you moving on.
Thank you and take care.
Featured Places
