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:
"...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
