Is 100% Planet Viability Earned to Easily?

@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.

---

@PretzleMe wrote:

@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.

---

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.

---

@PretzleMe wrote:

@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.

---

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. If they do change it, it is likely to tick more people off than it would make people happy. In fact, my view is that "the cure would be worse than the disease", as the saying goes. That is my concern.

So really I get that you don't like it but I don't think that the concern itself and the reasons behind it are something that BW needs to be concerned about. Now, if there was an indication that lots of players are upset about this and it's causing them to not like this game, then I would say there is a reason to change it. If it actually is something that really makes no sense in the context of the game, then I would want it changed because then it makes sense to change it. That's why I do agree with the other poster that being able to make a planet viable without activating the vault makes no sense for example. In essence I see two reasons to change something in the game: popular demand and common sense. For a personal opinion you don't need much of either at all and that's cool. But for an actual change to be made to this in the game, I simply have not seen enough evidence of either.

I get that you don't like it and you're stuck on this 100% number not being representative of what you feel it should mean, but I also don't believe it's an issue for many people at all and it's not in itself something that causes any significant issue in the story or mechanics of the game. I suppose what I'm saying is that you have been clear enough about it as a personal view, but you have not been able to convince me that it's anything more than a personal issue and therefore warrants no action from my point of view. It would've been interesting if you had brought arguments to the table to would've really elevated this issue to a higher level, but as far as I can tell the only argumentation that did that was from the other guy who was able to get a planet viable without activating the vault. That, in the context of the game, is clearly a common sense issue and is not related to the specific number as it devalues the whole point of the vaults which is rather a core element of the game. As a sidenote it's even ironic considering what happens in that extra quest you get at the end when you do have all planets on 100%.

That's a good reason to do something about the vault bypass.

@Vellu78

"...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.

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

@EgoMania

"...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:

@Vellu78

"...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:

@Vellu78

"...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:

@EgoMania

"...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.

@EgoMania

"...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.