Is 100% Planet Viability Earned to Easily?

---

@Vellu78 wrote:

---

@VitesseLumiere wrote:

I think we may be confusing Viability with Game Completion.  There are two different statistics.  You can have 100% viability and only 80% game completion in your stats.  In my opinion that is how it should be.  Viability was only meant to relate to the Pathfinder's ability to make a planet livable.  

That's true, but for me specifically the issue was hitting 100% on Voeld way way early. I had not even cleared the Kett base or defeated the Architect and it had been 100% for quite some time. Other worlds a little too fast too, but not as blatantly (propably did things in different order).

I would like a bit harsher counter, atleast forced to require the "major" things and hold at 95% or something. And not just get it to 100% automatically doing only the little fetch quests and stuff.

---

Voeld let me establish a colony on it without even asking/it being offered. It was the second planet I visited and it didn't even dawn on me that I probably should of until it was already there. I don't know if that decision was based off of viablilty or just a bug.

Hmm, I still needed to go interact with the thingy on the outpost site (required 40% viability or so for it to become available) for the outpost to actually be established. Glitched for you maybe?

@VitesseLumiere

I'm not confusing Viability with Game Completion just because I compare the two at times.  I am also comparing the viability aspect with every other mission. 

The planet is livable enough at 40% once you can drop an outpost on it which raises viability again.  By what  you're saying, they could have made that the 100% viability mark.

All I am saying is, I had Eos at 100% and hadn't gotten every forwarding station (I had several I hadn't gotten) and did a great deal of quest that were shown to "add viability" and to me that will not make sense. 

100% to me should mean 100% just like collecting 10 items should mean you collected 10 items not 7 or 8.

I get wanting more than one way to accomplish something, but that isn't what we truly have here.  What we instead have is wanting to not have to do everything that affects viability but still get the same thing that those that do everything concerning viability would get.  Like people who put more effort into playing the game don't deserve more/special things.  Their time wasn't superficial.  Why should their reward be?  We aren't stopped from completing those things.

It's similar to if we decide to get standard edition instead of the deluxe ones of a game.  I could have spent more, others chose to do so, they deserve more and it shouldn't just be superficial in my opinion.

In fact, thanks to your comment, I think that's what should have happened.  They should/could have replaced Game Completion entirely with Viability.  You get a planet's viability to 100% it means you completed every task and assignment on that planet... same with Andromeda as a whole.

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

@VladVonCastein

But some people do put that effort in and they don't do it because they see it as fun per say.  I can't speak to their motives, I just look at it as bottom line, they did more than I did, they deserve 100% since they were willing to put forth the effort.  If I'm not, I don't.

-----------

@Pixeldance

I like the idea of viability being able to go down or fluctuate, but eehh I'd lean towards just wanting it to be the way completion is measured in this game in general.  I think while being a minor change, it would have been an interesting one that fit the game and it's story.  Almost like making the Game Completion stat more immersive similar to how they made the choice in gender more immersive and less outside the game.

---

@jpcerutti1 wrote:

---

@Vellu78 wrote:

---

@VitesseLumiere wrote:

I think we may be confusing Viability with Game Completion.  There are two different statistics.  You can have 100% viability and only 80% game completion in your stats.  In my opinion that is how it should be.  Viability was only meant to relate to the Pathfinder's ability to make a planet livable.  

That's true, but for me specifically the issue was hitting 100% on Voeld way way early. I had not even cleared the Kett base or defeated the Architect and it had been 100% for quite some time. Other worlds a little too fast too, but not as blatantly (propably did things in different order).

I would like a bit harsher counter, atleast forced to require the "major" things and hold at 95% or something. And not just get it to 100% automatically doing only the little fetch quests and stuff.

---

Voeld let me establish a colony on it without even asking/it being offered. It was the second planet I visited and it didn't even dawn on me that I probably should of until it was already there. I don't know if that decision was based off of viablilty or just a bug.

---

I don't think it's a bug but I think once the viability hits 40%, you get the outpost there but it's been a little while since I've done it so I can't be entirely sure.

---

@PretzleMe wrote:

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

@VladVonCastein

But some people do put that effort in and they don't do it because they see it as fun per say.  I can't speak to their motives, I just look at it as bottom line, they did more than I did, they deserve 100% since they were willing to put forth the effort.  If I'm not, I don't.

---

@ @PretzleMe

I hear you, but how many of such quest are broken?  All I am saying is I am ok with the current state as a lot of the quest are in fact broken and even if some of them could be completed, without map markers you will need to drive around literally for hours and hope to get the next little mouse datapad or next corpse to scan.  The 100% viability score is important for us as a completion which leads to an important ceremony of naming a planet after the Ryder name.  I am happy as it stands now, have put in enough effort to complete this.  For those that make the extra effort of driving for hours to complete the little mouse datapad treasure hunt they probably have their reward as well...  few hundred exp, some remnant lubricant to sell as junk?  LOL.

@VladVonCastein

Some of the missions are broken but others may not be (not sure if some of them not having markers qualify as broken as this may have been intentional) but I can see the point of view of wanting to be able to get 100% even though the game is broken in some places where you can't finish the mission.

But I still feel like that Viability being the measurement of game completion in this game is how it should have been from the beginning which is why the broken aspect doesn't factor into what I'm saying because the game shouldn't have been so broken either haha.

But I get your motives completely.  And that, while I don't agree with it, makes perfect sense to me.

So thank you for giving me another way to look at it.

@PretzleMe

Sorry, I just don't agree in this case.  Viability was never meant to be about completion in any respect (what does the number of forward stations you have mean towards viability - that's convenience for you, not the planet or the colony).  Viability has a specific purpose in this game, agree with it or not.  To the title of this post, is it earned to easily?  Yes.  Should it mean that you need to complete everything on the planet to get it?  Absolutely, 100% no IMO.  Might fit your view of what you would personally like to see out of Viability and I can understand that, but it doesn't fit the game's own understanding of Viability  🙂

@VitesseLumiere

"...(what does the number of forward stations you have mean towards viability - that's convenience for you, not the planet or the colony),,,"

You would have to ask them that because they made it so that every forwarding station adds 2% to the planet's viability.

Regarding viability having a specific purpose in the game, as someone else pointed out, you don't even need it to beat the game and having 100% on all planets doesn't change the ending at all.  So what specific purpose do you think it is serving?

In all honesty, because it is affected by things like forwarding stations (which as you pointed out wouldn't logically affect viability) and other missions that similarly affect viability but logically wouldn't, it almost appears as though they did intend for it to be an immersive way of stating game completion.

I mean, aside from the one aspect I complain about it works almost the exact same way as a game completion score.  The same way you don't need 100% to beat the game.  The same way that it is linked to even the most mundane tasks.

And viability is not the same as 100% viability.  I'd argue that Earth isn't at 100% viability but it is at a viability high enough for us to live on. 

It's kind of like drinkable water isn't water that is completely absent of contaminants, it is water that has a toxicity below a certain amount.

So no, you shouldn't have to do every little thing to make a planet viable enough to sustain our people or complete the game, but just like how water filters cannot claim to remove 100% of contaminants just because they remove 99.8% of them... we shouldn't get 100% viability for only doing 85% of the things that affect viability.

i'd say if they decide to give us a lot more fanfare and rewards, so it actually becomes rewarding to keep improving viability over and over, then by all means make it more difficult. however, as it stands... just no. i don't want this too feel like i'm working a full time job, doing incessant meaningless grinding tasks for meaningless numbers moving up and or down on some screen somewhere.

Maybe what really should have been done was two levels of viability.

Planet survival viability - simply the ability for an outpost to be placed - and survive.

Planet or even overall Andromeda Thriving viability - where they are no longer just surviving but also thriving. Maybe each planet could have given Ryder their own little gift as a thank you for the extra assistance once all tasks there are complete and making life easier on them, something cosmetic.

My issue with it being harder would be my Ryder not being rewarded with the story aspect of having a planet named after her. Something story shouldn't require 100% game complete and Id be really upset if that was the case because I would feel the need to do that for my char. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a reward for continuing to make Andromeda a better place to live, just not something thats a lasting story reward, something a player can work towards just for themselves. More paint jobs for nomad, clothes, armor etc.