Is 100% Planet Viability Earned to Easily?

[jpcerutti1]

Consider the extra viability bits extra credit? Maybe they are grading you on a curve... and wish you'd do the same for them too.

[Nykara360]

---

@PretzleMe wrote:

Then to me you don't deserve 100% viability if you don't do 100% of the viability work regardless as to why.

There's plenty of games (most actually) where I don't get every collectible, do every quest, or do every optional challenge.  In many cases, I will hardly do any of the optional stuff because to me they usually suck something fierce... but I don't expect to get credit for 100% game completion in those cases.

I am just having a difficult time understanding your logic that you feel it makes sense that you get 100% credit for doing 85% of the work.

I don't think I've ever been scored at 100% on anything where I actually didn't answer all the questions.

I could see your point if you needed 100% to beat the game but you don't.  From what someone else said, you don't really need any but establishing an outpost at every planet you can would definitely be enough.

So why is it important/fair/logical to you to be able to get 100%?  I feel like this would be like my kids wanting credit for cleaning the entire house when (of the rooms they're allowed in) they only cleaned 3 out of 5 of them.

---

Big difference between playing a game thats for fun and enjoyment, then doing required chores.

A game shouldn't feel like a chore and the 'reward' for 100% viable on planets - to me, is a fairly significant one to my character.

The in game reward for doing the extra credit, is opening more cryo pods. But after doing 94% of the game which btw for me was over 120hrs of game play you bet your * my Ryder deserved that planet name for all she did for everyone. I even got all the remenant data cores, but ill be damned if I was gunna spend another 20+ hrs just looking for a couple of canisters and other unsignificant junk just to hit 99% (cant even get 100% game complete due to broken quest hand ins anyways, of which I also did.)

There is plenty enough work already in the game and hours of time sink to reach 100% viable on planets without having to force the more chore like quests on people.

Its a game, its supposed to be fun. If its fun for you to see 99% complete on your game save over 94% complete, thats on you. The amount of time and effort I sunk into my game play so far is more than enough to be rewarded with a planet name.

[PandaTar]

@Nykara360

I think he meant to say that quests for Viability must be design for such thing. Viability will, inevitable, count towards the story, how you evolve. The additional thing, if any, should not be counted for Viability, but the whole % for completion. However, some missions, even not mandatory for story, should impact on those 100%. The choice is yours for doing them or not. But the likelyhood of having everything placed coincidently on your path, so you can get 100% viability, without having to make any choice is basically making the game linear again. There's a choice of trying or not trying to make the game 100% viable, but the story could continue even with 70 or 80%. The fact that it might feel like a chore or that the things left to complete 100% would be ludicrous, that's not a problem with %, but with the design of the quests themselves. Suppose that all quests regarding % viability were super cool, but you knew that you only had 60% mandatory to keep playing, it would all come to this: you do the rest if you wanted. What's happening now is that all quests, including thingst that have nothing to do with viability or that have not a Strong feel about completion, these things are pouring all around, designed to be done as viability. However, where some of these tasks may be boring for a few, others may find them ok. At least, for some people, they would have more than one way to achieve 100% viability. Anyway, I think Viability should take mainly big and important tasks and quests. The rest ... would be bonus.

[PretzleMe]

@jpcerutti1

"...and wish you'd do the same for them too..."

Haha, yeah.  Lol, I like this theory.

---------

@Nykara360

"...without having to force the more chore like quests on people..."

But it wouldn't be forced because you wouldn't have to do it in order to beat the game.  You also focused on my chore example, but didn't address my game ones.

Another way to look at this would be that this would be like trying to argue that if you spent more hours playing than someone else, that is what matters not what you actually did.

So say you spend 150 hours playing the game but you never beat it, your argument is that you deserve the credit for beating the game just like the person who actually beat the game if they didn't play as long as you did.

That isn't logical.

Okay, you collected remnant cores, but so what?  You get credit for collecting all the remnant cores.  It's like you're arguing that you should get credit for finding all remnant cores if you only manage to find 85% of them.

It just seems wrong to want full credit for something that you only partially did whether we're speaking about something fun or not.

if you and I decide not to do all the viability quests, how do we deserve the same exact rewards in regards to viability as the person who did take the time to do every viability aspect of a planet?

But, look, I can't see me understanding your point of view.  I do thank you for taking the time to share it and if you have anything else to say on the matter, I will read it of course, but since I cannot think of any other way to explain my point of view, I won't be responding on this issue.

It isn't that I'm upset, offended, or anything of the sort.  I just have no other way to explain why I find your view on this illogical and thus there's nothing more I can say to help you help me understand where you're coming from on this and for that I am sorry.

Thank you again for your time.

[Nykara360]

Doing the 'extra' should be cosmetic rewards. Things that show up on the ship or in Ryders cabin. Things she can wear or use. Not something thats essentially story significant - like Ryder recieving the story reward of a planet named after her that'll carry into future games. Thats my point.

I don't know any game that'd force you to do 100% of collections etc for a story reward but for cosmetic stuff that impacts only that game? Sure.

[VladVonCastein]

Am fine with the way things are, until things are fixed and all task are given map markers, I cant imagine not getting 100% simply because I cant find the damn little mouse datapads, or the corpse of all colonist or the rokkar manifestos.

[Pixeldance]

There was something odd with the whole Viability scale, it felt like there should have been events that incurred a negative planet viability, and that would make sense for there being an abundance of viability boosting quests to be gained down the road.  Getting a planet ready for life is a tricky business, and shouldn't have just been a switch to flip and never have to worry about again.  It should have been a tug of war until beyond a shadow of a doubt that the planet could sustain a population.

[VladVonCastein]

Yup there's talk about Advent's request on mining gas being bad for the environment, but nothing seem consequential. Viability doesnt go down, Hainly doesnt seem bothered, seem like we gained an ally, so why not...

[VitesseLumiere]

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.  They explain in a few different conversations the exact things needed for viability and they make sense to me.  You need to be able to support life (radiation, heat, cold, etc. need to be addressed), you need to be able to establish a colony, and you need to minimize threats from wildlife, Kett, etc.  Viability isn't a measuring stick for us as gamers.  It's an abstract measuring stick for in-game leaders to best make decisions on where to send colonists and what type of colonists to send.

[Vellu78]

---

@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 require the "major" things and hold at 95% or something before those are done. And not just get it to 100% automatically doing only the little fetch quests and stuff.