TimeLadyKatie

So, I'm 150 hours into a save file and heavily mod so I'm assuming the file is just dying, but I'd like to try and puzzle out why this is happening. Enemies don't go hostile when detecting me, but detection does function properly. If I repeatedly attack, I can get them to become aggressive, draw their weapon, then they immediately pacify. Their AI seems to function - they do idle animation, they interact with world objects, but they just will not engage in combat. So I don't think it's a floating AI issue. It also occurs in cells that have only like, eight loaded NPCs. I've ruled out general mod interaction by loading a save at circa 40-50 hours and not having the problem, but from saves above 120 hours I can't really track where it is and isn't effective. I'm not so much looking for mod x does y, I wanna see the back end and how it works. I'm just looking for where the problem COULD lie, to get a sense of where to look for myself, if that makes sense? I'm trying to get better at understanding why the game does weird things.

Actually, I've gotten this despite running SSEEF for the first time on my new playthrough. Is is not working properly anymore?

It was a poor choice of words on the OP's part, but it seems they meant large-scale. Things like DLC-sized quests (some quests already exist) and major overhauls.

Ignoring entirely the bickering and back-and-forth and using previous titles as a model I'd say the complex stuff'll hit about a year after the CK's release. Third-party tools need to be updated or developed, and major questline mods take a lot of time to write, typically speaking. Plus they'll want to be fully voiced, and every mod has to do its own soul-searching about how to handle that with FO4 considering the voiced protagonist. So yeah, my estimation in a year. Some will undoubtedly come out sooner, but a year is when I figure we'll see the floodgates open on high-end mods.

Have you reinstalled meshes? Since I can't say I have the same problem, and neither has Team Piggly Wiggly, I can only assume something locally on your end is causing the issue. Do you run any retex mods at the moment? Thank you very much for saving the day then. *bows to Ms. Katie* It's called troubleshooting, my dear.

Please forgive Team Pork Rinds, he's not used to contributing helpfully to a discussion. Anyway, I recommend using ENB presets to see if that addresses your problem, as I think it probably is less the textures themselves to blame and more your particular combination of graphic settings and textures. Maybe. That's honestly a stab in the dark.

That is wrong. Metric data exists to prove that. Every successive COD game has new content. Walk around the game, take screenshots. Then count the new textures, models, animations. A titanic effort every new release. These indie games provide far less new content for similarly priced products. So indie games are far bigger cash grabs than the hated big games. See, now you are downplaying the titanic effort poured into high-profile games. And just because the game has a big company behind it, does not mean the story has to suck. And the average COD single player campaign has supreme storytelling (and set design, cinematography, writing and so forth) I'm honestly starting to wonder if you think the fewer people are involved in a project the more 'impure' a project somehow is, or the worse it must be? That would explain your hostility toward mods and indie developers. The difference between us is I'm not saying AAA titles must, as a rule, suck. Or that they're shameful cash-grabs. Or anything like that. What I'm saying is their status as AAA titles is not directly a result of their quality. If you need to prove that, look at preorders! People who put forward money for a title utterly ignorant of that title's quality. The only widely-applied statement I'm making is that humans do not behave in rational ways and thusly markets do not behave 'as they should', especially as the criteria of 'quality product' becomes more and more subjective. You can't draw the kind of assumptions you're drawing. And I've also not stated opposition to paid modding, for the record. I've in fact said I'm not entirely sure why a modder who has something free right now needs to somehow change their product to justify charging money for it later. Literally the only argument I'm making here is that market theory is not sufficient to predict the outcome of these events.

I counter you with everyone being responsible for their own money. If someone bought an apple in Skyrim because he wanted to make a statement, well then he got his moneys worth. As a consumer you can decide what mods you want to buy. And customer reviews do work in the real world. When buying computer hardware, consulting amazon reviews or dedicated hardware review sites one can make an informed decision on what to buy. And if a Hard drive has pretty packaging, but fails to deliver on performance, then it will be reflected in ratings. Another analogy why the market works is the game market itself. Sure there are many quick cash-in mobile games that could be equalized to boob mods or apple mods. But why is it then that there is a vast and diverse amount of products despite that? Fallout4, COD, BF, Far Cry are all high profile franchises that take years to make. Why do these exist, when by your prediction, everyone would only bang out angry bird clones on mobile platforms? Because there is a segment of the market that wants something else than apples and boob mods. I spent stupid amounts of time working with the Creation Kit and I like doing it even with the promise of paid mods being a vague one. But the way mods are presented in modding communities combined with the hating on Bethesda adds very little value to the actual game developers who worked for years to create the game. Want to empirically test what I am saying? Download the Unreal Engine development kit, then start making a game. Then you will experience how much hard work Bethesda invested into the base game and how great it is that they share their tools with us. This game is years worth of development time, and we get access to play it and mod it for 60$. And I think that gets forgotten too often among the bethesda haters. The comparison of the mod market to graphic cards is faulty no matter how many times you make it. Graphics cards are measured on objective criteria, mods on subjective criteria. And if everyone has their own reasons for supporting a mod, as you call it 'making a statement' (I personally think it's the human love of chaos), then there is absolutely no reason for quality mods to be the necessary outcome of market behavior. You still seem to not really grasp more than the 'in a frictionless vacuum' version of how markets behave. See, here's the thing, some of those AAA franchises can repachage the same thing and re-release it with little concern for how it will affect their profits. I love the Pokemon games, but their business model is 'repaint the game every two years and sell it again'. They have been a powerhouse franchise for twenty years. Some will argue that Battlefield, COD and Halo are prime examples of this as well (though I give props to Battlefield 1 for making a pretty bold step narratively, I also know that most Battlefield players aren't there for the narrative). And some games that are actually remarkable thoughtful and good are never going to be noticed because the whims of the public will never fall their way. Endless Space is an amazing space-based strategy game but will never be a popular title in the strategy genre. Quality per price is not the driving force of actual, real-world markets. It's the driving force of theoretical markets only. And I'm not one to presume Bethesda is inept or evil or anything, but nor am I one to diminish the role modders play in keeping their games alive well beyond the natural life-cycle of a game. I've done my fair share of RPG Maker games when learning game-creation interfaces and Ruby, it's easy for projects even using a single-developer friendly interface to take forever and die before completion. The work a developer does is remarkable. But by the same token, saying modders are placing paper hats on Michelangelo's David is both giving Bethesda too much credit and modders too little. Really, a Bethesda game is more like a really nice statue in a local park. It's not something that'll be a mark of human progress in the arts, but it is really nice and something to be proud of. And you make mods sound more like vandalism than derivative works. As for the sexism, how about if I don't presume that your reproductive organs dictate you love football you stop presuming mine dictate I love shoes? Deal?

Settlements are my endgame. I'd gladly redesign a place or two for you.

Just because when a woman claims something is sexist, does not mean she is always right. Men would spend more money on cars than women would often find reasonable and boob mods are more popular among guys. Now if a woman would say that to me, do you really think I would scream sexist at that? Just because a man happens to bring up differences in genders in a topic does not mean it is sexist. About the free market and its laws, there is no need to get esoteric about it. Its laws do apply to Bethesda mods. A paid mod will demand a higher quality or people simply won't buy it. That is the reason a game like Fallout can command 60$ and a game like Spelunky can only command 15$ So, I'm going in on both these points. If I implied that I needed to make an analogy about football so you could, as a man, understand it I would be being sexist as all s#*!. Making your analogy about shoes because, clearly, I couldn't understand your point unless you appealed to the fundamental truth of all women that we obsess over shoes (I own four pair, can couldn't tell you a damn thing about them other than I hate heels and what color they are) is not only assuming some truth about me because my reproductive organs are on the inside and not the outside, but also is implying that I cannot understand free market ideology without you putting it into terms a 'title lady brain' could get. And here's the kicker - I understand the theory of free markets a hell of a lot better than you do. My undergrad is in political theory. The ideas you've expressed show a very basic and sanitized understanding of market behavior that is absolutely unrealistic when human decision making is factored in. People do not always buy the objectively best product per the price, sometimes people buy absolute garbage for any number of reasons. Pretty packaging, distrust of reviewers, whimsy, misunderstanding... and that's not even factoring in the differences in tastes. Pepsi and Coke don't have to compete on price or quality because they appeal to different tastes (be they actual or cultural), and in modding the subjectivity of what is or isn't good is about a million times more complicated than that. And sometimes, people will buy and support based on the sheer antithesis of reason. I used the "one extra apple" mod for Skyrim as an example before. That attracted so many purchasers because of it exemplifying the exact opposite of what the market dictates behavior ought to be. It was a choice grounded in whimsy and rebellion against rational self-interest. The Internet nurtures this sort of action by its nature. Because of that, even if all other things were equal, you still could not use market dynamics to predict an increase in mod quality. Because sometimes the worst of mods will be the highest of interest. A more recent example is "Pew Pew", the laser sound replacer that was one of the reasons NVIDIA's contest must've been rigged. I invite the possibility, though, that Pew Pew earned it's place among the finalists by being the new extra apple, the new thing people supported out of that intangible desire to buck 'the system' in whatever form it takes by supporting the least rational choice. If you have the view that mods add so little of value, why are you here? There are some things I'll agree on - that the base games are viable and playable without modding and that they are, essentially though not unequivocally, good games. But people love to play the games sometimes well over a decade later. That replayability does not come from the unedited game. That comes from mods. Mods take a limited experience, which all games are, and unlimit it. Suddenly, by adding mods to a game, each playthrough of Skyrim is meaningfully different, with elements I've never before encountered and new challenges to face. That can't be said without mods. Fallout's modding community has traditionally been a little less energized, but still the games benefit greatly on replayability from the effort of modders. Without modding, Bethesda would still be a AAA developer releasing tentpole titles every few years, but as we see with other RPG developers, the natural life-cycle of a game usually runs its course by the time the next major installment in the franchise is released, if not sooner. I would argue that for all but die-hard fans, Dragon Age Inquisition has run it's course. By opening arms to modding, though, Bethesda's games are largely immune to this normal life-cycle, as they are constantly being infused with new content. New stories. New characters. New life. You massively undervalue modding if you don't see how embracing it has made Bethesda a wholly unique and very influential company in the industry.

Just as an aside, it always amuses me when all the men in an argument think something wasn't sexist and the women think it was. But when all is said and done, that derailed a derailment talking about paid modding. Which isn't actually happening, at least not at the moment, and has been the subject of more conversation in this thread than any actual issues with policies and developments that are really happening and people apparently, allegedly, want to address.

That's how I like my sexism, friends. Weirdly tacked on to a rant about the perfection of free-market ideology.

There's a good TED talk on this point and on motivation in general.

1. You are wrong. If a user pays 4$ for something, then he pays money for something he would not get for that level of quality before. And you can bet money (for real!) than something with a 4$ price tag will be of much higher quality. I worked my tush off for 3 weeks on Murphy Wildlands to get it ready for the Nvivida contest. Money is one hell of a motivator. Sure I would have paid the same level of attention to detail without the prospect of money, but I would have worked a lot slower. This is a bit naiive, I think. It's fair to say that this is the intent of how the system would work, but at the same time I'm reminded of the "One Extra Apple" mod the first time paid mods came around. And there's almost no incentive to not slap a price tag on something available now for free other than a vague sense of what people ought to do. So let's say I was a fairly self-important modder, I would feel perfectly justified taking what I charged nothing for before and charging 5$ for it now without a single change in operational quality of the mod. While the modders I know aren't the kind of people who do that kind of thing, you're bound to find that "one extra" bad apple who will do that sort of thing. And probably a small but noteworthy percent of the modding community will see no real need to change their content to justify the additional cost. And I'm not even sure they should. See, if you think about it, the mods already should be of the highest quality they can be, right? So if paid modding returns, which is pure speculation at this point, why should they feel compelled to not charge for the product as it already exists? Just putting a price tag on something that is 100% the same and was for free before, would not work for two reasons: 1. Players who already have the mod won't pay extra, because they already have it. 2. Modders who want to put a price tag on an existing product will obviously add some stuff on top of it to add value to it. Because if they don't, the perceived worth of their products will go down. Free market magic will handle it. Here is an example: Modder A sells his old mod, which is 100% identical to the free version for 4 $. Modder B creates a similar product but of better quality for the same price. People will stop buying the inferior product and modder A is out of business unless he steps his game up. There are no surprises. trash mods will get bad ratings within hours. Imagine someone selling apples for 1 dollar per apple. Then some other guy sells apples for 100$ per apple. And unless eating that 100$ will make rainbow ponies appear in the sky, these 100$ apples will vanish. The market will adjust the price until a level is found that keeps the modder and customer happy. Someone read too much Adam Smith. Okay, so basically, this is how it would work if people weren't people. If everyone behaved exactly the way that market theory dictates, the problems would solve themselves. But people do not behave rationally and will buck the expectations of the system for any number of reasons. Assume, for a moment, that I make a mod that's easily copied. Say, something that stops the new radio files from starting after Confidence Man. That's a pretty simple edit that I'm actually not quite sure I'm not just doing right now instead of talking about it. But I knock it out in an afternoon and toss it out on Nexus. Then, two years from now, paid modding returns. Well, there probably won't be a lot of people who want my mod but don't have it yet, but I'll take it down from free hosting services and put it up on commercial ones. Not a single change to the file. Even if not many people download the paid version, I've still managed to pull some profit from the work. Now, someone comes along with a mod that does the same thing. They decry me for having 'sold out' by moving my mod to a paid model, but theirs is on the paid site as well. Which of us is the 'bad guy'? Me for discontinuing free access to my mod or the copycat for trying to release the same product based on the idea that I'm a sellout? And even if his mod is cleaner than mine, or somehow slightly more streamlined, what is the practical difference to the player? Other than he says his is better? And consider something without an easy replication, like a questmod or a voiced companion. If I follow the same model of moving it to a paid distributor without any marked changes or increases in quality, you can't reasonably release a mod that does the same thing better or does the same thing free because by its nature what I made is unique. Short of mod theft you can't create the exact same product. Now let's look at two similar ideas tackling the same thing. Let's say that I move an Easy City Downs race betting mod to a paid platform without meaningfully changing it, and someone else makes their own. By some measure or other, theirs can be claimed 'better' than mine. But still, both will likely continue to collect purchases. Both Minutemen 2.0 and We Are The Minutemen tackle the same problem in different ways, and both are top-downloaded faction mods. So, essentially, the ideology of the perfect free market solution doesn't actually work in the real world. The market doesn't solve the problem of people making a quick buck, it actually actively encourages them to. And again, I'm not completely convinced this is a bad thing. It sucks for consumers, sure, but I'm not sure that makes it wrong. As for the failure of "trash mods", a mod that added a single extra apple to Skyrim was a smash success. You cannot count on the consumers to make rational decisions on quality of product either.

1. You are wrong. If a user pays 4$ for something, then he pays money for something he would not get for that level of quality before. And you can bet money (for real!) than something with a 4$ price tag will be of much higher quality. I worked my tush off for 3 weeks on Murphy Wildlands to get it ready for the Nvivida contest. Money is one hell of a motivator. Sure I would have paid the same level of attention to detail without the prospect of money, but I would have worked a lot slower. This is a bit naiive, I think. It's fair to say that this is the intent of how the system would work, but at the same time I'm reminded of the "One Extra Apple" mod the first time paid mods came around. And there's almost no incentive to not slap a price tag on something available now for free other than a vague sense of what people ought to do. So let's say I was a fairly self-important modder, I would feel perfectly justified taking what I charged nothing for before and charging 5$ for it now without a single change in operational quality of the mod. While the modders I know aren't the kind of people who do that kind of thing, you're bound to find that "one extra" bad apple who will do that sort of thing. And probably a small but noteworthy percent of the modding community will see no real need to change their content to justify the additional cost. And I'm not even sure they should. See, if you think about it, the mods already should be of the highest quality they can be, right? So if paid modding returns, which is pure speculation at this point, why should they feel compelled to not charge for the product as it already exists?