Fallout 4 Survival Mode Beta

[Deleted631007User]

In response to post #36127135. #36127445, #36127625, #36127845, #36128375, #36128665, #36130230, #36130760, #36135625, #36137125, #36138065, #36139095, #36139110, #36139180, #36142335, #36143320, #36144985, #36145295, #36146990, #36148665 are all replies on the same post.

xaosbob wrote: Here's the story. Fallout, like any other game of this sort of mechanical complexity, tracks thousands of shifting variables, from a twitch on your mouse changing what is on-screen to NPC detection and combat AI to the unending changes wrought simply by playing the game--the precise location of every moved, placed, or destroyed item or actor, quest stages and dialog threading, all the sounds and music, NPC interactions not involving the player, and on and on.

This game is being played on tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of differing computer builds. It would not be far from true to claim that nearly every computer running this (not the consoles, plainly) has a different architecture, from gaming monsters first powered up on November 11 to aging workhorses that are technically below the minimum specs and running it just fine (like mine).

So OF COURSE they are disabling mods and the console. The survival patch is a BETA, not a release. It is opt-in for TESTING because it is not ready for full release. Meaning that, if you want to play with mods and console access, you absolutely can--simply do not opt in to the beta. If you are not beta testing the patch, you do not get to squeak about being denied something that is rightfully yours by virtue of owning the game--it is not yours yet, because it HASN'T BEEN RELEASED. When it is, you will get it. Simple as that.

They would not be able to get any meaningful feedback if, in addition to the game's internal complexity, compounded by a functionally-limitless variety of platforms upon which it operates, their testers were also using mods from a staggering library of homebrewed, technically hacked (beautifully, in many cases) modifications that were not developed on software that Beth developed and is familiar with. They want to know how the changes affect the game itself, not all the myriad things we modders and mod-users have done to it. Mods make it impossible to tell if something is working as intended, because it adds uncountably more variables to the mix.

And finally, YES the console is disabled, because they don't want us to fix the problems we encounter--they WANT US TO TELL THEM ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WE ENCOUNTER so they can fix them! If we just fix it ourselves with a few keystrokes, we likely won't tell them about the problem, bug, or break. If we don't tell them, we are FAILING AT BETA TESTING, and we have no room to complain if they do not fix that thing we experienced but didn't tell them about. Locking out the console is simply a way to encourage diligent reporting.

BETA TEST. If you want to be a grown-up and help Bethesda do this damned update right, then be a tester and understand that it has to be done in a certain way so you can give them meaningful data. If you do not want to do that, if you just want to play, then don't choose to test systems you have no intentions of testing. When they release it, you can play it to your heart's content then, and make your summary judgments, confident and secure in the knowledge that you know so much better how things should have been done. Oh wait.

That's the point of f**king testing, innit?

Eruadur wrote: @xaosbob
Seriously dude, if THIS^ doesn't get the message across then nothing will....

I salute you sir for exactly telling it like it is.
My compliments on a story well told :)

Maybe the 4th graders in here will understand now ??
Every other whiny comment will be obsolete after reading this :)
Like : 'mwééh!! They deleted my móóóds'
( read that with an Eric Cartman voice and it's even more accurate )

RustyXXL wrote: All nice and dandy, and very well written, BUT :P

I finished All major and most of the minor content (including Automatron) at least 3-5 times, a lot of it even more, up to 8 times. The only thing keeping me interested in the game is modding and content(!) DLCs. Take away modding and this game is dead for me, as is the beta. A survival mode alone doesn't offer enough "new" for me to play the game again. On the other hand I'd really like to test the survival mode. In general I did enjoy siomilar gameplay (i.e. FNV and Skyrim with RND and Frostfall), and I might have been able to give at least some feedback about Elements I do or don't enjoy.
Well, anyway, I got more than enough gameplay for my money one way or another, so I'll just wait and see until it moves out of beta, and either the game keeps alive for me or it won't.
I'm not complaining either, as I said, I got my moneys worth, and I don't need to clinge to any game, just sharing my opinion. ;)

Eruadur wrote: @rustxxl

Just one thing :
Seems like everyone forgot about the fact that mods aren't officially supported yet?
Not until the GECK or CK is out? Is the CK out? Hmmm? No it is not.

Then again mate: go play with those mods man! I do too!
Just don't opt in on the survival beta man! Really ...!

Really, it's all so simple when you stop and think about it :)

RustyXXL wrote: Mods not being officially supported doesn't change the fact that the game (and with that the beta of the Survival mode) would be dead for me (and probably a lot of other ppl) without mods at the current time, probably at least until Far Harbour comes out, and with that the need of testing a survival mode is simply not existant. And as I said, I didn't opt in to the beta as well, and I'm not complaining about it either. All I'm saying is, that I would like to test it, if there was a way to add at least some mods, and that I could then give feedback about elements I do like or dislike about the New Survival mode. Anyway...I'm outta here, back to building my Settlement and discovering all the new names my settlers got....seriously....such a simple addition, and I already care more about my settlers than ever before....^^

digitaltrucker wrote: I've heard this story before, but would someone PLEASE explain just how the theory works in actual practice? This is a single-player game. AFAIK, the only online component is the pip-boy app. So, there should be no way for Bethesda to gather data without players actually telling them something is broken...which we would do whether the console and mods are enabled or not. The notion that running mods or using the console somehow cuts Bethesda out of the information loop is just plain silly; all you have to do is look at the the forums here, on Steam, and on Bethesda's own forum to see constant bug reports. That's been the case for every game they've ever made.

The only way the argument makes any sense whatsoever would be if all the testing was being done in a closed environment. This is a public beta, your argument has no merit. The fact that mods themselves have been actively disabled by the game since the very first update (and sorta 'hidden' at launch) also invalidates the above well-worn apologizing.

Mitsurugi2424 wrote: I only use console for debugging, and occasionally to take a really cool screenshot. I don't need God mode, or to spawn a mountain of caps and food in my Inventory, but I do need to toggle collisions at times to get unstuck, use the moveto command when my companion decides to sit on a roof even after being dismissed and sent home and 3 days have passed, and fix quest bugs.

Sure in my 500 hours of playing I have only had a handful of bugs. But I don't save as often as some and if I lost 5 hours of game play cause I was stuck in a chair or a quest bugged, that would be enough at this point to Mae me out the game down and move on lol.

I do use quite a few mods, and Im fine with tose being disabled. Makes more sense to me to start this beta with a fresh save anyway. But, if I can't use console to fix problems that arise, I have a serious issue. And that is why I choose to opt out lol.

Rather than cry and hate on Bethesda for this beta, I just chose to wait for the finished product. It's not the end of the world guys...

Eruadur wrote: And what you will report back to Bethesda is....? What...something you discovered building a settlement for your precious settlers??
"Yo Bethesda! Your survival mode is faulty! Was trying to build a bed to sleep in ( because it's the only way I can save the game in survival mode ) and the game won't let me build my bed man! You seriously have to fix this : I can't save !!!!11!!1!one!1"
5 hours later...
"Yo Bethesda! Fixed the damn survival yet? My character is still waiting to go to bed. He's really tired. Fix it!!!"
1 hour later...
"Good day people of Bethesda. Your survival mode works perfectly! I couldn't build a bed because I was using XXXXmod that adds new beds to my settlement. Sorry about all the commotion, I should have told you I was using a mod I guess? Hope I didn't waste too much of your precious time... Again , I'm sorry mkay?"

That's what happens if people start using beta's or unreleased updates with mods...
Not saying this ^ is you, but "people"...

:)

popcorn71 wrote: @ Eruadur
I'm curious to know exactly what you think the difference is between a bed added by a mod an a vanilla bed...

RustyXXL wrote: Sorry, I have to add this...If I was harsh I could say: Bethesda advertised FO4 as being moddable even more than before, with mods even for console. So to some of us, this might be a major point in buying Bethesda games. So Beth, you advertised modding, now deal with it...:P
Yes, dealing with incomplete/wrong bugreports sucks, no question, but that's what a QA and CS Teams are for...collecting and verifying Bugreports and relaying verified Bugreports to the developers.
Also There would be the option of built in Error-Reporting from within the beta-client, which could automatically add all relevant hard- and software infos to an bugreport, but I guess that would be to professional for Beth ;P

Edit: Just because Sarcasm is often lost...all I want to say, where's a will, there's a way. And Bethesda demonstrated there's no will in that regard. And that's their decision, and I'm okay with that, I got my moneys worth no matter where the further development of FO4 goes. Still I would have liked to participate in the Beta, but for me there's no interest without a few mods, that I personally see essential, to deal with some aspects of the game I don't enjoy.

TWillard wrote: And every Beta patch they've run that I've opted into disables the mods, but as soon as it goes live **POOF** mod support is back and my mods work. There's no evidence or pre-existing behavior that says any different so far.

You don't want mods running during a Beta, plain and simple. It's just good QA.

RustyXXL wrote: @TWillard: There's a difference between good and easy QA. Yes, disallowing mods makes QA easier, but as I said, where's a will, there's a way. There are plenty of examples of successful games that allowed mods in alpha/beta phase. A proper error-/bugreporting functionality from inside the "client" goes miles for helping with that, but there are other tools, too. Of course there are also enough examples of successful games that disallowed mods during alpha/beta testing. Both ways are possible, and Bethesda chose their way. I have to respect that decision, but I don't have to agree with it, and sometimes I even feel like vocalizing my disagreement. ;)

xaosbob wrote: Imagine cooking. You are testing a recipe for baked mashed potatoes, and you want all your far-flung internet friends to test it with you and let you know how it tastes. Let's pretend the revolutionary change you making to the potatoes is adding sour cream, chives, and a bit of garlic because for this example, nobody has done it with this specific amount of each.

One friend adds chipotle powder and hot sauce to their recipe.
One friend throws in pineapple, rice, and tea leaves.
One friend adds ketchup, because we all have that friend.
One friend cooks the potatoes on the stove top, and they add baking soda for "lift."
One friend microwaves it. That friend also adds a lot of cilantro.
One friend follows the directions exactly, but drizzles chocolate syrup over the top to eat it.
One friend uses sweet potatoes and yogurt rather than potatoes and sour cream.

The point of this was to test if the potatoes turn out the same way, and how everyone likes how they taste with this specific recipe. This is a lousy group of friends, because not one of them tested the recipe properly, so not one of them can give you the kind of feedback you needed. Might there be some interesting ideas? Yes (I have actually done the sweet potatoes and yogurt, and it's pretty good. Though use tarragon and allspice instead of chives), but that isn't what you were looking for. You wanted data about how they liked that SPECIFIC recipe...and they used everything but.

I'd get new friends.

RustyXXL wrote: @xaosbob: but in that example you could implement an automatic reporting by the kitchen, that included the details how they cooked it, and allowed you to (even automatically if you so desire) discard the bogus reports.

Edit: Yes, proper Error Reporting in Alpha/beta software is an investment, and the bigger the project, the bigger the investment. But you usually save much more in QA later...

Vicalliose wrote: Except the concern over the console being disabled is caused by the fact that they've not done that before. There is no "OF COURSE" when it comes to disabling the console because the console doesn't break anything and having it enabled will only allow people to get past bugs that were already there, survival mode does not suddenly add more rocks and broken doors/terminals for us to get stuck on. It would make more sense if they disabled the console for testing actual new content like DLC, but they never do public beta testing of DLC.

Besides, If it was related to the beta testing itself they would not have strictly disabled it in survival mode. They themselves called it a "feature" which is just frigging nonsense. Are they seriously worried about people "ruining the experience" by cheating when we were already effectively "ruining the experience" of the default game with it? It's pointless and dumb.

Personally, I specifically want to use the console so I can test what the gameplay and damage changes are like under controlled conditions, spawning enemies and such to see how combat with the various enemies has been affected. It would actually HELP with any beta testing, and I'd rather do tests with the console than spend literally hours of walking, only to get stuck on a rock/terminal/door that has absolutely nothing to do with the survival beta itself and they will never actually fix no matter how much anyone whines about it.

Not that this change will likely remain. They're not a bunch of stubborn indie devs, so odds are they'll quietly change it back and say nothing about it. That way all the shills can continue saying "we were right" when in reality Bethesda listened to feedback and don't want to openly admit they made a mistake (not like they haven't done that before). Maybe I'm wrong and they actually did disable it for testing (even though it doesn't make sense) we'll never really know and I really don't care why they change it back, so long as it gets done. Otherwise I'm not even going to bother with survival when it comes out of beta.

TWillard wrote: @ Vicalliose All right, I will agree with that. I completely forgot about controlled testing using the Glowing Sea or the Castle or just out in the random boondocks. You definitely have a point there.

Mods, I can understand.

Console commands? I can't understand that so much.

Vicalliose wrote: @TWillard

I must also admit that I am still a little pissed about mods being disabled, even if them being disabled totally makes sense. I really wish I could be using Arbitration right now, because survival mode is just going to be a crap shoot unless Bethesda finally decides to nerf the damned molotov, and I don't think they're ever going to do that. Holy f*#@ those are unfair.

YisahVasNarri wrote: In my opinion, the removal of quick-saving was just a bad move by Beth. I mean, I don't know anyone who has gone an entire play-through without having to quick-load back due to a bug.

Erenar wrote: Mods - removed so that, as with most Nexus hosted mod bugs. devs are not having to work out what caused what where.

Console - because if you can amend stuff in game, whether to get round a bug or not, you are not playing the same as player x, y and z.

Beta - testing the same base code with the same base config (barring graphics and sound) is a mammoth task... add mods and console configuration and you're fighting a losing battle.

Do you guys even realise how complicated debugging a fully versatile and moddable engine is? And then to debug additional features on top of that? And then to address whiny gamers who just do not appreciate what the dev team are giving to you... for free?

I know that sounds harsh, but imagine being a Bethdev reading these comments? Personally, I'd say "Screw you lot then" :)

DarthSokar wrote: Console is for debugging, that's not a "beta" issue, that's what they're calling a full release "feature", removing that is f*#@ing retarded, It's really that simple, in a game where getting stuck is a matter of when not if. Especially when you remove the ability to save on the fly. No. Apologists need to get off whatever adderall they're on and realize that this is only going to hurt the game long term. No mods for the beta? fine, but the console's the only thing that made dragonborn -semi- playable on release. That's full release, not some awkwardly implemented beta. Nothing to do with "cheating", everything to do with fixing bugs that -inevitably- catch up to you. Losing an hour or so of gameplay for no damn reason at all, Adds up very quickly and interest goes down just as quickly -when- it happens, Not if.

Sure I'm annoyed that I can't use mods with the beta and I've accepted that, but the console isn't really negotiable in a Bethesda game.

At this point I'm thinking that for all the soapbox high-horsing, most of you shills have not actually opted-in at all. Maybe I'm wrong, but with as fact-less and stubborn as some of you are about everything it certainly sounds like you haven't.

Please pay attention and understand that Bethesda is calling the console removal a "feature" and it's absence has NOTHING to do with the beta and it does not and should not have any affect on the survival mode changes. Survival mode alters combat and adds survival mechanics, it does not even add any bugs that would be circumvented or worsened by console use. I can tell you this for certain because I'm actually playing survival mode right now.

If I were to give any proper feedback on survival mode at this point, I would say that it is far too unbalanced and broken to actually be released any time soon. Despite some other welcome changes, various things like the already unbalanced molotov spam and the new removal of manual saves makes the mode a random death fest, losing hours of exploration at a time just because you can't find a frigging bed anywhere. It's a mess.

[zombieman89]

In response to post #36116560. #36118880 is also a reply to the same post.

zombieman89 wrote: Is it not possible to have the BETA and NORMAL version of the game? How difficult would it be to switch back? I'm eager to roll a character on the BETA, but don't want it to affect my other saves, or my mods/load order I've set up so far. It's obviously completely understandable why the console is disabled in the BETA executable, and I'm cool with it-- I'd just like to keep my BETA separate from my active release version.

Anyone have some advice or instruction? Thx :D

Cheers,

R

Tantalus010 wrote: It shouldn't affect your other saves so long as you don't load any of them while the beta is active. Depending on the mods you use, all you really have to do is opt-in/opt-out via Steam to switch back and forth, downloading about 500 MB each time. If you use a mod like Full Dialog Interface, then you have to manually reinstall those strings to get the mod working again, as Steam's update procedure will overwrite those files during the update. You might also have to reenable mods via NMM or something trivial like that, too.

In short, it's like flipping a really, really slow switch.

Thanks for the explanation. After backing up my existing release version saves, I started a new game in the Beta. I'm only a couple hours in, but it appears that some of my mods are actually working (alt. vault suit, and others that replace vanilla textures) I suppose that makes sense. I've been fairly cautious and only using "light" mods until the G.E.C.K. is out. So far Survival mode is great, I can't wait to use it on my main save. It should really enhance the high level end game experience.

[Tantalus010]

In response to post #36116560. #36118880, #36153445 are all replies on the same post.

zombieman89 wrote: Is it not possible to have the BETA and NORMAL version of the game? How difficult would it be to switch back? I'm eager to roll a character on the BETA, but don't want it to affect my other saves, or my mods/load order I've set up so far. It's obviously completely understandable why the console is disabled in the BETA executable, and I'm cool with it-- I'd just like to keep my BETA separate from my active release version.

Anyone have some advice or instruction? Thx :D

Cheers,

R

Tantalus010 wrote: It shouldn't affect your other saves so long as you don't load any of them while the beta is active. Depending on the mods you use, all you really have to do is opt-in/opt-out via Steam to switch back and forth, downloading about 500 MB each time. If you use a mod like Full Dialog Interface, then you have to manually reinstall those strings to get the mod working again, as Steam's update procedure will overwrite those files during the update. You might also have to reenable mods via NMM or something trivial like that, too.

In short, it's like flipping a really, really slow switch.

zombieman89 wrote: Thanks for the explanation. After backing up my existing release version saves, I started a new game in the Beta. I'm only a couple hours in, but it appears that some of my mods are actually working (alt. vault suit, and others that replace vanilla textures) I suppose that makes sense. I've been fairly cautious and only using "light" mods until the G.E.C.K. is out. So far Survival mode is great, I can't wait to use it on my main save. It should really enhance the high level end game experience.

Yeah, there's no reason for Bethesda to block retexture mods that don't have an .esp because those can't affect gameplay.

[DarthSokar]

In response to post #36127135. #36127445, #36127625, #36127845, #36128375, #36128665, #36130230, #36130760, #36135625, #36137125, #36138065, #36139095, #36139110, #36139180, #36142335, #36143320, #36144985, #36145295, #36146990, #36148665, #36152660 are all replies on the same post.

xaosbob wrote: Here's the story. Fallout, like any other game of this sort of mechanical complexity, tracks thousands of shifting variables, from a twitch on your mouse changing what is on-screen to NPC detection and combat AI to the unending changes wrought simply by playing the game--the precise location of every moved, placed, or destroyed item or actor, quest stages and dialog threading, all the sounds and music, NPC interactions not involving the player, and on and on.

This game is being played on tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of differing computer builds. It would not be far from true to claim that nearly every computer running this (not the consoles, plainly) has a different architecture, from gaming monsters first powered up on November 11 to aging workhorses that are technically below the minimum specs and running it just fine (like mine).

So OF COURSE they are disabling mods and the console. The survival patch is a BETA, not a release. It is opt-in for TESTING because it is not ready for full release. Meaning that, if you want to play with mods and console access, you absolutely can--simply do not opt in to the beta. If you are not beta testing the patch, you do not get to squeak about being denied something that is rightfully yours by virtue of owning the game--it is not yours yet, because it HASN'T BEEN RELEASED. When it is, you will get it. Simple as that.

They would not be able to get any meaningful feedback if, in addition to the game's internal complexity, compounded by a functionally-limitless variety of platforms upon which it operates, their testers were also using mods from a staggering library of homebrewed, technically hacked (beautifully, in many cases) modifications that were not developed on software that Beth developed and is familiar with. They want to know how the changes affect the game itself, not all the myriad things we modders and mod-users have done to it. Mods make it impossible to tell if something is working as intended, because it adds uncountably more variables to the mix.

And finally, YES the console is disabled, because they don't want us to fix the problems we encounter--they WANT US TO TELL THEM ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WE ENCOUNTER so they can fix them! If we just fix it ourselves with a few keystrokes, we likely won't tell them about the problem, bug, or break. If we don't tell them, we are FAILING AT BETA TESTING, and we have no room to complain if they do not fix that thing we experienced but didn't tell them about. Locking out the console is simply a way to encourage diligent reporting.

BETA TEST. If you want to be a grown-up and help Bethesda do this damned update right, then be a tester and understand that it has to be done in a certain way so you can give them meaningful data. If you do not want to do that, if you just want to play, then don't choose to test systems you have no intentions of testing. When they release it, you can play it to your heart's content then, and make your summary judgments, confident and secure in the knowledge that you know so much better how things should have been done. Oh wait.

That's the point of f**king testing, innit?

Eruadur wrote: @xaosbob
Seriously dude, if THIS^ doesn't get the message across then nothing will....

I salute you sir for exactly telling it like it is.
My compliments on a story well told :)

Maybe the 4th graders in here will understand now ??
Every other whiny comment will be obsolete after reading this :)
Like : 'mwééh!! They deleted my móóóds'
( read that with an Eric Cartman voice and it's even more accurate )

RustyXXL wrote: All nice and dandy, and very well written, BUT :P

I finished All major and most of the minor content (including Automatron) at least 3-5 times, a lot of it even more, up to 8 times. The only thing keeping me interested in the game is modding and content(!) DLCs. Take away modding and this game is dead for me, as is the beta. A survival mode alone doesn't offer enough "new" for me to play the game again. On the other hand I'd really like to test the survival mode. In general I did enjoy siomilar gameplay (i.e. FNV and Skyrim with RND and Frostfall), and I might have been able to give at least some feedback about Elements I do or don't enjoy.
Well, anyway, I got more than enough gameplay for my money one way or another, so I'll just wait and see until it moves out of beta, and either the game keeps alive for me or it won't.
I'm not complaining either, as I said, I got my moneys worth, and I don't need to clinge to any game, just sharing my opinion. ;)

Eruadur wrote: @rustxxl

Just one thing :
Seems like everyone forgot about the fact that mods aren't officially supported yet?
Not until the GECK or CK is out? Is the CK out? Hmmm? No it is not.

Then again mate: go play with those mods man! I do too!
Just don't opt in on the survival beta man! Really ...!

Really, it's all so simple when you stop and think about it :)

RustyXXL wrote: Mods not being officially supported doesn't change the fact that the game (and with that the beta of the Survival mode) would be dead for me (and probably a lot of other ppl) without mods at the current time, probably at least until Far Harbour comes out, and with that the need of testing a survival mode is simply not existant. And as I said, I didn't opt in to the beta as well, and I'm not complaining about it either. All I'm saying is, that I would like to test it, if there was a way to add at least some mods, and that I could then give feedback about elements I do like or dislike about the New Survival mode. Anyway...I'm outta here, back to building my Settlement and discovering all the new names my settlers got....seriously....such a simple addition, and I already care more about my settlers than ever before....^^

digitaltrucker wrote: I've heard this story before, but would someone PLEASE explain just how the theory works in actual practice? This is a single-player game. AFAIK, the only online component is the pip-boy app. So, there should be no way for Bethesda to gather data without players actually telling them something is broken...which we would do whether the console and mods are enabled or not. The notion that running mods or using the console somehow cuts Bethesda out of the information loop is just plain silly; all you have to do is look at the the forums here, on Steam, and on Bethesda's own forum to see constant bug reports. That's been the case for every game they've ever made.

The only way the argument makes any sense whatsoever would be if all the testing was being done in a closed environment. This is a public beta, your argument has no merit. The fact that mods themselves have been actively disabled by the game since the very first update (and sorta 'hidden' at launch) also invalidates the above well-worn apologizing.

Mitsurugi2424 wrote: I only use console for debugging, and occasionally to take a really cool screenshot. I don't need God mode, or to spawn a mountain of caps and food in my Inventory, but I do need to toggle collisions at times to get unstuck, use the moveto command when my companion decides to sit on a roof even after being dismissed and sent home and 3 days have passed, and fix quest bugs.

Sure in my 500 hours of playing I have only had a handful of bugs. But I don't save as often as some and if I lost 5 hours of game play cause I was stuck in a chair or a quest bugged, that would be enough at this point to Mae me out the game down and move on lol.

I do use quite a few mods, and Im fine with tose being disabled. Makes more sense to me to start this beta with a fresh save anyway. But, if I can't use console to fix problems that arise, I have a serious issue. And that is why I choose to opt out lol.

Rather than cry and hate on Bethesda for this beta, I just chose to wait for the finished product. It's not the end of the world guys...

Eruadur wrote: And what you will report back to Bethesda is....? What...something you discovered building a settlement for your precious settlers??
"Yo Bethesda! Your survival mode is faulty! Was trying to build a bed to sleep in ( because it's the only way I can save the game in survival mode ) and the game won't let me build my bed man! You seriously have to fix this : I can't save !!!!11!!1!one!1"
5 hours later...
"Yo Bethesda! Fixed the damn survival yet? My character is still waiting to go to bed. He's really tired. Fix it!!!"
1 hour later...
"Good day people of Bethesda. Your survival mode works perfectly! I couldn't build a bed because I was using XXXXmod that adds new beds to my settlement. Sorry about all the commotion, I should have told you I was using a mod I guess? Hope I didn't waste too much of your precious time... Again , I'm sorry mkay?"

That's what happens if people start using beta's or unreleased updates with mods...
Not saying this ^ is you, but "people"...

:)

popcorn71 wrote: @ Eruadur
I'm curious to know exactly what you think the difference is between a bed added by a mod an a vanilla bed...

RustyXXL wrote: Sorry, I have to add this...If I was harsh I could say: Bethesda advertised FO4 as being moddable even more than before, with mods even for console. So to some of us, this might be a major point in buying Bethesda games. So Beth, you advertised modding, now deal with it...:P
Yes, dealing with incomplete/wrong bugreports sucks, no question, but that's what a QA and CS Teams are for...collecting and verifying Bugreports and relaying verified Bugreports to the developers.
Also There would be the option of built in Error-Reporting from within the beta-client, which could automatically add all relevant hard- and software infos to an bugreport, but I guess that would be to professional for Beth ;P

Edit: Just because Sarcasm is often lost...all I want to say, where's a will, there's a way. And Bethesda demonstrated there's no will in that regard. And that's their decision, and I'm okay with that, I got my moneys worth no matter where the further development of FO4 goes. Still I would have liked to participate in the Beta, but for me there's no interest without a few mods, that I personally see essential, to deal with some aspects of the game I don't enjoy.

TWillard wrote: And every Beta patch they've run that I've opted into disables the mods, but as soon as it goes live **POOF** mod support is back and my mods work. There's no evidence or pre-existing behavior that says any different so far.

You don't want mods running during a Beta, plain and simple. It's just good QA.

RustyXXL wrote: @TWillard: There's a difference between good and easy QA. Yes, disallowing mods makes QA easier, but as I said, where's a will, there's a way. There are plenty of examples of successful games that allowed mods in alpha/beta phase. A proper error-/bugreporting functionality from inside the "client" goes miles for helping with that, but there are other tools, too. Of course there are also enough examples of successful games that disallowed mods during alpha/beta testing. Both ways are possible, and Bethesda chose their way. I have to respect that decision, but I don't have to agree with it, and sometimes I even feel like vocalizing my disagreement. ;)

xaosbob wrote: Imagine cooking. You are testing a recipe for baked mashed potatoes, and you want all your far-flung internet friends to test it with you and let you know how it tastes. Let's pretend the revolutionary change you making to the potatoes is adding sour cream, chives, and a bit of garlic because for this example, nobody has done it with this specific amount of each.

One friend adds chipotle powder and hot sauce to their recipe.
One friend throws in pineapple, rice, and tea leaves.
One friend adds ketchup, because we all have that friend.
One friend cooks the potatoes on the stove top, and they add baking soda for "lift."
One friend microwaves it. That friend also adds a lot of cilantro.
One friend follows the directions exactly, but drizzles chocolate syrup over the top to eat it.
One friend uses sweet potatoes and yogurt rather than potatoes and sour cream.

The point of this was to test if the potatoes turn out the same way, and how everyone likes how they taste with this specific recipe. This is a lousy group of friends, because not one of them tested the recipe properly, so not one of them can give you the kind of feedback you needed. Might there be some interesting ideas? Yes (I have actually done the sweet potatoes and yogurt, and it's pretty good. Though use tarragon and allspice instead of chives), but that isn't what you were looking for. You wanted data about how they liked that SPECIFIC recipe...and they used everything but.

I'd get new friends.

RustyXXL wrote: @xaosbob: but in that example you could implement an automatic reporting by the kitchen, that included the details how they cooked it, and allowed you to (even automatically if you so desire) discard the bogus reports.

Edit: Yes, proper Error Reporting in Alpha/beta software is an investment, and the bigger the project, the bigger the investment. But you usually save much more in QA later...

Vicalliose wrote: Except the concern over the console being disabled is caused by the fact that they've not done that before. There is no "OF COURSE" when it comes to disabling the console because the console doesn't break anything and having it enabled will only allow people to get past bugs that were already there, survival mode does not suddenly add more rocks and broken doors/terminals for us to get stuck on. It would make more sense if they disabled the console for testing actual new content like DLC, but they never do public beta testing of DLC.

Besides, If it was related to the beta testing itself they would not have strictly disabled it in survival mode. They themselves called it a "feature" which is just frigging nonsense. Are they seriously worried about people "ruining the experience" by cheating when we were already effectively "ruining the experience" of the default game with it? It's pointless and dumb.

Personally, I specifically want to use the console so I can test what the gameplay and damage changes are like under controlled conditions, spawning enemies and such to see how combat with the various enemies has been affected. It would actually HELP with any beta testing, and I'd rather do tests with the console than spend literally hours of walking, only to get stuck on a rock/terminal/door that has absolutely nothing to do with the survival beta itself and they will never actually fix no matter how much anyone whines about it.

Not that this change will likely remain. They're not a bunch of stubborn indie devs, so odds are they'll quietly change it back and say nothing about it. That way all the shills can continue saying "we were right" when in reality Bethesda listened to feedback and don't want to openly admit they made a mistake (not like they haven't done that before). Maybe I'm wrong and they actually did disable it for testing (even though it doesn't make sense) we'll never really know and I really don't care why they change it back, so long as it gets done. Otherwise I'm not even going to bother with survival when it comes out of beta.

TWillard wrote: @ Vicalliose All right, I will agree with that. I completely forgot about controlled testing using the Glowing Sea or the Castle or just out in the random boondocks. You definitely have a point there.

Mods, I can understand.

Console commands? I can't understand that so much.

Vicalliose wrote: @TWillard

I must also admit that I am still a little pissed about mods being disabled, even if them being disabled totally makes sense. I really wish I could be using Arbitration right now, because survival mode is just going to be a crap shoot unless Bethesda finally decides to nerf the damned molotov, and I don't think they're ever going to do that. Holy f*#@ those are unfair.

YisahVasNarri wrote: In my opinion, the removal of quick-saving was just a bad move by Beth. I mean, I don't know anyone who has gone an entire play-through without having to quick-load back due to a bug.

Erenar wrote: Mods - removed so that, as with most Nexus hosted mod bugs. devs are not having to work out what caused what where.

Console - because if you can amend stuff in game, whether to get round a bug or not, you are not playing the same as player x, y and z.

Beta - testing the same base code with the same base config (barring graphics and sound) is a mammoth task... add mods and console configuration and you're fighting a losing battle.

Do you guys even realise how complicated debugging a fully versatile and moddable engine is? And then to debug additional features on top of that? And then to address whiny gamers who just do not appreciate what the dev team are giving to you... for free?

I know that sounds harsh, but imagine being a Bethdev reading these comments? Personally, I'd say "Screw you lot then" :)

DarthSokar wrote: Console is for debugging, that's not a "beta" issue, that's what they're calling a full release "feature", removing that is f*#@ing retarded, It's really that simple, in a game where getting stuck is a matter of when not if. Especially when you remove the ability to save on the fly. No. Apologists need to get off whatever adderall they're on and realize that this is only going to hurt the game long term. No mods for the beta? fine, but the console's the only thing that made dragonborn -semi- playable on release. That's full release, not some awkwardly implemented beta. Nothing to do with "cheating", everything to do with fixing bugs that -inevitably- catch up to you. Losing an hour or so of gameplay for no damn reason at all, Adds up very quickly and interest goes down just as quickly -when- it happens, Not if.

Sure I'm annoyed that I can't use mods with the beta and I've accepted that, but the console isn't really negotiable in a Bethesda game.

Vicalliose wrote: At this point I'm thinking that for all the soapbox high-horsing, most of you shills have not actually opted-in at all. Maybe I'm wrong, but with as fact-less and stubborn as some of you are about everything it certainly sounds like you haven't.

Please pay attention and understand that Bethesda is calling the console removal a "feature" and it's absence has NOTHING to do with the beta and it does not and should not have any affect on the survival mode changes. Survival mode alters combat and adds survival mechanics, it does not even add any bugs that would be circumvented or worsened by console use. I can tell you this for certain because I'm actually playing survival mode right now.

If I were to give any proper feedback on survival mode at this point, I would say that it is far too unbalanced and broken to actually be released any time soon. Despite some other welcome changes, various things like the already unbalanced molotov spam and the new removal of manual saves makes the mode a random death fest, losing hours of exploration at a time just because you can't find a frigging bed anywhere. It's a mess.

Pretty much. Opted in, Same issues as you describe. "Working as intended" but without the console, It's pretty much cancer at its current state, One stuck terminal and it's gg and an excellent reason to shut the game down and go outside and have a smoke. lol.

[Kage6415]

Alright maybe I'm not the only one that's been experiencing this; I didn't have the chance to opt out of the beta so when I got up and started to play Fallout 4, I hadn't even realized it downloaded/installed so imagine my surprise when I went to play and all of a sudden it said that my saves rely on mods that are no longer available. So after doing some digging around I figured out that it was due to the lack of mod supports for the Survival mode beta. So I disabled it and Steam updated itself and when I went to play, same thing. I go to load a saved game and it says that this save relies on mods that are no longer present. I've made sure all the .ini files have been edited in the correct ways and even followed the advice of one of the other users who suggested I delete the loadorder.txt and plugins.txt which still didn't resolve anything. I made sure all of my mods were up to date which they all are and still, same problem. I reinstalled NMM and still, nothing. So I decided to completely uninstall the game and reinstall it and yet the same thing still persists. Even when I go into the Settings option in game, it still gives me the option to select Survival mode and this is AFTER I reinstalled it and AFTER I opted out of the beta. Did Bethesda seriously just screw up colossally and decide that even if you opt out of the Survival Beta, now has no choice but to play the game without mods? Has anyone else found a way to get their mods back to working order again?

Edited March 31, 2016 by Kage6415

[Deleted918306User]

In response to post #36127135. #36127445, #36127625, #36127845, #36128375, #36128665, #36130230, #36130760, #36135625, #36137125, #36138065, #36139095, #36139110, #36139180, #36142335, #36143320, #36144985, #36145295, #36146990, #36148665, #36152660, #36156650 are all replies on the same post.

xaosbob wrote: Here's the story. Fallout, like any other game of this sort of mechanical complexity, tracks thousands of shifting variables, from a twitch on your mouse changing what is on-screen to NPC detection and combat AI to the unending changes wrought simply by playing the game--the precise location of every moved, placed, or destroyed item or actor, quest stages and dialog threading, all the sounds and music, NPC interactions not involving the player, and on and on.

This game is being played on tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of differing computer builds. It would not be far from true to claim that nearly every computer running this (not the consoles, plainly) has a different architecture, from gaming monsters first powered up on November 11 to aging workhorses that are technically below the minimum specs and running it just fine (like mine).

So OF COURSE they are disabling mods and the console. The survival patch is a BETA, not a release. It is opt-in for TESTING because it is not ready for full release. Meaning that, if you want to play with mods and console access, you absolutely can--simply do not opt in to the beta. If you are not beta testing the patch, you do not get to squeak about being denied something that is rightfully yours by virtue of owning the game--it is not yours yet, because it HASN'T BEEN RELEASED. When it is, you will get it. Simple as that.

They would not be able to get any meaningful feedback if, in addition to the game's internal complexity, compounded by a functionally-limitless variety of platforms upon which it operates, their testers were also using mods from a staggering library of homebrewed, technically hacked (beautifully, in many cases) modifications that were not developed on software that Beth developed and is familiar with. They want to know how the changes affect the game itself, not all the myriad things we modders and mod-users have done to it. Mods make it impossible to tell if something is working as intended, because it adds uncountably more variables to the mix.

And finally, YES the console is disabled, because they don't want us to fix the problems we encounter--they WANT US TO TELL THEM ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WE ENCOUNTER so they can fix them! If we just fix it ourselves with a few keystrokes, we likely won't tell them about the problem, bug, or break. If we don't tell them, we are FAILING AT BETA TESTING, and we have no room to complain if they do not fix that thing we experienced but didn't tell them about. Locking out the console is simply a way to encourage diligent reporting.

BETA TEST. If you want to be a grown-up and help Bethesda do this damned update right, then be a tester and understand that it has to be done in a certain way so you can give them meaningful data. If you do not want to do that, if you just want to play, then don't choose to test systems you have no intentions of testing. When they release it, you can play it to your heart's content then, and make your summary judgments, confident and secure in the knowledge that you know so much better how things should have been done. Oh wait.

That's the point of f**king testing, innit?

Eruadur wrote: @xaosbob
Seriously dude, if THIS^ doesn't get the message across then nothing will....

I salute you sir for exactly telling it like it is.
My compliments on a story well told :)

Maybe the 4th graders in here will understand now ??
Every other whiny comment will be obsolete after reading this :)
Like : 'mwééh!! They deleted my móóóds'
( read that with an Eric Cartman voice and it's even more accurate )

RustyXXL wrote: All nice and dandy, and very well written, BUT :P

I finished All major and most of the minor content (including Automatron) at least 3-5 times, a lot of it even more, up to 8 times. The only thing keeping me interested in the game is modding and content(!) DLCs. Take away modding and this game is dead for me, as is the beta. A survival mode alone doesn't offer enough "new" for me to play the game again. On the other hand I'd really like to test the survival mode. In general I did enjoy siomilar gameplay (i.e. FNV and Skyrim with RND and Frostfall), and I might have been able to give at least some feedback about Elements I do or don't enjoy.
Well, anyway, I got more than enough gameplay for my money one way or another, so I'll just wait and see until it moves out of beta, and either the game keeps alive for me or it won't.
I'm not complaining either, as I said, I got my moneys worth, and I don't need to clinge to any game, just sharing my opinion. ;)

Eruadur wrote: @rustxxl

Just one thing :
Seems like everyone forgot about the fact that mods aren't officially supported yet?
Not until the GECK or CK is out? Is the CK out? Hmmm? No it is not.

Then again mate: go play with those mods man! I do too!
Just don't opt in on the survival beta man! Really ...!

Really, it's all so simple when you stop and think about it :)

RustyXXL wrote: Mods not being officially supported doesn't change the fact that the game (and with that the beta of the Survival mode) would be dead for me (and probably a lot of other ppl) without mods at the current time, probably at least until Far Harbour comes out, and with that the need of testing a survival mode is simply not existant. And as I said, I didn't opt in to the beta as well, and I'm not complaining about it either. All I'm saying is, that I would like to test it, if there was a way to add at least some mods, and that I could then give feedback about elements I do like or dislike about the New Survival mode. Anyway...I'm outta here, back to building my Settlement and discovering all the new names my settlers got....seriously....such a simple addition, and I already care more about my settlers than ever before....^^

digitaltrucker wrote: I've heard this story before, but would someone PLEASE explain just how the theory works in actual practice? This is a single-player game. AFAIK, the only online component is the pip-boy app. So, there should be no way for Bethesda to gather data without players actually telling them something is broken...which we would do whether the console and mods are enabled or not. The notion that running mods or using the console somehow cuts Bethesda out of the information loop is just plain silly; all you have to do is look at the the forums here, on Steam, and on Bethesda's own forum to see constant bug reports. That's been the case for every game they've ever made.

The only way the argument makes any sense whatsoever would be if all the testing was being done in a closed environment. This is a public beta, your argument has no merit. The fact that mods themselves have been actively disabled by the game since the very first update (and sorta 'hidden' at launch) also invalidates the above well-worn apologizing.

Mitsurugi2424 wrote: I only use console for debugging, and occasionally to take a really cool screenshot. I don't need God mode, or to spawn a mountain of caps and food in my Inventory, but I do need to toggle collisions at times to get unstuck, use the moveto command when my companion decides to sit on a roof even after being dismissed and sent home and 3 days have passed, and fix quest bugs.

Sure in my 500 hours of playing I have only had a handful of bugs. But I don't save as often as some and if I lost 5 hours of game play cause I was stuck in a chair or a quest bugged, that would be enough at this point to Mae me out the game down and move on lol.

I do use quite a few mods, and Im fine with tose being disabled. Makes more sense to me to start this beta with a fresh save anyway. But, if I can't use console to fix problems that arise, I have a serious issue. And that is why I choose to opt out lol.

Rather than cry and hate on Bethesda for this beta, I just chose to wait for the finished product. It's not the end of the world guys...

Eruadur wrote: And what you will report back to Bethesda is....? What...something you discovered building a settlement for your precious settlers??
"Yo Bethesda! Your survival mode is faulty! Was trying to build a bed to sleep in ( because it's the only way I can save the game in survival mode ) and the game won't let me build my bed man! You seriously have to fix this : I can't save !!!!11!!1!one!1"
5 hours later...
"Yo Bethesda! Fixed the damn survival yet? My character is still waiting to go to bed. He's really tired. Fix it!!!"
1 hour later...
"Good day people of Bethesda. Your survival mode works perfectly! I couldn't build a bed because I was using XXXXmod that adds new beds to my settlement. Sorry about all the commotion, I should have told you I was using a mod I guess? Hope I didn't waste too much of your precious time... Again , I'm sorry mkay?"

That's what happens if people start using beta's or unreleased updates with mods...
Not saying this ^ is you, but "people"...

:)

popcorn71 wrote: @ Eruadur
I'm curious to know exactly what you think the difference is between a bed added by a mod an a vanilla bed...

RustyXXL wrote: Sorry, I have to add this...If I was harsh I could say: Bethesda advertised FO4 as being moddable even more than before, with mods even for console. So to some of us, this might be a major point in buying Bethesda games. So Beth, you advertised modding, now deal with it...:P
Yes, dealing with incomplete/wrong bugreports sucks, no question, but that's what a QA and CS Teams are for...collecting and verifying Bugreports and relaying verified Bugreports to the developers.
Also There would be the option of built in Error-Reporting from within the beta-client, which could automatically add all relevant hard- and software infos to an bugreport, but I guess that would be to professional for Beth ;P

Edit: Just because Sarcasm is often lost...all I want to say, where's a will, there's a way. And Bethesda demonstrated there's no will in that regard. And that's their decision, and I'm okay with that, I got my moneys worth no matter where the further development of FO4 goes. Still I would have liked to participate in the Beta, but for me there's no interest without a few mods, that I personally see essential, to deal with some aspects of the game I don't enjoy.

TWillard wrote: And every Beta patch they've run that I've opted into disables the mods, but as soon as it goes live **POOF** mod support is back and my mods work. There's no evidence or pre-existing behavior that says any different so far.

You don't want mods running during a Beta, plain and simple. It's just good QA.

RustyXXL wrote: @TWillard: There's a difference between good and easy QA. Yes, disallowing mods makes QA easier, but as I said, where's a will, there's a way. There are plenty of examples of successful games that allowed mods in alpha/beta phase. A proper error-/bugreporting functionality from inside the "client" goes miles for helping with that, but there are other tools, too. Of course there are also enough examples of successful games that disallowed mods during alpha/beta testing. Both ways are possible, and Bethesda chose their way. I have to respect that decision, but I don't have to agree with it, and sometimes I even feel like vocalizing my disagreement. ;)

xaosbob wrote: Imagine cooking. You are testing a recipe for baked mashed potatoes, and you want all your far-flung internet friends to test it with you and let you know how it tastes. Let's pretend the revolutionary change you making to the potatoes is adding sour cream, chives, and a bit of garlic because for this example, nobody has done it with this specific amount of each.

One friend adds chipotle powder and hot sauce to their recipe.
One friend throws in pineapple, rice, and tea leaves.
One friend adds ketchup, because we all have that friend.
One friend cooks the potatoes on the stove top, and they add baking soda for "lift."
One friend microwaves it. That friend also adds a lot of cilantro.
One friend follows the directions exactly, but drizzles chocolate syrup over the top to eat it.
One friend uses sweet potatoes and yogurt rather than potatoes and sour cream.

The point of this was to test if the potatoes turn out the same way, and how everyone likes how they taste with this specific recipe. This is a lousy group of friends, because not one of them tested the recipe properly, so not one of them can give you the kind of feedback you needed. Might there be some interesting ideas? Yes (I have actually done the sweet potatoes and yogurt, and it's pretty good. Though use tarragon and allspice instead of chives), but that isn't what you were looking for. You wanted data about how they liked that SPECIFIC recipe...and they used everything but.

I'd get new friends.

RustyXXL wrote: @xaosbob: but in that example you could implement an automatic reporting by the kitchen, that included the details how they cooked it, and allowed you to (even automatically if you so desire) discard the bogus reports.

Edit: Yes, proper Error Reporting in Alpha/beta software is an investment, and the bigger the project, the bigger the investment. But you usually save much more in QA later...

Vicalliose wrote: Except the concern over the console being disabled is caused by the fact that they've not done that before. There is no "OF COURSE" when it comes to disabling the console because the console doesn't break anything and having it enabled will only allow people to get past bugs that were already there, survival mode does not suddenly add more rocks and broken doors/terminals for us to get stuck on. It would make more sense if they disabled the console for testing actual new content like DLC, but they never do public beta testing of DLC.

Besides, If it was related to the beta testing itself they would not have strictly disabled it in survival mode. They themselves called it a "feature" which is just frigging nonsense. Are they seriously worried about people "ruining the experience" by cheating when we were already effectively "ruining the experience" of the default game with it? It's pointless and dumb.

Personally, I specifically want to use the console so I can test what the gameplay and damage changes are like under controlled conditions, spawning enemies and such to see how combat with the various enemies has been affected. It would actually HELP with any beta testing, and I'd rather do tests with the console than spend literally hours of walking, only to get stuck on a rock/terminal/door that has absolutely nothing to do with the survival beta itself and they will never actually fix no matter how much anyone whines about it.

Not that this change will likely remain. They're not a bunch of stubborn indie devs, so odds are they'll quietly change it back and say nothing about it. That way all the shills can continue saying "we were right" when in reality Bethesda listened to feedback and don't want to openly admit they made a mistake (not like they haven't done that before). Maybe I'm wrong and they actually did disable it for testing (even though it doesn't make sense) we'll never really know and I really don't care why they change it back, so long as it gets done. Otherwise I'm not even going to bother with survival when it comes out of beta.

TWillard wrote: @ Vicalliose All right, I will agree with that. I completely forgot about controlled testing using the Glowing Sea or the Castle or just out in the random boondocks. You definitely have a point there.

Mods, I can understand.

Console commands? I can't understand that so much.

Vicalliose wrote: @TWillard

I must also admit that I am still a little pissed about mods being disabled, even if them being disabled totally makes sense. I really wish I could be using Arbitration right now, because survival mode is just going to be a crap shoot unless Bethesda finally decides to nerf the damned molotov, and I don't think they're ever going to do that. Holy f*#@ those are unfair.

YisahVasNarri wrote: In my opinion, the removal of quick-saving was just a bad move by Beth. I mean, I don't know anyone who has gone an entire play-through without having to quick-load back due to a bug.

Erenar wrote: Mods - removed so that, as with most Nexus hosted mod bugs. devs are not having to work out what caused what where.

Console - because if you can amend stuff in game, whether to get round a bug or not, you are not playing the same as player x, y and z.

Beta - testing the same base code with the same base config (barring graphics and sound) is a mammoth task... add mods and console configuration and you're fighting a losing battle.

Do you guys even realise how complicated debugging a fully versatile and moddable engine is? And then to debug additional features on top of that? And then to address whiny gamers who just do not appreciate what the dev team are giving to you... for free?

I know that sounds harsh, but imagine being a Bethdev reading these comments? Personally, I'd say "Screw you lot then" :)

DarthSokar wrote: Console is for debugging, that's not a "beta" issue, that's what they're calling a full release "feature", removing that is f*#@ing retarded, It's really that simple, in a game where getting stuck is a matter of when not if. Especially when you remove the ability to save on the fly. No. Apologists need to get off whatever adderall they're on and realize that this is only going to hurt the game long term. No mods for the beta? fine, but the console's the only thing that made dragonborn -semi- playable on release. That's full release, not some awkwardly implemented beta. Nothing to do with "cheating", everything to do with fixing bugs that -inevitably- catch up to you. Losing an hour or so of gameplay for no damn reason at all, Adds up very quickly and interest goes down just as quickly -when- it happens, Not if.

Sure I'm annoyed that I can't use mods with the beta and I've accepted that, but the console isn't really negotiable in a Bethesda game.

Vicalliose wrote: At this point I'm thinking that for all the soapbox high-horsing, most of you shills have not actually opted-in at all. Maybe I'm wrong, but with as fact-less and stubborn as some of you are about everything it certainly sounds like you haven't.

Please pay attention and understand that Bethesda is calling the console removal a "feature" and it's absence has NOTHING to do with the beta and it does not and should not have any affect on the survival mode changes. Survival mode alters combat and adds survival mechanics, it does not even add any bugs that would be circumvented or worsened by console use. I can tell you this for certain because I'm actually playing survival mode right now.

If I were to give any proper feedback on survival mode at this point, I would say that it is far too unbalanced and broken to actually be released any time soon. Despite some other welcome changes, various things like the already unbalanced molotov spam and the new removal of manual saves makes the mode a random death fest, losing hours of exploration at a time just because you can't find a frigging bed anywhere. It's a mess.

DarthSokar wrote: Pretty much. Opted in, Same issues as you describe. "Working as intended" but without the console, It's pretty much cancer at its current state, One stuck terminal and it's gg and an excellent reason to shut the game down and go outside and have a smoke. lol.

@ Vicalliose I've opted in, been opted in. I love Beta testing as well as Alpha testing. I've always enjoyed QA testing, it's one of my favorite things.

You know, I just came up with a reason that **I** would have disabled the console, and it's so glaringly obvious I just skimmed right over it.

It's *survival* mode Beta Testing. I can't give feedback on whether or not it's too hard (the goddamn molly's) if I can just console in aid items, go to god-mode, or whatever. I need to grind it. Over and over and over. Try different ways of taking on a fight. Use different weapons and armor and different power armor configurations. Try without and with legendary.

Now, like some people, I like to do controlled testing. Say: Myself with a Tier 2 Weaponsmith assault rifle + combat chest piece and metal leg pieces and 8 stimpacks hopped up on psycho with 2 nuka-colas and 1 cherry nuka-cola VS 2 mirelurk hunters, a mirelurk queen, and 6 mirelurks in various places then try 4 BoS Knights in a squad against the same, then a Supermutant squad against both groups, etc etc etc. BUT, let's be honest, not too many people Beta, and even less do controlled experiments over and over and over to replicate the outcomes.

I admit, my feedback is long and intense, right down to (if I have the tools, depending on the game) DPS gauging, penetration values, skill values, movement locations, stuff like that.

And I'd want the console to do controlled experiments repeatedly while I would also run 5-10 different saves, outfitted differently, doing the game exactly the same. (BAT files are great for make swappable characters to run the same encounter and dynamically created world)

Removing the ability to save is NOT good for repeated experimentation, since you can't repeat the encounter over and over, especially with the dynamic generation system for the world. THAT was an idiotic move, and should have been perhaps moved into an "Iron Man Survival" level.

I'm actually thinking of opting out of this Beta, since they removed the tools to **me** to feel like I'm properly doing a Beta test to provide accurate and repeatable feedback.

Wow, I got wordy.

TL;DR: I wish it had the console feature enabled, but I understand the possible reasons for not having it enabled and why I would enable it except in certain cases.

And removing the ability to save during a Beta Test was an idiotic move. Edited March 31, 2016 by Guest

[Lordbok]

In response to post #36127135. #36127445, #36127625, #36127845, #36128375, #36128665, #36130230, #36130760, #36135625, #36137125, #36138065, #36139095, #36139110, #36139180, #36142335, #36143320, #36144985, #36145295, #36146990, #36148665, #36152660, #36156650, #36158870 are all replies on the same post.

xaosbob wrote: Here's the story. Fallout, like any other game of this sort of mechanical complexity, tracks thousands of shifting variables, from a twitch on your mouse changing what is on-screen to NPC detection and combat AI to the unending changes wrought simply by playing the game--the precise location of every moved, placed, or destroyed item or actor, quest stages and dialog threading, all the sounds and music, NPC interactions not involving the player, and on and on.

This game is being played on tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of differing computer builds. It would not be far from true to claim that nearly every computer running this (not the consoles, plainly) has a different architecture, from gaming monsters first powered up on November 11 to aging workhorses that are technically below the minimum specs and running it just fine (like mine).

So OF COURSE they are disabling mods and the console. The survival patch is a BETA, not a release. It is opt-in for TESTING because it is not ready for full release. Meaning that, if you want to play with mods and console access, you absolutely can--simply do not opt in to the beta. If you are not beta testing the patch, you do not get to squeak about being denied something that is rightfully yours by virtue of owning the game--it is not yours yet, because it HASN'T BEEN RELEASED. When it is, you will get it. Simple as that.

They would not be able to get any meaningful feedback if, in addition to the game's internal complexity, compounded by a functionally-limitless variety of platforms upon which it operates, their testers were also using mods from a staggering library of homebrewed, technically hacked (beautifully, in many cases) modifications that were not developed on software that Beth developed and is familiar with. They want to know how the changes affect the game itself, not all the myriad things we modders and mod-users have done to it. Mods make it impossible to tell if something is working as intended, because it adds uncountably more variables to the mix.

And finally, YES the console is disabled, because they don't want us to fix the problems we encounter--they WANT US TO TELL THEM ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WE ENCOUNTER so they can fix them! If we just fix it ourselves with a few keystrokes, we likely won't tell them about the problem, bug, or break. If we don't tell them, we are FAILING AT BETA TESTING, and we have no room to complain if they do not fix that thing we experienced but didn't tell them about. Locking out the console is simply a way to encourage diligent reporting.

BETA TEST. If you want to be a grown-up and help Bethesda do this damned update right, then be a tester and understand that it has to be done in a certain way so you can give them meaningful data. If you do not want to do that, if you just want to play, then don't choose to test systems you have no intentions of testing. When they release it, you can play it to your heart's content then, and make your summary judgments, confident and secure in the knowledge that you know so much better how things should have been done. Oh wait.

That's the point of f**king testing, innit?

Eruadur wrote: @xaosbob
Seriously dude, if THIS^ doesn't get the message across then nothing will....

I salute you sir for exactly telling it like it is.
My compliments on a story well told :)

Maybe the 4th graders in here will understand now ??
Every other whiny comment will be obsolete after reading this :)
Like : 'mwééh!! They deleted my móóóds'
( read that with an Eric Cartman voice and it's even more accurate )

RustyXXL wrote: All nice and dandy, and very well written, BUT :P

I finished All major and most of the minor content (including Automatron) at least 3-5 times, a lot of it even more, up to 8 times. The only thing keeping me interested in the game is modding and content(!) DLCs. Take away modding and this game is dead for me, as is the beta. A survival mode alone doesn't offer enough "new" for me to play the game again. On the other hand I'd really like to test the survival mode. In general I did enjoy siomilar gameplay (i.e. FNV and Skyrim with RND and Frostfall), and I might have been able to give at least some feedback about Elements I do or don't enjoy.
Well, anyway, I got more than enough gameplay for my money one way or another, so I'll just wait and see until it moves out of beta, and either the game keeps alive for me or it won't.
I'm not complaining either, as I said, I got my moneys worth, and I don't need to clinge to any game, just sharing my opinion. ;)

Eruadur wrote: @rustxxl

Just one thing :
Seems like everyone forgot about the fact that mods aren't officially supported yet?
Not until the GECK or CK is out? Is the CK out? Hmmm? No it is not.

Then again mate: go play with those mods man! I do too!
Just don't opt in on the survival beta man! Really ...!

Really, it's all so simple when you stop and think about it :)

RustyXXL wrote: Mods not being officially supported doesn't change the fact that the game (and with that the beta of the Survival mode) would be dead for me (and probably a lot of other ppl) without mods at the current time, probably at least until Far Harbour comes out, and with that the need of testing a survival mode is simply not existant. And as I said, I didn't opt in to the beta as well, and I'm not complaining about it either. All I'm saying is, that I would like to test it, if there was a way to add at least some mods, and that I could then give feedback about elements I do like or dislike about the New Survival mode. Anyway...I'm outta here, back to building my Settlement and discovering all the new names my settlers got....seriously....such a simple addition, and I already care more about my settlers than ever before....^^

digitaltrucker wrote: I've heard this story before, but would someone PLEASE explain just how the theory works in actual practice? This is a single-player game. AFAIK, the only online component is the pip-boy app. So, there should be no way for Bethesda to gather data without players actually telling them something is broken...which we would do whether the console and mods are enabled or not. The notion that running mods or using the console somehow cuts Bethesda out of the information loop is just plain silly; all you have to do is look at the the forums here, on Steam, and on Bethesda's own forum to see constant bug reports. That's been the case for every game they've ever made.

The only way the argument makes any sense whatsoever would be if all the testing was being done in a closed environment. This is a public beta, your argument has no merit. The fact that mods themselves have been actively disabled by the game since the very first update (and sorta 'hidden' at launch) also invalidates the above well-worn apologizing.

Mitsurugi2424 wrote: I only use console for debugging, and occasionally to take a really cool screenshot. I don't need God mode, or to spawn a mountain of caps and food in my Inventory, but I do need to toggle collisions at times to get unstuck, use the moveto command when my companion decides to sit on a roof even after being dismissed and sent home and 3 days have passed, and fix quest bugs.

Sure in my 500 hours of playing I have only had a handful of bugs. But I don't save as often as some and if I lost 5 hours of game play cause I was stuck in a chair or a quest bugged, that would be enough at this point to Mae me out the game down and move on lol.

I do use quite a few mods, and Im fine with tose being disabled. Makes more sense to me to start this beta with a fresh save anyway. But, if I can't use console to fix problems that arise, I have a serious issue. And that is why I choose to opt out lol.

Rather than cry and hate on Bethesda for this beta, I just chose to wait for the finished product. It's not the end of the world guys...

Eruadur wrote: And what you will report back to Bethesda is....? What...something you discovered building a settlement for your precious settlers??
"Yo Bethesda! Your survival mode is faulty! Was trying to build a bed to sleep in ( because it's the only way I can save the game in survival mode ) and the game won't let me build my bed man! You seriously have to fix this : I can't save !!!!11!!1!one!1"
5 hours later...
"Yo Bethesda! Fixed the damn survival yet? My character is still waiting to go to bed. He's really tired. Fix it!!!"
1 hour later...
"Good day people of Bethesda. Your survival mode works perfectly! I couldn't build a bed because I was using XXXXmod that adds new beds to my settlement. Sorry about all the commotion, I should have told you I was using a mod I guess? Hope I didn't waste too much of your precious time... Again , I'm sorry mkay?"

That's what happens if people start using beta's or unreleased updates with mods...
Not saying this ^ is you, but "people"...

:)

popcorn71 wrote: @ Eruadur
I'm curious to know exactly what you think the difference is between a bed added by a mod an a vanilla bed...

RustyXXL wrote: Sorry, I have to add this...If I was harsh I could say: Bethesda advertised FO4 as being moddable even more than before, with mods even for console. So to some of us, this might be a major point in buying Bethesda games. So Beth, you advertised modding, now deal with it...:P
Yes, dealing with incomplete/wrong bugreports sucks, no question, but that's what a QA and CS Teams are for...collecting and verifying Bugreports and relaying verified Bugreports to the developers.
Also There would be the option of built in Error-Reporting from within the beta-client, which could automatically add all relevant hard- and software infos to an bugreport, but I guess that would be to professional for Beth ;P

Edit: Just because Sarcasm is often lost...all I want to say, where's a will, there's a way. And Bethesda demonstrated there's no will in that regard. And that's their decision, and I'm okay with that, I got my moneys worth no matter where the further development of FO4 goes. Still I would have liked to participate in the Beta, but for me there's no interest without a few mods, that I personally see essential, to deal with some aspects of the game I don't enjoy.

TWillard wrote: And every Beta patch they've run that I've opted into disables the mods, but as soon as it goes live **POOF** mod support is back and my mods work. There's no evidence or pre-existing behavior that says any different so far.

You don't want mods running during a Beta, plain and simple. It's just good QA.

RustyXXL wrote: @TWillard: There's a difference between good and easy QA. Yes, disallowing mods makes QA easier, but as I said, where's a will, there's a way. There are plenty of examples of successful games that allowed mods in alpha/beta phase. A proper error-/bugreporting functionality from inside the "client" goes miles for helping with that, but there are other tools, too. Of course there are also enough examples of successful games that disallowed mods during alpha/beta testing. Both ways are possible, and Bethesda chose their way. I have to respect that decision, but I don't have to agree with it, and sometimes I even feel like vocalizing my disagreement. ;)

xaosbob wrote: Imagine cooking. You are testing a recipe for baked mashed potatoes, and you want all your far-flung internet friends to test it with you and let you know how it tastes. Let's pretend the revolutionary change you making to the potatoes is adding sour cream, chives, and a bit of garlic because for this example, nobody has done it with this specific amount of each.

One friend adds chipotle powder and hot sauce to their recipe.
One friend throws in pineapple, rice, and tea leaves.
One friend adds ketchup, because we all have that friend.
One friend cooks the potatoes on the stove top, and they add baking soda for "lift."
One friend microwaves it. That friend also adds a lot of cilantro.
One friend follows the directions exactly, but drizzles chocolate syrup over the top to eat it.
One friend uses sweet potatoes and yogurt rather than potatoes and sour cream.

The point of this was to test if the potatoes turn out the same way, and how everyone likes how they taste with this specific recipe. This is a lousy group of friends, because not one of them tested the recipe properly, so not one of them can give you the kind of feedback you needed. Might there be some interesting ideas? Yes (I have actually done the sweet potatoes and yogurt, and it's pretty good. Though use tarragon and allspice instead of chives), but that isn't what you were looking for. You wanted data about how they liked that SPECIFIC recipe...and they used everything but.

I'd get new friends.

RustyXXL wrote: @xaosbob: but in that example you could implement an automatic reporting by the kitchen, that included the details how they cooked it, and allowed you to (even automatically if you so desire) discard the bogus reports.

Edit: Yes, proper Error Reporting in Alpha/beta software is an investment, and the bigger the project, the bigger the investment. But you usually save much more in QA later...

Vicalliose wrote: Except the concern over the console being disabled is caused by the fact that they've not done that before. There is no "OF COURSE" when it comes to disabling the console because the console doesn't break anything and having it enabled will only allow people to get past bugs that were already there, survival mode does not suddenly add more rocks and broken doors/terminals for us to get stuck on. It would make more sense if they disabled the console for testing actual new content like DLC, but they never do public beta testing of DLC.

Besides, If it was related to the beta testing itself they would not have strictly disabled it in survival mode. They themselves called it a "feature" which is just frigging nonsense. Are they seriously worried about people "ruining the experience" by cheating when we were already effectively "ruining the experience" of the default game with it? It's pointless and dumb.

Personally, I specifically want to use the console so I can test what the gameplay and damage changes are like under controlled conditions, spawning enemies and such to see how combat with the various enemies has been affected. It would actually HELP with any beta testing, and I'd rather do tests with the console than spend literally hours of walking, only to get stuck on a rock/terminal/door that has absolutely nothing to do with the survival beta itself and they will never actually fix no matter how much anyone whines about it.

Not that this change will likely remain. They're not a bunch of stubborn indie devs, so odds are they'll quietly change it back and say nothing about it. That way all the shills can continue saying "we were right" when in reality Bethesda listened to feedback and don't want to openly admit they made a mistake (not like they haven't done that before). Maybe I'm wrong and they actually did disable it for testing (even though it doesn't make sense) we'll never really know and I really don't care why they change it back, so long as it gets done. Otherwise I'm not even going to bother with survival when it comes out of beta.

TWillard wrote: @ Vicalliose All right, I will agree with that. I completely forgot about controlled testing using the Glowing Sea or the Castle or just out in the random boondocks. You definitely have a point there.

Mods, I can understand.

Console commands? I can't understand that so much.

Vicalliose wrote: @TWillard

I must also admit that I am still a little pissed about mods being disabled, even if them being disabled totally makes sense. I really wish I could be using Arbitration right now, because survival mode is just going to be a crap shoot unless Bethesda finally decides to nerf the damned molotov, and I don't think they're ever going to do that. Holy f*#@ those are unfair.

YisahVasNarri wrote: In my opinion, the removal of quick-saving was just a bad move by Beth. I mean, I don't know anyone who has gone an entire play-through without having to quick-load back due to a bug.

Erenar wrote: Mods - removed so that, as with most Nexus hosted mod bugs. devs are not having to work out what caused what where.

Console - because if you can amend stuff in game, whether to get round a bug or not, you are not playing the same as player x, y and z.

Beta - testing the same base code with the same base config (barring graphics and sound) is a mammoth task... add mods and console configuration and you're fighting a losing battle.

Do you guys even realise how complicated debugging a fully versatile and moddable engine is? And then to debug additional features on top of that? And then to address whiny gamers who just do not appreciate what the dev team are giving to you... for free?

I know that sounds harsh, but imagine being a Bethdev reading these comments? Personally, I'd say "Screw you lot then" :)

DarthSokar wrote: Console is for debugging, that's not a "beta" issue, that's what they're calling a full release "feature", removing that is f*#@ing retarded, It's really that simple, in a game where getting stuck is a matter of when not if. Especially when you remove the ability to save on the fly. No. Apologists need to get off whatever adderall they're on and realize that this is only going to hurt the game long term. No mods for the beta? fine, but the console's the only thing that made dragonborn -semi- playable on release. That's full release, not some awkwardly implemented beta. Nothing to do with "cheating", everything to do with fixing bugs that -inevitably- catch up to you. Losing an hour or so of gameplay for no damn reason at all, Adds up very quickly and interest goes down just as quickly -when- it happens, Not if.

Sure I'm annoyed that I can't use mods with the beta and I've accepted that, but the console isn't really negotiable in a Bethesda game.

Vicalliose wrote: At this point I'm thinking that for all the soapbox high-horsing, most of you shills have not actually opted-in at all. Maybe I'm wrong, but with as fact-less and stubborn as some of you are about everything it certainly sounds like you haven't.

Please pay attention and understand that Bethesda is calling the console removal a "feature" and it's absence has NOTHING to do with the beta and it does not and should not have any affect on the survival mode changes. Survival mode alters combat and adds survival mechanics, it does not even add any bugs that would be circumvented or worsened by console use. I can tell you this for certain because I'm actually playing survival mode right now.

If I were to give any proper feedback on survival mode at this point, I would say that it is far too unbalanced and broken to actually be released any time soon. Despite some other welcome changes, various things like the already unbalanced molotov spam and the new removal of manual saves makes the mode a random death fest, losing hours of exploration at a time just because you can't find a frigging bed anywhere. It's a mess.

DarthSokar wrote: Pretty much. Opted in, Same issues as you describe. "Working as intended" but without the console, It's pretty much cancer at its current state, One stuck terminal and it's gg and an excellent reason to shut the game down and go outside and have a smoke. lol.

TWillard wrote: @ Vicalliose I've opted in, been opted in. I love Beta testing as well as Alpha testing. I've always enjoyed QA testing, it's one of my favorite things.

You know, I just came up with a reason that **I** would have disabled the console, and it's so glaringly obvious I just skimmed right over it.

It's *survival* mode Beta Testing. I can't give feedback on whether or not it's too hard (the goddamn molly's) if I can just console in aid items, go to god-mode, or whatever. I need to grind it. Over and over and over. Try different ways of taking on a fight. Use different weapons and armor and different power armor configurations. Try without and with legendary.

Now, like some people, I like to do controlled testing. Say: Myself with a Tier 2 Weaponsmith assault rifle + combat chest piece and metal leg pieces and 8 stimpacks hopped up on psycho with 2 nuka-colas and 1 cherry nuka-cola VS 2 mirelurk hunters, a mirelurk queen, and 6 mirelurks in various places then try 4 BoS Knights in a squad against the same, then a Supermutant squad against both groups, etc etc etc. BUT, let's be honest, not too many people Beta, and even less do controlled experiments over and over and over to replicate the outcomes.

I admit, my feedback is long and intense, right down to (if I have the tools, depending on the game) DPS gauging, penetration values, skill values, movement locations, stuff like that.

And I'd want the console to do controlled experiments repeatedly while I would also run 5-10 different saves, outfitted differently, doing the game exactly the same. (BAT files are great for make swappable characters to run the same encounter and dynamically created world)

Removing the ability to save is NOT good for repeated experimentation, since you can't repeat the encounter over and over, especially with the dynamic generation system for the world. THAT was an idiotic move, and should have been perhaps moved into an "Iron Man Survival" level.

I'm actually thinking of opting out of this Beta, since they removed the tools to **me** to feel like I'm properly doing a Beta test to provide accurate and repeatable feedback.

Wow, I got wordy.

TL;DR: I wish it had the console feature enabled, but I understand the possible reasons for not having it enabled and why I would enable it except in certain cases.

And removing the ability to save during a Beta Test was an idiotic move.

Yea I was thinking it was abit crap to not have my mods working but tbh you explained it very well and it makes sense. Hopefully survival mode doesn't last too long in BETA.

[Usiel]

In response to post #36127135. #36127445, #36127625, #36127845, #36128375, #36128665, #36130230, #36130760, #36135625, #36137125, #36138065, #36139095, #36139110, #36139180, #36142335, #36143320, #36144985, #36145295, #36146990, #36148665, #36152660, #36156650, #36158870, #36159505 are all replies on the same post.

xaosbob wrote: Here's the story. Fallout, like any other game of this sort of mechanical complexity, tracks thousands of shifting variables, from a twitch on your mouse changing what is on-screen to NPC detection and combat AI to the unending changes wrought simply by playing the game--the precise location of every moved, placed, or destroyed item or actor, quest stages and dialog threading, all the sounds and music, NPC interactions not involving the player, and on and on.

This game is being played on tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of differing computer builds. It would not be far from true to claim that nearly every computer running this (not the consoles, plainly) has a different architecture, from gaming monsters first powered up on November 11 to aging workhorses that are technically below the minimum specs and running it just fine (like mine).

So OF COURSE they are disabling mods and the console. The survival patch is a BETA, not a release. It is opt-in for TESTING because it is not ready for full release. Meaning that, if you want to play with mods and console access, you absolutely can--simply do not opt in to the beta. If you are not beta testing the patch, you do not get to squeak about being denied something that is rightfully yours by virtue of owning the game--it is not yours yet, because it HASN'T BEEN RELEASED. When it is, you will get it. Simple as that.

They would not be able to get any meaningful feedback if, in addition to the game's internal complexity, compounded by a functionally-limitless variety of platforms upon which it operates, their testers were also using mods from a staggering library of homebrewed, technically hacked (beautifully, in many cases) modifications that were not developed on software that Beth developed and is familiar with. They want to know how the changes affect the game itself, not all the myriad things we modders and mod-users have done to it. Mods make it impossible to tell if something is working as intended, because it adds uncountably more variables to the mix.

And finally, YES the console is disabled, because they don't want us to fix the problems we encounter--they WANT US TO TELL THEM ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WE ENCOUNTER so they can fix them! If we just fix it ourselves with a few keystrokes, we likely won't tell them about the problem, bug, or break. If we don't tell them, we are FAILING AT BETA TESTING, and we have no room to complain if they do not fix that thing we experienced but didn't tell them about. Locking out the console is simply a way to encourage diligent reporting.

BETA TEST. If you want to be a grown-up and help Bethesda do this damned update right, then be a tester and understand that it has to be done in a certain way so you can give them meaningful data. If you do not want to do that, if you just want to play, then don't choose to test systems you have no intentions of testing. When they release it, you can play it to your heart's content then, and make your summary judgments, confident and secure in the knowledge that you know so much better how things should have been done. Oh wait.

That's the point of f**king testing, innit?

Eruadur wrote: @xaosbob
Seriously dude, if THIS^ doesn't get the message across then nothing will....

I salute you sir for exactly telling it like it is.
My compliments on a story well told :)

Maybe the 4th graders in here will understand now ??
Every other whiny comment will be obsolete after reading this :)
Like : 'mwééh!! They deleted my móóóds'
( read that with an Eric Cartman voice and it's even more accurate )

RustyXXL wrote: All nice and dandy, and very well written, BUT :P

I finished All major and most of the minor content (including Automatron) at least 3-5 times, a lot of it even more, up to 8 times. The only thing keeping me interested in the game is modding and content(!) DLCs. Take away modding and this game is dead for me, as is the beta. A survival mode alone doesn't offer enough "new" for me to play the game again. On the other hand I'd really like to test the survival mode. In general I did enjoy siomilar gameplay (i.e. FNV and Skyrim with RND and Frostfall), and I might have been able to give at least some feedback about Elements I do or don't enjoy.
Well, anyway, I got more than enough gameplay for my money one way or another, so I'll just wait and see until it moves out of beta, and either the game keeps alive for me or it won't.
I'm not complaining either, as I said, I got my moneys worth, and I don't need to clinge to any game, just sharing my opinion. ;)

Eruadur wrote: @rustxxl

Just one thing :
Seems like everyone forgot about the fact that mods aren't officially supported yet?
Not until the GECK or CK is out? Is the CK out? Hmmm? No it is not.

Then again mate: go play with those mods man! I do too!
Just don't opt in on the survival beta man! Really ...!

Really, it's all so simple when you stop and think about it :)

RustyXXL wrote: Mods not being officially supported doesn't change the fact that the game (and with that the beta of the Survival mode) would be dead for me (and probably a lot of other ppl) without mods at the current time, probably at least until Far Harbour comes out, and with that the need of testing a survival mode is simply not existant. And as I said, I didn't opt in to the beta as well, and I'm not complaining about it either. All I'm saying is, that I would like to test it, if there was a way to add at least some mods, and that I could then give feedback about elements I do like or dislike about the New Survival mode. Anyway...I'm outta here, back to building my Settlement and discovering all the new names my settlers got....seriously....such a simple addition, and I already care more about my settlers than ever before....^^

digitaltrucker wrote: I've heard this story before, but would someone PLEASE explain just how the theory works in actual practice? This is a single-player game. AFAIK, the only online component is the pip-boy app. So, there should be no way for Bethesda to gather data without players actually telling them something is broken...which we would do whether the console and mods are enabled or not. The notion that running mods or using the console somehow cuts Bethesda out of the information loop is just plain silly; all you have to do is look at the the forums here, on Steam, and on Bethesda's own forum to see constant bug reports. That's been the case for every game they've ever made.

The only way the argument makes any sense whatsoever would be if all the testing was being done in a closed environment. This is a public beta, your argument has no merit. The fact that mods themselves have been actively disabled by the game since the very first update (and sorta 'hidden' at launch) also invalidates the above well-worn apologizing.

Mitsurugi2424 wrote: I only use console for debugging, and occasionally to take a really cool screenshot. I don't need God mode, or to spawn a mountain of caps and food in my Inventory, but I do need to toggle collisions at times to get unstuck, use the moveto command when my companion decides to sit on a roof even after being dismissed and sent home and 3 days have passed, and fix quest bugs.

Sure in my 500 hours of playing I have only had a handful of bugs. But I don't save as often as some and if I lost 5 hours of game play cause I was stuck in a chair or a quest bugged, that would be enough at this point to Mae me out the game down and move on lol.

I do use quite a few mods, and Im fine with tose being disabled. Makes more sense to me to start this beta with a fresh save anyway. But, if I can't use console to fix problems that arise, I have a serious issue. And that is why I choose to opt out lol.

Rather than cry and hate on Bethesda for this beta, I just chose to wait for the finished product. It's not the end of the world guys...

Eruadur wrote: And what you will report back to Bethesda is....? What...something you discovered building a settlement for your precious settlers??
"Yo Bethesda! Your survival mode is faulty! Was trying to build a bed to sleep in ( because it's the only way I can save the game in survival mode ) and the game won't let me build my bed man! You seriously have to fix this : I can't save !!!!11!!1!one!1"
5 hours later...
"Yo Bethesda! Fixed the damn survival yet? My character is still waiting to go to bed. He's really tired. Fix it!!!"
1 hour later...
"Good day people of Bethesda. Your survival mode works perfectly! I couldn't build a bed because I was using XXXXmod that adds new beds to my settlement. Sorry about all the commotion, I should have told you I was using a mod I guess? Hope I didn't waste too much of your precious time... Again , I'm sorry mkay?"

That's what happens if people start using beta's or unreleased updates with mods...
Not saying this ^ is you, but "people"...

:)

popcorn71 wrote: @ Eruadur
I'm curious to know exactly what you think the difference is between a bed added by a mod an a vanilla bed...

RustyXXL wrote: Sorry, I have to add this...If I was harsh I could say: Bethesda advertised FO4 as being moddable even more than before, with mods even for console. So to some of us, this might be a major point in buying Bethesda games. So Beth, you advertised modding, now deal with it...:P
Yes, dealing with incomplete/wrong bugreports sucks, no question, but that's what a QA and CS Teams are for...collecting and verifying Bugreports and relaying verified Bugreports to the developers.
Also There would be the option of built in Error-Reporting from within the beta-client, which could automatically add all relevant hard- and software infos to an bugreport, but I guess that would be to professional for Beth ;P

Edit: Just because Sarcasm is often lost...all I want to say, where's a will, there's a way. And Bethesda demonstrated there's no will in that regard. And that's their decision, and I'm okay with that, I got my moneys worth no matter where the further development of FO4 goes. Still I would have liked to participate in the Beta, but for me there's no interest without a few mods, that I personally see essential, to deal with some aspects of the game I don't enjoy.

TWillard wrote: And every Beta patch they've run that I've opted into disables the mods, but as soon as it goes live **POOF** mod support is back and my mods work. There's no evidence or pre-existing behavior that says any different so far.

You don't want mods running during a Beta, plain and simple. It's just good QA.

RustyXXL wrote: @TWillard: There's a difference between good and easy QA. Yes, disallowing mods makes QA easier, but as I said, where's a will, there's a way. There are plenty of examples of successful games that allowed mods in alpha/beta phase. A proper error-/bugreporting functionality from inside the "client" goes miles for helping with that, but there are other tools, too. Of course there are also enough examples of successful games that disallowed mods during alpha/beta testing. Both ways are possible, and Bethesda chose their way. I have to respect that decision, but I don't have to agree with it, and sometimes I even feel like vocalizing my disagreement. ;)

xaosbob wrote: Imagine cooking. You are testing a recipe for baked mashed potatoes, and you want all your far-flung internet friends to test it with you and let you know how it tastes. Let's pretend the revolutionary change you making to the potatoes is adding sour cream, chives, and a bit of garlic because for this example, nobody has done it with this specific amount of each.

One friend adds chipotle powder and hot sauce to their recipe.
One friend throws in pineapple, rice, and tea leaves.
One friend adds ketchup, because we all have that friend.
One friend cooks the potatoes on the stove top, and they add baking soda for "lift."
One friend microwaves it. That friend also adds a lot of cilantro.
One friend follows the directions exactly, but drizzles chocolate syrup over the top to eat it.
One friend uses sweet potatoes and yogurt rather than potatoes and sour cream.

The point of this was to test if the potatoes turn out the same way, and how everyone likes how they taste with this specific recipe. This is a lousy group of friends, because not one of them tested the recipe properly, so not one of them can give you the kind of feedback you needed. Might there be some interesting ideas? Yes (I have actually done the sweet potatoes and yogurt, and it's pretty good. Though use tarragon and allspice instead of chives), but that isn't what you were looking for. You wanted data about how they liked that SPECIFIC recipe...and they used everything but.

I'd get new friends.

RustyXXL wrote: @xaosbob: but in that example you could implement an automatic reporting by the kitchen, that included the details how they cooked it, and allowed you to (even automatically if you so desire) discard the bogus reports.

Edit: Yes, proper Error Reporting in Alpha/beta software is an investment, and the bigger the project, the bigger the investment. But you usually save much more in QA later...

Vicalliose wrote: Except the concern over the console being disabled is caused by the fact that they've not done that before. There is no "OF COURSE" when it comes to disabling the console because the console doesn't break anything and having it enabled will only allow people to get past bugs that were already there, survival mode does not suddenly add more rocks and broken doors/terminals for us to get stuck on. It would make more sense if they disabled the console for testing actual new content like DLC, but they never do public beta testing of DLC.

Besides, If it was related to the beta testing itself they would not have strictly disabled it in survival mode. They themselves called it a "feature" which is just frigging nonsense. Are they seriously worried about people "ruining the experience" by cheating when we were already effectively "ruining the experience" of the default game with it? It's pointless and dumb.

Personally, I specifically want to use the console so I can test what the gameplay and damage changes are like under controlled conditions, spawning enemies and such to see how combat with the various enemies has been affected. It would actually HELP with any beta testing, and I'd rather do tests with the console than spend literally hours of walking, only to get stuck on a rock/terminal/door that has absolutely nothing to do with the survival beta itself and they will never actually fix no matter how much anyone whines about it.

Not that this change will likely remain. They're not a bunch of stubborn indie devs, so odds are they'll quietly change it back and say nothing about it. That way all the shills can continue saying "we were right" when in reality Bethesda listened to feedback and don't want to openly admit they made a mistake (not like they haven't done that before). Maybe I'm wrong and they actually did disable it for testing (even though it doesn't make sense) we'll never really know and I really don't care why they change it back, so long as it gets done. Otherwise I'm not even going to bother with survival when it comes out of beta.

TWillard wrote: @ Vicalliose All right, I will agree with that. I completely forgot about controlled testing using the Glowing Sea or the Castle or just out in the random boondocks. You definitely have a point there.

Mods, I can understand.

Console commands? I can't understand that so much.

Vicalliose wrote: @TWillard

I must also admit that I am still a little pissed about mods being disabled, even if them being disabled totally makes sense. I really wish I could be using Arbitration right now, because survival mode is just going to be a crap shoot unless Bethesda finally decides to nerf the damned molotov, and I don't think they're ever going to do that. Holy f*#@ those are unfair.

YisahVasNarri wrote: In my opinion, the removal of quick-saving was just a bad move by Beth. I mean, I don't know anyone who has gone an entire play-through without having to quick-load back due to a bug.

Erenar wrote: Mods - removed so that, as with most Nexus hosted mod bugs. devs are not having to work out what caused what where.

Console - because if you can amend stuff in game, whether to get round a bug or not, you are not playing the same as player x, y and z.

Beta - testing the same base code with the same base config (barring graphics and sound) is a mammoth task... add mods and console configuration and you're fighting a losing battle.

Do you guys even realise how complicated debugging a fully versatile and moddable engine is? And then to debug additional features on top of that? And then to address whiny gamers who just do not appreciate what the dev team are giving to you... for free?

I know that sounds harsh, but imagine being a Bethdev reading these comments? Personally, I'd say "Screw you lot then" :)

DarthSokar wrote: Console is for debugging, that's not a "beta" issue, that's what they're calling a full release "feature", removing that is f*#@ing retarded, It's really that simple, in a game where getting stuck is a matter of when not if. Especially when you remove the ability to save on the fly. No. Apologists need to get off whatever adderall they're on and realize that this is only going to hurt the game long term. No mods for the beta? fine, but the console's the only thing that made dragonborn -semi- playable on release. That's full release, not some awkwardly implemented beta. Nothing to do with "cheating", everything to do with fixing bugs that -inevitably- catch up to you. Losing an hour or so of gameplay for no damn reason at all, Adds up very quickly and interest goes down just as quickly -when- it happens, Not if.

Sure I'm annoyed that I can't use mods with the beta and I've accepted that, but the console isn't really negotiable in a Bethesda game.

Vicalliose wrote: At this point I'm thinking that for all the soapbox high-horsing, most of you shills have not actually opted-in at all. Maybe I'm wrong, but with as fact-less and stubborn as some of you are about everything it certainly sounds like you haven't.

Please pay attention and understand that Bethesda is calling the console removal a "feature" and it's absence has NOTHING to do with the beta and it does not and should not have any affect on the survival mode changes. Survival mode alters combat and adds survival mechanics, it does not even add any bugs that would be circumvented or worsened by console use. I can tell you this for certain because I'm actually playing survival mode right now.

If I were to give any proper feedback on survival mode at this point, I would say that it is far too unbalanced and broken to actually be released any time soon. Despite some other welcome changes, various things like the already unbalanced molotov spam and the new removal of manual saves makes the mode a random death fest, losing hours of exploration at a time just because you can't find a frigging bed anywhere. It's a mess.

DarthSokar wrote: Pretty much. Opted in, Same issues as you describe. "Working as intended" but without the console, It's pretty much cancer at its current state, One stuck terminal and it's gg and an excellent reason to shut the game down and go outside and have a smoke. lol.

TWillard wrote: @ Vicalliose I've opted in, been opted in. I love Beta testing as well as Alpha testing. I've always enjoyed QA testing, it's one of my favorite things.

You know, I just came up with a reason that **I** would have disabled the console, and it's so glaringly obvious I just skimmed right over it.

It's *survival* mode Beta Testing. I can't give feedback on whether or not it's too hard (the goddamn molly's) if I can just console in aid items, go to god-mode, or whatever. I need to grind it. Over and over and over. Try different ways of taking on a fight. Use different weapons and armor and different power armor configurations. Try without and with legendary.

Now, like some people, I like to do controlled testing. Say: Myself with a Tier 2 Weaponsmith assault rifle + combat chest piece and metal leg pieces and 8 stimpacks hopped up on psycho with 2 nuka-colas and 1 cherry nuka-cola VS 2 mirelurk hunters, a mirelurk queen, and 6 mirelurks in various places then try 4 BoS Knights in a squad against the same, then a Supermutant squad against both groups, etc etc etc. BUT, let's be honest, not too many people Beta, and even less do controlled experiments over and over and over to replicate the outcomes.

I admit, my feedback is long and intense, right down to (if I have the tools, depending on the game) DPS gauging, penetration values, skill values, movement locations, stuff like that.

And I'd want the console to do controlled experiments repeatedly while I would also run 5-10 different saves, outfitted differently, doing the game exactly the same. (BAT files are great for make swappable characters to run the same encounter and dynamically created world)

Removing the ability to save is NOT good for repeated experimentation, since you can't repeat the encounter over and over, especially with the dynamic generation system for the world. THAT was an idiotic move, and should have been perhaps moved into an "Iron Man Survival" level.

I'm actually thinking of opting out of this Beta, since they removed the tools to **me** to feel like I'm properly doing a Beta test to provide accurate and repeatable feedback.

Wow, I got wordy.

TL;DR: I wish it had the console feature enabled, but I understand the possible reasons for not having it enabled and why I would enable it except in certain cases.

And removing the ability to save during a Beta Test was an idiotic move.

Lordbok wrote: Yea I was thinking it was abit crap to not have my mods working but tbh you explained it very well and it makes sense. Hopefully survival mode doesn't last too long in BETA.

How dare you speak with logic!!! Get that Logic out of here!!!

With what you say, this is exactly why I am not oped into not testing this out lol. To those who are testing, have fun. I am however looking forward to the mods that bring back saving, fast travel (Even though I don't use it, except for testing purposes), using console commands (again testing purposes), and the ability to change difficulties on the fly.

[Plageron]

Typical Bethesda...sounds like they are disabling a bunch of stuff on the next patch.

 

I was with the rhetoric about the disabling only for this beta....until I realized they disabled the console system...sorry the changes have nothing to do with that system...so there is no reason to disable it...unless they plan to.

 

In addition they still have not fixed half the bugs and issues they already have which means they don't intend to.

 

In this case....I highly suggest anyone who plays the beta or the live version of this....don't get stuck on texture or your game will be ruined.

 

[rataje]

In response to post #36127135. #36127445, #36127625, #36127845, #36128375, #36128665, #36130230, #36130760, #36135625, #36137125, #36138065, #36139095, #36139110, #36139180, #36142335, #36143320, #36144985, #36145295, #36146990, #36148665, #36152660, #36156650, #36158870, #36159505, #36160235 are all replies on the same post.

xaosbob wrote: Here's the story. Fallout, like any other game of this sort of mechanical complexity, tracks thousands of shifting variables, from a twitch on your mouse changing what is on-screen to NPC detection and combat AI to the unending changes wrought simply by playing the game--the precise location of every moved, placed, or destroyed item or actor, quest stages and dialog threading, all the sounds and music, NPC interactions not involving the player, and on and on.

This game is being played on tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of differing computer builds. It would not be far from true to claim that nearly every computer running this (not the consoles, plainly) has a different architecture, from gaming monsters first powered up on November 11 to aging workhorses that are technically below the minimum specs and running it just fine (like mine).

So OF COURSE they are disabling mods and the console. The survival patch is a BETA, not a release. It is opt-in for TESTING because it is not ready for full release. Meaning that, if you want to play with mods and console access, you absolutely can--simply do not opt in to the beta. If you are not beta testing the patch, you do not get to squeak about being denied something that is rightfully yours by virtue of owning the game--it is not yours yet, because it HASN'T BEEN RELEASED. When it is, you will get it. Simple as that.

They would not be able to get any meaningful feedback if, in addition to the game's internal complexity, compounded by a functionally-limitless variety of platforms upon which it operates, their testers were also using mods from a staggering library of homebrewed, technically hacked (beautifully, in many cases) modifications that were not developed on software that Beth developed and is familiar with. They want to know how the changes affect the game itself, not all the myriad things we modders and mod-users have done to it. Mods make it impossible to tell if something is working as intended, because it adds uncountably more variables to the mix.

And finally, YES the console is disabled, because they don't want us to fix the problems we encounter--they WANT US TO TELL THEM ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WE ENCOUNTER so they can fix them! If we just fix it ourselves with a few keystrokes, we likely won't tell them about the problem, bug, or break. If we don't tell them, we are FAILING AT BETA TESTING, and we have no room to complain if they do not fix that thing we experienced but didn't tell them about. Locking out the console is simply a way to encourage diligent reporting.

BETA TEST. If you want to be a grown-up and help Bethesda do this damned update right, then be a tester and understand that it has to be done in a certain way so you can give them meaningful data. If you do not want to do that, if you just want to play, then don't choose to test systems you have no intentions of testing. When they release it, you can play it to your heart's content then, and make your summary judgments, confident and secure in the knowledge that you know so much better how things should have been done. Oh wait.

That's the point of f**king testing, innit?

Eruadur wrote: @xaosbob
Seriously dude, if THIS^ doesn't get the message across then nothing will....

I salute you sir for exactly telling it like it is.
My compliments on a story well told :)

Maybe the 4th graders in here will understand now ??
Every other whiny comment will be obsolete after reading this :)
Like : 'mwééh!! They deleted my móóóds'
( read that with an Eric Cartman voice and it's even more accurate )

RustyXXL wrote: All nice and dandy, and very well written, BUT :P

I finished All major and most of the minor content (including Automatron) at least 3-5 times, a lot of it even more, up to 8 times. The only thing keeping me interested in the game is modding and content(!) DLCs. Take away modding and this game is dead for me, as is the beta. A survival mode alone doesn't offer enough "new" for me to play the game again. On the other hand I'd really like to test the survival mode. In general I did enjoy siomilar gameplay (i.e. FNV and Skyrim with RND and Frostfall), and I might have been able to give at least some feedback about Elements I do or don't enjoy.
Well, anyway, I got more than enough gameplay for my money one way or another, so I'll just wait and see until it moves out of beta, and either the game keeps alive for me or it won't.
I'm not complaining either, as I said, I got my moneys worth, and I don't need to clinge to any game, just sharing my opinion. ;)

Eruadur wrote: @rustxxl

Just one thing :
Seems like everyone forgot about the fact that mods aren't officially supported yet?
Not until the GECK or CK is out? Is the CK out? Hmmm? No it is not.

Then again mate: go play with those mods man! I do too!
Just don't opt in on the survival beta man! Really ...!

Really, it's all so simple when you stop and think about it :)

RustyXXL wrote: Mods not being officially supported doesn't change the fact that the game (and with that the beta of the Survival mode) would be dead for me (and probably a lot of other ppl) without mods at the current time, probably at least until Far Harbour comes out, and with that the need of testing a survival mode is simply not existant. And as I said, I didn't opt in to the beta as well, and I'm not complaining about it either. All I'm saying is, that I would like to test it, if there was a way to add at least some mods, and that I could then give feedback about elements I do like or dislike about the New Survival mode. Anyway...I'm outta here, back to building my Settlement and discovering all the new names my settlers got....seriously....such a simple addition, and I already care more about my settlers than ever before....^^

digitaltrucker wrote: I've heard this story before, but would someone PLEASE explain just how the theory works in actual practice? This is a single-player game. AFAIK, the only online component is the pip-boy app. So, there should be no way for Bethesda to gather data without players actually telling them something is broken...which we would do whether the console and mods are enabled or not. The notion that running mods or using the console somehow cuts Bethesda out of the information loop is just plain silly; all you have to do is look at the the forums here, on Steam, and on Bethesda's own forum to see constant bug reports. That's been the case for every game they've ever made.

The only way the argument makes any sense whatsoever would be if all the testing was being done in a closed environment. This is a public beta, your argument has no merit. The fact that mods themselves have been actively disabled by the game since the very first update (and sorta 'hidden' at launch) also invalidates the above well-worn apologizing.

Mitsurugi2424 wrote: I only use console for debugging, and occasionally to take a really cool screenshot. I don't need God mode, or to spawn a mountain of caps and food in my Inventory, but I do need to toggle collisions at times to get unstuck, use the moveto command when my companion decides to sit on a roof even after being dismissed and sent home and 3 days have passed, and fix quest bugs.

Sure in my 500 hours of playing I have only had a handful of bugs. But I don't save as often as some and if I lost 5 hours of game play cause I was stuck in a chair or a quest bugged, that would be enough at this point to Mae me out the game down and move on lol.

I do use quite a few mods, and Im fine with tose being disabled. Makes more sense to me to start this beta with a fresh save anyway. But, if I can't use console to fix problems that arise, I have a serious issue. And that is why I choose to opt out lol.

Rather than cry and hate on Bethesda for this beta, I just chose to wait for the finished product. It's not the end of the world guys...

Eruadur wrote: And what you will report back to Bethesda is....? What...something you discovered building a settlement for your precious settlers??
"Yo Bethesda! Your survival mode is faulty! Was trying to build a bed to sleep in ( because it's the only way I can save the game in survival mode ) and the game won't let me build my bed man! You seriously have to fix this : I can't save !!!!11!!1!one!1"
5 hours later...
"Yo Bethesda! Fixed the damn survival yet? My character is still waiting to go to bed. He's really tired. Fix it!!!"
1 hour later...
"Good day people of Bethesda. Your survival mode works perfectly! I couldn't build a bed because I was using XXXXmod that adds new beds to my settlement. Sorry about all the commotion, I should have told you I was using a mod I guess? Hope I didn't waste too much of your precious time... Again , I'm sorry mkay?"

That's what happens if people start using beta's or unreleased updates with mods...
Not saying this ^ is you, but "people"...

:)

popcorn71 wrote: @ Eruadur
I'm curious to know exactly what you think the difference is between a bed added by a mod an a vanilla bed...

RustyXXL wrote: Sorry, I have to add this...If I was harsh I could say: Bethesda advertised FO4 as being moddable even more than before, with mods even for console. So to some of us, this might be a major point in buying Bethesda games. So Beth, you advertised modding, now deal with it...:P
Yes, dealing with incomplete/wrong bugreports sucks, no question, but that's what a QA and CS Teams are for...collecting and verifying Bugreports and relaying verified Bugreports to the developers.
Also There would be the option of built in Error-Reporting from within the beta-client, which could automatically add all relevant hard- and software infos to an bugreport, but I guess that would be to professional for Beth ;P

Edit: Just because Sarcasm is often lost...all I want to say, where's a will, there's a way. And Bethesda demonstrated there's no will in that regard. And that's their decision, and I'm okay with that, I got my moneys worth no matter where the further development of FO4 goes. Still I would have liked to participate in the Beta, but for me there's no interest without a few mods, that I personally see essential, to deal with some aspects of the game I don't enjoy.

TWillard wrote: And every Beta patch they've run that I've opted into disables the mods, but as soon as it goes live **POOF** mod support is back and my mods work. There's no evidence or pre-existing behavior that says any different so far.

You don't want mods running during a Beta, plain and simple. It's just good QA.

RustyXXL wrote: @TWillard: There's a difference between good and easy QA. Yes, disallowing mods makes QA easier, but as I said, where's a will, there's a way. There are plenty of examples of successful games that allowed mods in alpha/beta phase. A proper error-/bugreporting functionality from inside the "client" goes miles for helping with that, but there are other tools, too. Of course there are also enough examples of successful games that disallowed mods during alpha/beta testing. Both ways are possible, and Bethesda chose their way. I have to respect that decision, but I don't have to agree with it, and sometimes I even feel like vocalizing my disagreement. ;)

xaosbob wrote: Imagine cooking. You are testing a recipe for baked mashed potatoes, and you want all your far-flung internet friends to test it with you and let you know how it tastes. Let's pretend the revolutionary change you making to the potatoes is adding sour cream, chives, and a bit of garlic because for this example, nobody has done it with this specific amount of each.

One friend adds chipotle powder and hot sauce to their recipe.
One friend throws in pineapple, rice, and tea leaves.
One friend adds ketchup, because we all have that friend.
One friend cooks the potatoes on the stove top, and they add baking soda for "lift."
One friend microwaves it. That friend also adds a lot of cilantro.
One friend follows the directions exactly, but drizzles chocolate syrup over the top to eat it.
One friend uses sweet potatoes and yogurt rather than potatoes and sour cream.

The point of this was to test if the potatoes turn out the same way, and how everyone likes how they taste with this specific recipe. This is a lousy group of friends, because not one of them tested the recipe properly, so not one of them can give you the kind of feedback you needed. Might there be some interesting ideas? Yes (I have actually done the sweet potatoes and yogurt, and it's pretty good. Though use tarragon and allspice instead of chives), but that isn't what you were looking for. You wanted data about how they liked that SPECIFIC recipe...and they used everything but.

I'd get new friends.

RustyXXL wrote: @xaosbob: but in that example you could implement an automatic reporting by the kitchen, that included the details how they cooked it, and allowed you to (even automatically if you so desire) discard the bogus reports.

Edit: Yes, proper Error Reporting in Alpha/beta software is an investment, and the bigger the project, the bigger the investment. But you usually save much more in QA later...

Vicalliose wrote: Except the concern over the console being disabled is caused by the fact that they've not done that before. There is no "OF COURSE" when it comes to disabling the console because the console doesn't break anything and having it enabled will only allow people to get past bugs that were already there, survival mode does not suddenly add more rocks and broken doors/terminals for us to get stuck on. It would make more sense if they disabled the console for testing actual new content like DLC, but they never do public beta testing of DLC.

Besides, If it was related to the beta testing itself they would not have strictly disabled it in survival mode. They themselves called it a "feature" which is just frigging nonsense. Are they seriously worried about people "ruining the experience" by cheating when we were already effectively "ruining the experience" of the default game with it? It's pointless and dumb.

Personally, I specifically want to use the console so I can test what the gameplay and damage changes are like under controlled conditions, spawning enemies and such to see how combat with the various enemies has been affected. It would actually HELP with any beta testing, and I'd rather do tests with the console than spend literally hours of walking, only to get stuck on a rock/terminal/door that has absolutely nothing to do with the survival beta itself and they will never actually fix no matter how much anyone whines about it.

Not that this change will likely remain. They're not a bunch of stubborn indie devs, so odds are they'll quietly change it back and say nothing about it. That way all the shills can continue saying "we were right" when in reality Bethesda listened to feedback and don't want to openly admit they made a mistake (not like they haven't done that before). Maybe I'm wrong and they actually did disable it for testing (even though it doesn't make sense) we'll never really know and I really don't care why they change it back, so long as it gets done. Otherwise I'm not even going to bother with survival when it comes out of beta.

TWillard wrote: @ Vicalliose All right, I will agree with that. I completely forgot about controlled testing using the Glowing Sea or the Castle or just out in the random boondocks. You definitely have a point there.

Mods, I can understand.

Console commands? I can't understand that so much.

Vicalliose wrote: @TWillard

I must also admit that I am still a little pissed about mods being disabled, even if them being disabled totally makes sense. I really wish I could be using Arbitration right now, because survival mode is just going to be a crap shoot unless Bethesda finally decides to nerf the damned molotov, and I don't think they're ever going to do that. Holy f*#@ those are unfair.

YisahVasNarri wrote: In my opinion, the removal of quick-saving was just a bad move by Beth. I mean, I don't know anyone who has gone an entire play-through without having to quick-load back due to a bug.

Erenar wrote: Mods - removed so that, as with most Nexus hosted mod bugs. devs are not having to work out what caused what where.

Console - because if you can amend stuff in game, whether to get round a bug or not, you are not playing the same as player x, y and z.

Beta - testing the same base code with the same base config (barring graphics and sound) is a mammoth task... add mods and console configuration and you're fighting a losing battle.

Do you guys even realise how complicated debugging a fully versatile and moddable engine is? And then to debug additional features on top of that? And then to address whiny gamers who just do not appreciate what the dev team are giving to you... for free?

I know that sounds harsh, but imagine being a Bethdev reading these comments? Personally, I'd say "Screw you lot then" :)

DarthSokar wrote: Console is for debugging, that's not a "beta" issue, that's what they're calling a full release "feature", removing that is f*#@ing retarded, It's really that simple, in a game where getting stuck is a matter of when not if. Especially when you remove the ability to save on the fly. No. Apologists need to get off whatever adderall they're on and realize that this is only going to hurt the game long term. No mods for the beta? fine, but the console's the only thing that made dragonborn -semi- playable on release. That's full release, not some awkwardly implemented beta. Nothing to do with "cheating", everything to do with fixing bugs that -inevitably- catch up to you. Losing an hour or so of gameplay for no damn reason at all, Adds up very quickly and interest goes down just as quickly -when- it happens, Not if.

Sure I'm annoyed that I can't use mods with the beta and I've accepted that, but the console isn't really negotiable in a Bethesda game.

Vicalliose wrote: At this point I'm thinking that for all the soapbox high-horsing, most of you shills have not actually opted-in at all. Maybe I'm wrong, but with as fact-less and stubborn as some of you are about everything it certainly sounds like you haven't.

Please pay attention and understand that Bethesda is calling the console removal a "feature" and it's absence has NOTHING to do with the beta and it does not and should not have any affect on the survival mode changes. Survival mode alters combat and adds survival mechanics, it does not even add any bugs that would be circumvented or worsened by console use. I can tell you this for certain because I'm actually playing survival mode right now.

If I were to give any proper feedback on survival mode at this point, I would say that it is far too unbalanced and broken to actually be released any time soon. Despite some other welcome changes, various things like the already unbalanced molotov spam and the new removal of manual saves makes the mode a random death fest, losing hours of exploration at a time just because you can't find a frigging bed anywhere. It's a mess.

DarthSokar wrote: Pretty much. Opted in, Same issues as you describe. "Working as intended" but without the console, It's pretty much cancer at its current state, One stuck terminal and it's gg and an excellent reason to shut the game down and go outside and have a smoke. lol.

TWillard wrote: @ Vicalliose I've opted in, been opted in. I love Beta testing as well as Alpha testing. I've always enjoyed QA testing, it's one of my favorite things.

You know, I just came up with a reason that **I** would have disabled the console, and it's so glaringly obvious I just skimmed right over it.

It's *survival* mode Beta Testing. I can't give feedback on whether or not it's too hard (the goddamn molly's) if I can just console in aid items, go to god-mode, or whatever. I need to grind it. Over and over and over. Try different ways of taking on a fight. Use different weapons and armor and different power armor configurations. Try without and with legendary.

Now, like some people, I like to do controlled testing. Say: Myself with a Tier 2 Weaponsmith assault rifle + combat chest piece and metal leg pieces and 8 stimpacks hopped up on psycho with 2 nuka-colas and 1 cherry nuka-cola VS 2 mirelurk hunters, a mirelurk queen, and 6 mirelurks in various places then try 4 BoS Knights in a squad against the same, then a Supermutant squad against both groups, etc etc etc. BUT, let's be honest, not too many people Beta, and even less do controlled experiments over and over and over to replicate the outcomes.

I admit, my feedback is long and intense, right down to (if I have the tools, depending on the game) DPS gauging, penetration values, skill values, movement locations, stuff like that.

And I'd want the console to do controlled experiments repeatedly while I would also run 5-10 different saves, outfitted differently, doing the game exactly the same. (BAT files are great for make swappable characters to run the same encounter and dynamically created world)

Removing the ability to save is NOT good for repeated experimentation, since you can't repeat the encounter over and over, especially with the dynamic generation system for the world. THAT was an idiotic move, and should have been perhaps moved into an "Iron Man Survival" level.

I'm actually thinking of opting out of this Beta, since they removed the tools to **me** to feel like I'm properly doing a Beta test to provide accurate and repeatable feedback.

Wow, I got wordy.

TL;DR: I wish it had the console feature enabled, but I understand the possible reasons for not having it enabled and why I would enable it except in certain cases.

And removing the ability to save during a Beta Test was an idiotic move.

Lordbok wrote: Yea I was thinking it was abit crap to not have my mods working but tbh you explained it very well and it makes sense. Hopefully survival mode doesn't last too long in BETA.

Usiel wrote: How dare you speak with logic!!! Get that Logic out of here!!!

With what you say, this is exactly why I am not oped into not testing this out lol. To those who are testing, have fun. I am however looking forward to the mods that bring back saving, fast travel (Even though I don't use it, except for testing purposes), using console commands (again testing purposes), and the ability to change difficulties on the fly.

If her minds are not strong in these situation, then not the console is the problem.
It is her own Ego, self-assurance or self-confidence!
Very very funny here! Edited March 31, 2016 by hivKORN