Fallout 4 Survival Mode Beta

[halberdierebowman]

In response to post #36176290. #36185910, #36213820, #36214055, #36223055, #36223765, #36227355, #36230205, #36261455, #36262905, #36306185 are all replies on the same post.

Sebastianus wrote: I really like most of those changes, but I'm not going to participate in this beta.

1. Mods I have literally double the FPS count, eliminate stuttering and most other significant bugs that Bethesda never seemed to care about for a decade (only two gamebreakers I can't get rid off: hotkey switching and texture unloading).
2. Lack of fast travel is a no-go. There is a line between immersion "for fun" and utter annoyance. I'm not willing to waste 10+ minutes to get to that damned settlement, which can't defend itself with 200+ defense and 3 meter tall wall without my help.
3. Saving got gimped way too hard. This is just another annoyance, not immersion. Not to mention that since the previous patch I occassionally get completely random CTDs.

In other words, I'll wait till the "official" update and mods that deal with the unnecessary annoyance.

Snowskeeper wrote: Re: 1, Bethesda needs to be able to know, for certain, which problems are caused by the changes to the base game in Survival mode. Mods, even optimization mods, make that more difficult to verify without having access to all of your information.
Re: 2, I haven't fast-travelled in Fallout 4 as of yet. It's a small map, relatively speaking, and there's enough going on in it that I never felt bored during my wanderings. That said, I also usually have an audiobook or podcast on in the background, so that's probably making me a little more tolerant of it.
I don't know what you mean about save gimping. I'll have to find a more complete version of the change log.

EDIT: Yeah, save gimping is bad; hopefully they change that.

Sebastianus wrote: I'm not stupid.
I can see the reason behind disabling mods in a beta update, but that's also a major reason I'm not willing to get it.
Plus, they are still to clean up after their last stunt with mod tampering, so I'm not holding my breath here.
On the other hand so far all "beta" updates went "official" without any changes.

The map is cramped to the point navigating it (which doesn't have a "search" function) is terribadly awful.
Finding anything in the Boston's "downtown" is pretty much impossible without comparing Pipboy with a location's image from the wikia.
Plus there is literally nothing worth of value, except for XP for re-visiting places and killing the same enemies over and over again.

jbMnemonic wrote: Hear, hear !!! - I second your opinion - Bethesda, please take note. I can still only play in Power armour as my pipboy is disabled despite having tried every single post's solution available everywhere, more than once, in fact 10's of times. :(:(:(

Scynix wrote: What was the point of this post? Who cares why you aren't going to use it?

I like both of the things you don't like.

Disabling fast travel gives alternate travel methods like the vertibird signal an actual purpose.

Forcing saves to be at static sleep locations forces players to be more careful about decisions, which in turn makes the speech checks more legitimate. If I fail a speech check I have to reload all the way back at whatever bed I was at last time if I want to try again.

See what I did there? I listed reasons its good. Does anyone care? No. :D

Vicalliose wrote: So basically you're saying that you don't want to be allowed to save scum because you cannot trust yourself not to do it? That's your problem, stop projecting your issues onto everyone else. You can also actively make the decision not to fast travel, why take it away from other people? Because you can't trust yourself not to use it either?

Also don't even bring up vertibirds as a good alternative to fast travel, that suggests that the player would only ever side with the brotherhood, and with as limited as players decisions already are in Fallout 4, basically FORCING you to choose the same side just to get a major benefit is just stupidly limiting.

Do you even understand that the survival mode is not just about locking you out of saves and fast traveling? There's features in there that many people have wanted for long time without ever wanting limited save and travel, things that the very poster you are replying to said they like. Do you lack the ability to understand that other people think differently about what makes a survival mode fun?

Scynix wrote: Uhm vicalliose..... have you even played the game completely to finish? The Brotherhood aren't the only people who get access to the vertibird as a form of transport.....

I was gonna respond to the rest of your droning, but as soon as I saw you hadn't actually -played the game- I kinda gave up. Sorry.

Vicalliose wrote: @Scynix
Now that you mention it, despite having over 560 hours in the game, no I never really noticed that the other factions allow you to use vertibirds after destroying the brotherhood (or I just completely forgot).

That is my own fault, and I apologize for that. Perhaps it's because I only bothered siding with the other factions up until after the end of the main quest and then just loaded my old save and went back to building settlements, or maybe it's just because I personally never even used them more than once. I admit I'm not much of a completionist.

Again, it's my own fault for being dumb enough to miss something like that and I apologize.

Sebastianus wrote: @ Scynix

"What's the point of this post?" is such a proper question here.

You see, I voiced my opinion concerning the matter at hand. It's just that.

Now now. Actually I've seen some of your posts in this comment section and I'm not surprised one bit.
What your post is about is berating me, saying "who cares about you".
You, obviously, care hard enough to come here to read comments and be an ass to people.
An ass with ego. That's you. Nothing more.

Plus your reasons for why it's a good change are only "good" if you have problems with yourself.
My are good all around, because they are related to technical difficulties, which for the most part are the developer's fault, not the player's.

Hell, using Vertibird for transportation? Since I installed Automatron, I can't even sprint between locations, because the game occasionally refuses to keep up with loading and first disables sprinting then hangs up completely.

Pluupy wrote: The gunners have their own vertibird(s), if I recall correctly.

Vicalliose wrote: @Sebastianus

Speaking of Automatron, I sure as hell hope they fixed Ada bugging out at the Mechanist's doors in the beta or I'm gonna have to redo that place potentially countless times without the console to clip through them.

Heads up that I've heard the pipboy app allows you to fast travel still. If that's the case, it's trivial for most people to avoid issue #2 by using their phone, although of course the other two issues still remain.

[Snowskeeper]

In response to post #36304110.

bubinga64 wrote: Finally tried survival mode. They need to implement a timescale slider if they are not allowing access to the console. It's just silly that every 10 minutes it's night time again. It would also be nice if they had a built in "darker nights" mode for survival. It's tough determining time when an hour goes by in a minute or so and it looks just as dark at 8pm as it does at 3am.

they need to dial down the food needs, or make the time scale slider. It takes everything you have found to just be "fed". Haven't been able to kill a raider yet, but died twice. I'm trying it on a new character and just getting some armor is pretty rough. I'm sure it will get easier. The timescale is my biggest gripe.

Mods and console access are disabled because Survival Mode is in beta, and they want feedback to be as pure as possible--not based on gameplay as defined by mods or use of console commands. So the console will probably be available in the final release, is what I'm saying.

[Snowskeeper]

In response to post #36297220. #36298815, #36299420, #36303765, #36306040 are all replies on the same post.

Ethreon wrote:

 

 

 

In response to post #36250120. #36250875, #36253370, #36253890, #36255175, #36255675, #36255830, #36257015, #36257275, #36257890, #36257990, #36258140, #36258155, #36258325, #36258815, #36259625, #36263630, #36264205, #36273425, #36284645, #36285325, #36285380 are all replies on the same post.

Beantins wrote: Really looking forward to the new survival mode - but not the in-bed save system. So if I'm wandering the commonwealth and find a behemoth I need to leave and find a bed then walk back before taking it on or risk dying and losing a lot of progress??

I appreciate what they're trying to do but the glitches, bugs and irreversible player errors are too frequent for a checkpoint style of game-play.

I hope the Nexus community are able to come up with a workaround better than just a droppable bedroll, because real life happens and it's not always convenient to find a bed when you need to stop playing.

printerkop wrote: Exactly, don't take it on if you haven't slept shortly before, or you'll have to do everything again.

I had to replay an hour cause my game crashed, then i had to replay an hour because i stumbled on a brahmin with 5 mines around it, bethesda's little joke on us.

Don't worry, when the Creation kit is released these issues will certainly be adressed.

EDIT: the FOTM list has a mod that let you save now.

Beantins wrote: Case in point, just had a power cut! Hadn't seen a bed since I left my settlement over an hour ago. If you're in the countryside you're screwed haha.

I can see how it would ramp up the tension but the frustration wouldn't make it worth it in my opinion.

Like I said I'm looking forward to the other changes just not that one. Also I hope the console being disabled will only apply to the beta?

Baboo77 wrote: Last night I was taking the castle, I had avoided most of the fights on the way too the castle so my save was an annoying distance away, not super far but still a tedious run back when having to do it repetitively.
I set up a firing line and proceeded to lure the mirelurks out. Well, the stupid effin minutemen kept throwing their unlimited supply of molotov coctails at me instead of the mirelurks. I know it's unlimited cause I pick pocketed them empty on the 3rd try and they still had more to throw and I know it was at me they were throwing cause on the second try I was standing behind them and one turned around and chucked a bottle at me. After the 4th run back to the castle was quite annoyed by this so I got crafty. With some painstaking agro control and precise sprinting burst and a ton of chems to keep me alive I managed to get the minutemen killed by mirelurks and their own molotov coctails before proceeding to take the castle alone with Garvey.

Yeah, save on demand is pretty much a must in a game like this.

Castornebula wrote: I do hope the no save thing is as simple as changing a variable in FO4Edit or whatever they use now because I'd like to try this, but no way can I tolerate this save point idea.

It worries me that Bethesda are so blithely ignorant about how their game works, and the inherent instability of their own engine. At any moment I can get kicked to the desktop, not even an error message. The game will just randomly die.
The worst part about this is that the highest occurence of these CTDs happens when I approach settlements... otherwise known as PLACES WITH BEDS. Essentially guaranteeing I will lose the most amount of playtime in any given crash.

I could never play this game without saving on demand and that's all there is to it.

Scynix wrote: If your crashing was symptomatic across all players, yeah, they'd be stupid. I don't crash. Ever. Unless I install a ton of mods. I can name ten people who haven't crashed once. Maybe you should troubleshoot your computer?

Castornebula wrote: What a stupid thing to say. You don't crash therefore it's okay?
I crash, sometimes. Not always, but enough that saving on demand is better for peace of mind. Plenty of people have problems crashing and always have with Fallout 4, with Skyrim, with all the other Bethesda games running this engine. Mods or no mods.

Case in point: I've never had a single glitch, crash or performance issue with XCOM 2. But I'm not going to sit here and smugly blame other people's computers for the problems they've had to the point XCOM 2 is semi-notorious for it.

Czujny1982 wrote: So, you crash therefore something it's wrong with the game, yes? What a stupid way to think. And if you dont like no save on demand system, don't play survival mode. Simple.

Castornebula wrote: Something has always been wrong with this engine. It's never been known for it's stability. That's a simple fact. Try to actually read what I say before responding.

And let me explain this to you very simply. I want the features of survival mode. Just not this ridiculous save point system. It is nothing but an albatross around the entire mode's neck that is impractical for a myriad of reasons, the potential for crashing being merely one example.

Czujny1982 wrote: New save system is not ridiculous, it's more immersive.

Castornebula wrote: How the hell is it more immersive? Because you say so? Making a bed a save point is immersive? How?
Better yet, if you like it why can't it be an option? Why must this and the console disabling be imposed on all of us along with the features we actually want?

Hey I tell you what's immersive. No saving at all! Not even to quit. So you have to leave the game running. And if you die just once not only is your character erased but Fallout 4 is automatically uninstalled and removed from your Steam account.
How's that for immersive?

Baboo77 wrote:

So, you crash therefore something it's wrong with the game, yes? What a stupid way to think. And if you dont like no save on demand system, don't play survival mode. Simple.

So, deprive yourself of everything else survival mode has to offer because of a dumb save mechanic that doesn't need to be? What a stupid way to think.

How about toggles for save, console, and travel to provide everybody with the play experience they desire? Those looking for a real challenge can just exercise some will power and not turn those options on. Simple.

This isn't a MMO, multiplayer, or competitive game. It's a single player sandbox rpg, people should have the ability to customize their game to the way they like to play.

dikr wrote: Portable bed roll mods are a nice, realistic workaround to me. Being able to save anywhere, anytime to reload and retry indefinitely is in fact a big immersion breaker; the whole point of the survival mode is to create a much more exciting experience with incentives to be much more careful than you'd normally play the game.

Personally I'm for a survival mode with custom options. Where the base 'mode' determines the new difficulty settings + the realistic needs & diseases and the following options:

[x] survival mode

Fast travel preferences:
[ ] fast travel enabled
[x] fast travel only between settlements with supply routes (my pick!)
[ ] fast travel disabled

Saving preferences:

[ ] saving enabled
[x] saving only at beds, settlements & friendly towns
[ ] saving only at beds

Happy to say that the engine-gods are with me on this one though: bought a new system for this game and haven't ctd'd a single time yet.

Castornebula wrote: I would suggest that you exercise some self-control with regards to saving and reloading.
I know I can, and would use saves for peace of mind against crashes, glitches and needing to suddenly leave the game.

And I can't think of anything more unimmersive than using beds as savepoints, even with portable bedrolls. My character does not have narcolepsy.

Granted, options to tweak these "features" would be the best outcome for everybody. Hopefully if Bethesda stubbornly refuse to do so, modders will pick up their slack... as they always do.

printerkop wrote: It's immersively ridiculous.

Czujny1982 wrote: "Being able to save anywhere, anytime to reload and retry indefinitely is in fact a big immersion breaker; the whole point of the survival mode is to create a much more exciting experience with incentives to be much more careful than you'd normally play the game"

basically this...

but i already see that you are too much ignorant to understand this, Castor...

printerkop wrote: so if anyone doesn't agree with your point of view, he's ignorant ?
Think again, and again, till you get it right.

MagnaBob wrote: Remember Far Cry 2?

ShuraShmura wrote: I had an issue like that. It's might related to some .dll files that are missing or corrupted. Updating windows and your graphic card driver eventually will solve your problem. What you also can try is to very your game files.

Beantins wrote: Regarding immersiveness - the in-bed saving is not. The rest of survival mode is.
Dying and coming back to life is a game only concept anyway!
It will affect behavior in unnatural ways. Yes you might fear death a bit more but when death occurs instead of trying again from a point you chose yourself you have to go back to the last bed you were at. If there is something dangerous to do you will be forced to find a bed first then travel back from there.

Checkpoints work well in first person shooters that are well designed with only one path to follow, but not in an open world rpg.

Don't give me that rubbish about 'if you don't like it don't play it'. I do like the changes but not the saving system and I hope that it can be addressed by the modding community.

jbtheclown wrote: I modded in a sleeping bag (don't bother me about ruining the beta its a freakin sleeping bag ) and it works perfectly for me. I still only save rarely as im a fan of the concept but it makes things a lot simpler. Anyways after being in it so long my strategy has been a lot better. Set up safe houses and it works great, until the ck is out and we can customize it to our liking.

jbtheclown wrote: I crash maybe once every 2 weeks and that was because I had a bunch of mods on

You know about Dark Souls? Or, for example, DayZ? Or any game with permadeath? Fear of death makes things a lot more fun. I used to just run through hordes of enemies with my shotgun, now I have to use tactics and think twice before I even pull the trigger. For me saving at beds is just a nice game mechanic. For others it might be a pain in the arse. Mods are definitely going to help with this stuff.

 

 

 

Nope. It only does it for certain people, while certain other people see it as a bad thing and a hassle. I don't enjoy knowing that I can lose hours of playthrough in one second just because I don't have a quick way to save. You like it? Very neat, feel free to keep it. I don't like it and would enjoy having an MCM-like menu where I can customize the settings of the survival mode. I don't expect there to be any, but I can dream.

Brandy_123 wrote: Why don't they fix survival in the game by making your settlers actually defend the place in your absence. Over 400 defense and you still get complaints about 3 ghouls or a single green skin. Yes, there are synth implants. According to the institute, they want a seamless integration. Why does it matter if settlers are synth? They generate a random NON-institute encounter, so it should not matter at all.

Instead, we get more "add on" that will make your sanctuaries less and less a place you want to have a settlement, much less having a settler.

"Excuse me General, After you get over your Diphtheria, Hepatitis, Listeria and Gastroenteritis, go heal your Compound Fractured Tibia and Hip Dysplasia. There's a settlement, completely surrounded by a 10 meter tall concrete wall, with 200 turrets and 25 armed out settlers, that needs your help. It seems there's a ghoul, that lives across the map from them, that needs to be taken care of. I would do it myself, but I'm VERY busy walking in a circle around Sanctuary looking important. You should go find a bed so you can save this game or we may have this conversation again in 3 hours"

mwhenry16 wrote: Lol, spot on my friend, spot on!

printerkop wrote: ROFL !

Vicalliose wrote: @Brandy_123
Pretty much this.

The real problems I see with the mode are actually problems from the default game that are just exacerbated by all the new survival elements. Also that none of the new elements have an affect on anyone else, including all settlers and companions. The only added difficulty I've really had with companions is that they refuse to get their asses up until you jam a stimpak into them, which is probably the best use for stimpaks considering the things practically kill you but have no side-effects for anyone else.

Also, every time I hear someone mention Dark Souls when talking about a Fallout game, I just cringe. Comparing Fallout to any game that actually was properly designed around high difficulty or survival is just stupid.

(Also: Dark Souls doesn't have permadeath. In fact, you don't lose any progress if you die--just your currency.) Edited April 4, 2016 by Snowskeeper

[Snowskeeper]

In response to post #36264185. #36272420, #36280400, #36281620, #36294745, #36295480 are all replies on the same post.

MagnaBob wrote: I have zero interest in survival mode. When it alphas all our systems via Steam, are we going to have disable it somehow or will it be an opt-in type option? (I eagerly await the Wasteland Workshop.)

Eruadur wrote: Seriously....?

ApolloUp wrote: It's a legit question... No need to be prickly, just answer it.

Starke wrote: It's an optional difficulty mode.

That said, I've got no idea if this new mod lockdown is just a function of them trying to keep the beta clean or a sign of things to come.

Eruadur wrote: @ApolloUp

I'm not obligated to answer stupid questions.

popcorn71 wrote: What...? Why are you posting a commenting saying that you won't answer the question? Why not just ignore it and move on? There is no point being nasty about it.

Bob, as stated--repeatedly--in the above post, Survival Mode is an optional game-mode, which is currently in beta. If you have not opted into betas via the Properties menu on Steam, you will not have access to Survival Mode at all until it is completed and released. Not sure what the Wasteland Workshop has to do with anything.

[nickuhjonez]

In response to post #36303080.

IEXDEATHI wrote: I kinda like the bed saving it reminds me of the jrpg save point days of my youth, still would like a portable bed roll or something to use when enemies arent around and maybe get ambushed if in wasteland and enemies ARE around while sleeping..
Fast traveling isnt a big deal either as it only really takes 10 mins to cross the map end to end. Besides it gives a reason to use other methods and who knows maybe theyll add vehicles other than vert

I can imagine waking up and reading a notification: "You were robbed while you slept. Your belongings were taken to a nearby raider camp."
better keep a guard dog :3

[wmcook32]

According to the moderator staff over on Bethesda.net community forums the console being disabled is currently set as a Feature of the new Survival Mode. It works in other difficulties just not in the new Survival Mode.

 

Concerning the mods, they also have adamantly stated that mods were NOT disabled. That the majority of the esm and esp mods will not be compatible with the new coding in the 1.5 patch which is what is in beta. I have a thread specifically asking then that if mods aren't disabled then what are we missing to is keeping them from being recognized.

 

My suspicion is that the GECK will add flags or scripts upon saving/exporting of a new mod.

[Eruadur]

In response to post #36264185. #36272420, #36280400, #36281620, #36294745, #36295480, #36307360, #36340025, #36344490, #36347635, #36348020, #36368590, #36372830, #36372990, #36373850, #36382245, #36384055, #36384285 are all replies on the same post.

MagnaBob wrote: I have zero interest in survival mode. When it alphas all our systems via Steam, are we going to have disable it somehow or will it be an opt-in type option? (I eagerly await the Wasteland Workshop.)

Eruadur wrote: Seriously....?

ApolloUp wrote: It's a legit question... No need to be prickly, just answer it.

Starke wrote: It's an optional difficulty mode.

That said, I've got no idea if this new mod lockdown is just a function of them trying to keep the beta clean or a sign of things to come.

Eruadur wrote: @ApolloUp

I'm not obligated to answer stupid questions.

popcorn71 wrote: What...? Why are you posting a commenting saying that you won't answer the question? Why not just ignore it and move on? There is no point being nasty about it.

Snowskeeper wrote: Bob, as stated--repeatedly--in the above post, Survival Mode is an optional game-mode, which is currently in beta. If you have not opted into betas via the Properties menu on Steam, you will not have access to Survival Mode at all until it is completed and released. Not sure what the Wasteland Workshop has to do with anything.

MokChaoticran wrote: This isn't a democratic nation it's a website. Flaunting your "freedom of speech" is useless and saying that you can say something just because it's legally allowed doesn't make it either valid or worthwhile. Your comment was neither, by the way. You're being belligerent.

Eruadur wrote: Like I care ?
:)

jbMnemonic wrote: My "Beta" setting was automatically changed by steam to not opt in for the survival beta. Thanks steam, you saved me a lot of trouble.

I wish anyway that gamebreaking exercises like this is not released as "Betas" as it is not, it is "Alpha" at best.

EbokianKnight wrote: ... Its definitely Beta. An Alpha test is an in-house test, non-public. Beta test means it worked enough that they need to extend their data set. Also you will always default to opt out with steam unless you actively opt in, and you can just opt out if you try it and get tired of it. There's nothing weird about this, and certainly nothing invasive. Bethesda didn't disable mods for everyone, just those in the test, which is reasonable. So there is nothing to support the idea that they're going to "turn off your mods" when the system is actually launched. Relax.

Obituary wrote: What everybody fails to mention is that while it is an optional difficulty mode, you probably will be forced to use Very Hard max if you don't want anything the new Survival difficulty brings.

popcorn71 wrote: If you don't want every thing that comes in the survival mode package then just wait for the geck to be released and mod in the features you like. The greatest feature of any (modern) Bethesda games is not the game its self, but the ability to tweak it the way you see fit.

Kronos7714 wrote: Yeah, I believe the question was more like, "Do you have to use the new Survival Mode versus the old Survival Mode, or are you forced to use the new Survival Mode, period?".

I am also interested in the answer to this.

Also, Eruadur, it's not a "stupid question", if you can understand the English language.
You also appear quite child-like, with your "Like I care?", and "I say what I want" nonsense.

I literally haven't heard, or seen, the phrase, "Like I care?", since I was probably.. 14 or so.

popcorn71 wrote: Supposedly the new survival mod will remain optional. No idea about the old survival mode though. Not that it will matter once the geck comes out. There will be plenty of overhaul mods for the hard core gamer out there and in my opinion that exactly the way it should be. Bethesda should have never gated the new hunger/thirst/sleep mechanics behind higher difficultly setting.

Options, Beth, Options. Ditch the current 'difficultly' settings and just change it to a 'damage' setting then make the hunger/thirst/sleep/save-on-sleep mechanics have there own options.

Crimsonhawk87 wrote: One word popcorn....consoles! I have a feeling that this update was made as it was for the console versions, as they will probably not have access to the sheer amount of mods that are/will be available to the PC modding community (pure speculation, mind you, but I'm willing to bet that this is the case). Most likely quite a few of these "issues" that people are having will be modded by the community post-GECK.

Eruadur wrote: @Kronos7714

I can read and understand English ( not my native language but still ).

Though I really think you are trying to read more into his question than what is really there...
And all because it's exactly the same thing you wanted to ask....
Very convenient isn't it?

But seriously: I couldn't care less about when you heard that phrase for the last time.
:)

Eruadur wrote: @Kronos7714 :2

Ok, read this then ....
"I have zero interest in survival mode."

Here he states he doesn't want to use survival mode... Not "a survival mode" but "survival mode" he doesn't want options he just doesn't want survival mode.

"When it alphas all our systems via Steam, are we going to have disable it somehow or will it be an opt-in type option?"

What's 'stupid' about that question is that you are free to choose your own difficulty.
And as he clearly stated before he doesn't want 'survival' mode anyway....so why ask a stupid question about if something can be avoided if you have a choice of selecting it yourself or skipping it altogether ?

Now leave me alone :)

@popcorn71

I was simply conmenting on someone who thinks he can tell me what to say or what to do.
Just like you are doing right now ....

It's called freedom of speech. As long as I don't break any of Nexus' rule I can comment on any post directed at me or answer ( or not ) any question as I see fit.
And there's nothing you can do about it popcorn71.

I suggest you ignore people's posts in here because commenting on other people seems to make you irritable....?
:) Edited April 6, 2016 by Eruadur

[Jakejpeat]

In response to post #36250120. #36250875, #36253370, #36253890, #36255175, #36255675, #36255830, #36257015, #36257275, #36257890, #36257990, #36258140, #36258155, #36258325, #36258815, #36259625, #36263630, #36264205, #36273425, #36284645, #36285325, #36285380, #36296785 are all replies on the same post.

Beantins wrote: Really looking forward to the new survival mode - but not the in-bed save system. So if I'm wandering the commonwealth and find a behemoth I need to leave and find a bed then walk back before taking it on or risk dying and losing a lot of progress??

I appreciate what they're trying to do but the glitches, bugs and irreversible player errors are too frequent for a checkpoint style of game-play.

I hope the Nexus community are able to come up with a workaround better than just a droppable bedroll, because real life happens and it's not always convenient to find a bed when you need to stop playing.

printerkop wrote: Exactly, don't take it on if you haven't slept shortly before, or you'll have to do everything again.

I had to replay an hour cause my game crashed, then i had to replay an hour because i stumbled on a brahmin with 5 mines around it, bethesda's little joke on us.

Don't worry, when the Creation kit is released these issues will certainly be adressed.

EDIT: the FOTM list has a mod that let you save now.

Beantins wrote: Case in point, just had a power cut! Hadn't seen a bed since I left my settlement over an hour ago. If you're in the countryside you're screwed haha.

I can see how it would ramp up the tension but the frustration wouldn't make it worth it in my opinion.

Like I said I'm looking forward to the other changes just not that one. Also I hope the console being disabled will only apply to the beta?

Baboo77 wrote: Last night I was taking the castle, I had avoided most of the fights on the way too the castle so my save was an annoying distance away, not super far but still a tedious run back when having to do it repetitively.
I set up a firing line and proceeded to lure the mirelurks out. Well, the stupid effin minutemen kept throwing their unlimited supply of molotov coctails at me instead of the mirelurks. I know it's unlimited cause I pick pocketed them empty on the 3rd try and they still had more to throw and I know it was at me they were throwing cause on the second try I was standing behind them and one turned around and chucked a bottle at me. After the 4th run back to the castle was quite annoyed by this so I got crafty. With some painstaking agro control and precise sprinting burst and a ton of chems to keep me alive I managed to get the minutemen killed by mirelurks and their own molotov coctails before proceeding to take the castle alone with Garvey.

Yeah, save on demand is pretty much a must in a game like this.

Castornebula wrote: I do hope the no save thing is as simple as changing a variable in FO4Edit or whatever they use now because I'd like to try this, but no way can I tolerate this save point idea.

It worries me that Bethesda are so blithely ignorant about how their game works, and the inherent instability of their own engine. At any moment I can get kicked to the desktop, not even an error message. The game will just randomly die.
The worst part about this is that the highest occurence of these CTDs happens when I approach settlements... otherwise known as PLACES WITH BEDS. Essentially guaranteeing I will lose the most amount of playtime in any given crash.

I could never play this game without saving on demand and that's all there is to it.

Scynix wrote: If your crashing was symptomatic across all players, yeah, they'd be stupid. I don't crash. Ever. Unless I install a ton of mods. I can name ten people who haven't crashed once. Maybe you should troubleshoot your computer?

Castornebula wrote: What a stupid thing to say. You don't crash therefore it's okay?
I crash, sometimes. Not always, but enough that saving on demand is better for peace of mind. Plenty of people have problems crashing and always have with Fallout 4, with Skyrim, with all the other Bethesda games running this engine. Mods or no mods.

Case in point: I've never had a single glitch, crash or performance issue with XCOM 2. But I'm not going to sit here and smugly blame other people's computers for the problems they've had to the point XCOM 2 is semi-notorious for it.

Czujny1982 wrote: So, you crash therefore something it's wrong with the game, yes? What a stupid way to think. And if you dont like no save on demand system, don't play survival mode. Simple.

Castornebula wrote: Something has always been wrong with this engine. It's never been known for it's stability. That's a simple fact. Try to actually read what I say before responding.

And let me explain this to you very simply. I want the features of survival mode. Just not this ridiculous save point system. It is nothing but an albatross around the entire mode's neck that is impractical for a myriad of reasons, the potential for crashing being merely one example.

Czujny1982 wrote: New save system is not ridiculous, it's more immersive.

Castornebula wrote: How the hell is it more immersive? Because you say so? Making a bed a save point is immersive? How?
Better yet, if you like it why can't it be an option? Why must this and the console disabling be imposed on all of us along with the features we actually want?

Hey I tell you what's immersive. No saving at all! Not even to quit. So you have to leave the game running. And if you die just once not only is your character erased but Fallout 4 is automatically uninstalled and removed from your Steam account.
How's that for immersive?

Baboo77 wrote:

So, you crash therefore something it's wrong with the game, yes? What a stupid way to think. And if you dont like no save on demand system, don't play survival mode. Simple.

So, deprive yourself of everything else survival mode has to offer because of a dumb save mechanic that doesn't need to be? What a stupid way to think.

How about toggles for save, console, and travel to provide everybody with the play experience they desire? Those looking for a real challenge can just exercise some will power and not turn those options on. Simple.

This isn't a MMO, multiplayer, or competitive game. It's a single player sandbox rpg, people should have the ability to customize their game to the way they like to play.

dikr wrote: Portable bed roll mods are a nice, realistic workaround to me. Being able to save anywhere, anytime to reload and retry indefinitely is in fact a big immersion breaker; the whole point of the survival mode is to create a much more exciting experience with incentives to be much more careful than you'd normally play the game.

Personally I'm for a survival mode with custom options. Where the base 'mode' determines the new difficulty settings + the realistic needs & diseases and the following options:

[x] survival mode

Fast travel preferences:
[ ] fast travel enabled
[x] fast travel only between settlements with supply routes (my pick!)
[ ] fast travel disabled

Saving preferences:

[ ] saving enabled
[x] saving only at beds, settlements & friendly towns
[ ] saving only at beds

Happy to say that the engine-gods are with me on this one though: bought a new system for this game and haven't ctd'd a single time yet.

Castornebula wrote: I would suggest that you exercise some self-control with regards to saving and reloading.
I know I can, and would use saves for peace of mind against crashes, glitches and needing to suddenly leave the game.

And I can't think of anything more unimmersive than using beds as savepoints, even with portable bedrolls. My character does not have narcolepsy.

Granted, options to tweak these "features" would be the best outcome for everybody. Hopefully if Bethesda stubbornly refuse to do so, modders will pick up their slack... as they always do.

printerkop wrote: It's immersively ridiculous.

Czujny1982 wrote: "Being able to save anywhere, anytime to reload and retry indefinitely is in fact a big immersion breaker; the whole point of the survival mode is to create a much more exciting experience with incentives to be much more careful than you'd normally play the game"

basically this...

but i already see that you are too much ignorant to understand this, Castor...

printerkop wrote: so if anyone doesn't agree with your point of view, he's ignorant ?
Think again, and again, till you get it right.

MagnaBob wrote: Remember Far Cry 2?

ShuraShmura wrote: I had an issue like that. It's might related to some .dll files that are missing or corrupted. Updating windows and your graphic card driver eventually will solve your problem. What you also can try is to very your game files.

Beantins wrote: Regarding immersiveness - the in-bed saving is not. The rest of survival mode is.
Dying and coming back to life is a game only concept anyway!
It will affect behavior in unnatural ways. Yes you might fear death a bit more but when death occurs instead of trying again from a point you chose yourself you have to go back to the last bed you were at. If there is something dangerous to do you will be forced to find a bed first then travel back from there.

Checkpoints work well in first person shooters that are well designed with only one path to follow, but not in an open world rpg.

Don't give me that rubbish about 'if you don't like it don't play it'. I do like the changes but not the saving system and I hope that it can be addressed by the modding community.

jbtheclown wrote: I modded in a sleeping bag (don't bother me about ruining the beta its a freakin sleeping bag ) and it works perfectly for me. I still only save rarely as im a fan of the concept but it makes things a lot simpler. Anyways after being in it so long my strategy has been a lot better. Set up safe houses and it works great, until the ck is out and we can customize it to our liking.

jbtheclown wrote: I crash maybe once every 2 weeks and that was because I had a bunch of mods on

SternbergMD wrote: You know about Dark Souls? Or, for example, DayZ? Or any game with permadeath? Fear of death makes things a lot more fun. I used to just run through hordes of enemies with my shotgun, now I have to use tactics and think twice before I even pull the trigger. For me saving at beds is just a nice game mechanic. For others it might be a pain in the arse. Mods are definitely going to help with this stuff.

I agree that the save in bed system should be optional for survival mode. There have been countless cases of players crashing (typical of Bethesda programming), as well as corrupted files, glitches ect forcing players to return to a previous save. For a Bethesda game, a system where you can save at will is completely necessary.
This is not even to mention the fact that mods will only make the game more likely to experience issues. Does this mean that in order to enjoy all that survival has to offer, we must deprive ourselves of all that mods have to offer?
To those who argue that it makes the game more exciting, I would argue a save-in-bed system is a pretty cheap way of producing tension. Games like STALKER were incredibly intense on the hardest difficulties, but still allowed saving anywhere. What made the game intense was the atmosphere and gameplay rather than the fear of losing hours of progress upon death. This is something that Bethesda should be trying to achieve with the new game mode.
Hopefully, the feature will be toggle-able, to allow people who want it to use it, without depriving others of the survival experience.

[Deleted7103646User]

In response to post #36304110. #36307120 is also a reply to the same post.

bubinga64 wrote: Finally tried survival mode. They need to implement a timescale slider if they are not allowing access to the console. It's just silly that every 10 minutes it's night time again. It would also be nice if they had a built in "darker nights" mode for survival. It's tough determining time when an hour goes by in a minute or so and it looks just as dark at 8pm as it does at 3am.

they need to dial down the food needs, or make the time scale slider. It takes everything you have found to just be "fed". Haven't been able to kill a raider yet, but died twice. I'm trying it on a new character and just getting some armor is pretty rough. I'm sure it will get easier. The timescale is my biggest gripe.

Snowskeeper wrote: Mods and console access are disabled because Survival Mode is in beta, and they want feedback to be as pure as possible--not based on gameplay as defined by mods or use of console commands. So the console will probably be available in the final release, is what I'm saying.

he wasn't talking about mods snowskeeper, you should respond to what someone writes instead of respond to what he wrote triggers in your head. You seem to be stuck in a loop to repeat yourself over and over about the Survival mode being a BETA instead of actually reacting to what people say.

I agree with the timescale thing, time flies by so fast that hydration and the need to eat become ridiculous.
Also when using any drug you need to drink like 4 bottles of water, so if you take 2 stimpacks to heal your limbs and a psychojet to kill the deathclaw you need to drink 12 bottles of water.

I have been taking loads of drugs when i was younger, but i never had to drink 32 liters of water everyday.
If i would have done that i would have died from water poisoning, even worse then taking drugs. Edited April 4, 2016 by Guest

[Deleted7103646User]

In response to post #36309660.

wmcook32 wrote: According to the moderator staff over on Bethesda.net community forums the console being disabled is currently set as a Feature of the new Survival Mode. It works in other difficulties just not in the new Survival Mode.

Concerning the mods, they also have adamantly stated that mods were NOT disabled. That the majority of the esm and esp mods will not be compatible with the new coding in the 1.5 patch which is what is in beta. I have a thread specifically asking then that if mods aren't disabled then what are we missing to is keeping them from being recognized.

My suspicion is that the GECK will add flags or scripts upon saving/exporting of a new mod.

if it keeps being a feature, then we'll have to make a mod that uses the survival mechanics and let you enable them on the very hard mode, cause the console is absolutely neccesary in a Bethesda game. Otherwise they should have used a different engine like Unreal that is far more stable.