Fallout 4 Survival Mode Beta

[TheGhostface1973]

In response to post #36179015. #36184145, #36187930, #36192500, #36192925, #36198740, #36201355, #36205410, #36206150, #36213925, #36412465 are all replies on the same post.

bben46 wrote:

I see a lot of garbage here from kiddies that just want the game to work the way they demand the game to work and have never done any legitimate testing in their life. BETA testing is NOT the playable game and is NOT intended to be the playable game. It is for TESTING purposes only.

 

If you don't want to help test the BETA survival mode, then please just disable beta updates on Steam.

 

If you insist on playing the beta with mods ( and figure out how) and it crashes - please don't bother to whine because they will just laugh at you for being so dumb as to think a beta test version was going to work as well as a released game.

 

IF you throw in a bunch or random variables (mods) then the test is invalid - that means you wasted hours of testing time that will be tossed as useless. Meaning that instead of the beta lasting 2 or 3 weeks it takes them 3 months to filter through the garbage from people that demand the test allow them to use mods. The intent of the beta test is to get a useful analysis of what really needs fixing. And if you throw in mods - or the quick fixes that the console allows the data is no longer useful, but just garbage.

 

The sooner they get the REAL data, untainted by random mods and quickie console fixes that allow you to keep playing instead of stopping and submitting a useful bug report the sooner they will release the actual survival mode update. :thumbsup:

hivKORN wrote: By your words, i hope they will fix problems from main game too and not only the survival changes! ;D

printerkop wrote: true, but since launch day there are a bunch of bugs in the game, which i adressed at the bug submitting page at Bethesda with a lot of extra information on my rig and the circumstances in which they occur in and screenshots and as much technical information i could give, i even know what the problems are, script errors and shader errors, and they haven't either bothered to fix them to this date, so how are we supposed to test a survival BETA if all the bugs i encountered haven't been fixed yet and still occur to this date ?

I develop games myself, and atleast half of the bugs i encountered must be easy to fix for an entire team of developers, but they just don't fix them.

Instead, like with FO3 and FNV those bugs are probably going to be fixed by modders later on.

I agree that mods should not be applied to a BETA test, but making a BETA before all the other problems are fixed is just unwise.

Zzyxzz wrote: "Instead, like with FO3 and FNV those bugs are probably going to be fixed by modders later on."

Yep, thats how it works today. To be very honest. They released the eat/drink/sleep feature, but its so f*#@ing bad. It's not even close to realism. Don't say, but it's beta. They already had this feature in NV and they weren't able to just carry it over. I call that very incompetent. Also they keep adding things in beta, which is also not the purpose of a beta. A beta is feature complete and is for testing the system. What they run is an alpha

Yes, people who want to test with mods... no words... but i also don't believe that they get any valueable feedback. I have looked into the beta thread. It's a mess.
Now you can argue about disabling the console, because you can hotload with console, which would destroy their plan. But disabling is also dumb because there is already a way to load mods (surprise surprise).

With a console we would be able to test their system even better, because we can tweak values, find the best values and report them.

And saving with sleeping... srsly... i lost faith in them. Fallout 4 is only playable in a realistic way with mods from this beautiful modding community. We can just hope for a solid game frame, but thats it

Kkatman wrote: I originally signed up for the Beta because there are bugs in the base game that the beta fixes. Having opted out of the Beta now that it disables mods, I find myself struggling with the same broken features that I joined the beta to solve... none of the fixes that the beta has implemented have been carried over into the proper game.

printerkop wrote: all the bugs i've seen are still there in the BETA, LOD loading issues up close, shaders messing up completely giving a lot of meshes rainbow colored noise patterns, scripted errors that result in messed up gameplay, collision problems are plentyful.. and so on..

They should fix that before adding new stuff imo.

Eruadur wrote: @printerkop

nvm

printerkop wrote: No, one should never learn from his mistakes, you're right.

GrypNWryp wrote: @printerkop

"No, one should never learn from his mistakes, you're right."

Says the guy who (apparently) thought Fallout 4's issues would be different from previous installments to the series.

printerkop wrote: reply's the guy who likes trolling and being an ass.

lux113 wrote: printerkop

I think it's unrealistic for you to think Fallout 4.. or any other Bethesda game could ever be completely without bugs.

It's in the engine and also in the nature of the open world game(although mainly the engine) The collision issues happen in skyrim .. oblivion, hell, I don't even consider them bugs anymore. Sometimes I even see them as features.

And honestly, I wouldn't want Bethesda to go on the fool's errand of fixing all the bugs in fallout 4 before ever releasing new content. It would be 2025.

On a sidenote I find it funny that you think that your particular reported bugs should have been fixed rather than the long list of ones others have reported (and were fixed).

@lux113
And because you and other players see these bugs as "features" and excuse Bethesda with this, they will NEVER change a thing.
And I really don't understand why Gaming Magazines, like the german GameStar, are telling their readers, that it's NORMAL that Bethesda games have bugs. NO it is NOT normal! If I buy a car and it doesn't drive as expected, I don't say "Hey, it's a feature that the breaks don't work". Sorry, but I want a working game when I buy it for 50 Euros. And if a little development team from a small town in Alaska would have made the same Fallout 4 game, gaming magazines wouldn't give this game such a high ratings. They would destroy it and nobody would ever play this game.
Okay, it's an open world game, BUT Witcher 3 is an open world game as well, the difference between these two games, The Witcher 3 works much better and CD Project Red cares about their product. Bethesda is lazy as hell and they always were, because gamers and gaming magazines call their bugs "Features" and laugh about that. It seems they don't even test their games for a while before they're selling it.
I work for my money and like I said, when I buy a product, I want it to work. I want it to work the same day I buy it and not in 1 or 2 years and only because mod-authors fixed what Bethesda screwed up.
I am sick of this s***! Almost all game developers are doing this now a days. They are selling us half made games and they fix them at a later date, IF they even fix them. Until then you have to live with bugs and glitches. Okay, some might think that's funny, but I am not one of them.
Sorry, only my honest opinion. Edited April 7, 2016 by TheGhostface1973

[Crimsonhawk87]

In response to post #36297220. #36298815, #36299420, #36303765, #36306040, #36307275, #36412135 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.

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

lux113 wrote: Permadeath..

Closest thing to it I recall would be like 20 odd years ago - Ultima Online

You die - your screen turns black and white, the center of it anyway because now you just see in that part. You are a ghost - your belongings are there at your feet.. that sword you worked months to get - that armor... it will disappear forever in 15 minutes.

You can run to the city.. by foot - or hopefully run into a "wandering healer". The way you figure it, it will take about 5 or 6 minutes to get to town and get resurrected.. then the same time back - that only leaves you about 3 minutes to spare before your hard work at this game vanishes forever.

And even if you make it back in time - anyone could wander up and grab your stuff while you're gone. anyone. Hey, here's a player who looks like he's a Mage, maybe he'll resurrect me? Ahh, hell, I'm just wasting time and my stuff is going to disappear -- and as a ghost when you talk to a player it just says "OoOo OooOOo Ooo" .. so they have no idea what you are saying, but come on man, it's a ghost -- what do you THINK he's saying!

Anyway... that game gave a sense of serious repercussions for dying, and it was the last one that I recall really did before they dumbed down everything cause people whine so much about all the time they invested and it's just not fair losing that progress.

I LOVED the fear that that game with it's sub par graphics could cause in me because there was real risk involved. Now I'm spoiled like everyone else though, and I'm addicted to save points.. and if I have to go back through 10 minutes of gameplay I did before it's like it's the end of the world. What I'm getting at though... we lost something. Back then I would honestly get scared... shaking scared.... when I was 10 levels down in a dungeon and I knew there were no players anywhere around to resurrect me if I died... one screw up and I would lose weeks worth of gameplay. That was fun.

@lux....haha, no, permadeath in any incarnation is not fun. Having to re-do weeks, days, hours of game play is redundant and a poor business decision by any gaming company. There is a reason it rarely, if ever, exists in today's games: Consumers HATED it. UO got away with it because it was the first major MMO...once Everquest came along, the permaddeath thing pretty much died. It always amuses me to see people pining for the "good ole days", when sometimes, it is just better to let a sleeping dog lie.

[TheGhostface1973]

In response to post #36408520.

Shadow of Serenity wrote: Hopefully there'll be an option (or a mod) to separate the survival aspect from the difficulty aspect, Hard hits a sweet spot for me and I have very little interest in slogging through anything higher.

I second this. It would be a shame if we could only play the survival aspect in Survival mode. Why not also put the eat, drink, sleep in the hard and/or very hard difficulty. It is totally unfair for players who don't want to play survival mode, but who want the "iNeed" aspect.

[TheGhostface1973]

In response to post #36264185. #36272420, #36280400, #36281620, #36294745, #36295480, #36307360, #36313620, #36340025, #36344490, #36347635, #36348020, #36368590, #36372830, #36372990, #36373850, #36382245, #36384055, #36384285, #36385985, #36391440 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.

Eruadur wrote: @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....?
:)

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 :)

jomoe18 wrote: then dont. simple as that. but yet u still feel the need to comment

xdustsmile wrote: Seriously....?

Yes. Seriously.

@Eruadur
You talk about "Freedom of Speech"? So the OP has no "Freedom of Speech"??? He can ask question as he likes, even stupid questions, as you called it. You have the right to NOT reply to his comment. It's that simple. And besides that: There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers, like yours. Edited April 7, 2016 by TheGhostface1973

[CMoth]

In response to post #36264185. #36272420, #36280400, #36281620, #36294745, #36295480, #36307360, #36313620, #36340025, #36344490, #36347635, #36348020, #36368590, #36372830, #36372990, #36373850, #36382245, #36384055, #36384285, #36385985, #36391440, #36414355 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.

Eruadur wrote: @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....?
:)

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 :)

jomoe18 wrote: then dont. simple as that. but yet u still feel the need to comment

xdustsmile wrote: Seriously....?

Yes. Seriously.

TheGhostface1973 wrote: @Eruadur
You talk about "Freedom of Speech"? So the OP has no "Freedom of Speech"??? He can ask question as he likes, even stupid questions, as you called it. You have the right to NOT reply to his comment. It's that simple. And besides that: There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers, like yours.

Despite the comments on "voluntarily opting in" I had to go in and opt out of it. I made no "voluntary" step to do anything, I was automatically opted in, possibly due to my season's pass.

But, it was simple enough to go in and correct the issue.

[Fatalmasterpiece]

 

 

In response to post #36389965.

 

 

 

Fatalmasterpiece wrote:

You do not have to play survival mode. The other modes are still available for play.

you don't have to play at all, but that kinds of comments are lame.

 

As someone that used Project Nevada and FWE for a long time, having a real hardcore mode is something I'm all in for. So I do want to play survival, just not the way it is right now, unbalanced and with features that have no place in Fallout.

 

That's not even what I meant. Someone asked if you have to play Survival or if you can opt out of it. This is an understandable question because on Fallout 4's social media accounts they are posting like Survival mode is some kind of retroactive overhaul of the game with posts like "Now ammo has weight" without implying "...only in survival mode". It confuses a lot of people, especially considering that the patch isn't even live so why the hell are they advertising it?

 

Anyways I believe there should be a way to turn on survival features in all difficulties and then have one, full featured hardcore mode which has them all on. It should be like a character creation choice.

[evegrey21]

In response to post #36297220. #36298815, #36299420, #36303765, #36306040, #36307275, #36412135, #36413830 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.

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

lux113 wrote: Permadeath..

Closest thing to it I recall would be like 20 odd years ago - Ultima Online

You die - your screen turns black and white, the center of it anyway because now you just see in that part. You are a ghost - your belongings are there at your feet.. that sword you worked months to get - that armor... it will disappear forever in 15 minutes.

You can run to the city.. by foot - or hopefully run into a "wandering healer". The way you figure it, it will take about 5 or 6 minutes to get to town and get resurrected.. then the same time back - that only leaves you about 3 minutes to spare before your hard work at this game vanishes forever.

And even if you make it back in time - anyone could wander up and grab your stuff while you're gone. anyone. Hey, here's a player who looks like he's a Mage, maybe he'll resurrect me? Ahh, hell, I'm just wasting time and my stuff is going to disappear -- and as a ghost when you talk to a player it just says "OoOo OooOOo Ooo" .. so they have no idea what you are saying, but come on man, it's a ghost -- what do you THINK he's saying!

Anyway... that game gave a sense of serious repercussions for dying, and it was the last one that I recall really did before they dumbed down everything cause people whine so much about all the time they invested and it's just not fair losing that progress.

I LOVED the fear that that game with it's sub par graphics could cause in me because there was real risk involved. Now I'm spoiled like everyone else though, and I'm addicted to save points.. and if I have to go back through 10 minutes of gameplay I did before it's like it's the end of the world. What I'm getting at though... we lost something. Back then I would honestly get scared... shaking scared.... when I was 10 levels down in a dungeon and I knew there were no players anywhere around to resurrect me if I died... one screw up and I would lose weeks worth of gameplay. That was fun.

Crimsonhawk87 wrote: @lux....haha, no, permadeath in any incarnation is not fun. Having to re-do weeks, days, hours of game play is redundant and a poor business decision by any gaming company. There is a reason it rarely, if ever, exists in today's games: Consumers HATED it. UO got away with it because it was the first major MMO...once Everquest came along, the permaddeath thing pretty much died. It always amuses me to see people pining for the "good ole days", when sometimes, it is just better to let a sleeping dog lie.

Yeah Thats why I never ever Join the minutemen xD

[popcorn71]

In response to post #36264185. #36272420, #36280400, #36281620, #36294745, #36295480, #36307360, #36313620, #36340025, #36344490, #36347635, #36348020, #36368590, #36372830, #36372990, #36373850, #36382245, #36384055, #36384285, #36385985, #36391440, #36414355, #36422860, #36440545 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.

Eruadur wrote: @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....?
:)

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 :)

jomoe18 wrote: then dont. simple as that. but yet u still feel the need to comment

xdustsmile wrote: Seriously....?

Yes. Seriously.

TheGhostface1973 wrote: @Eruadur
You talk about "Freedom of Speech"? So the OP has no "Freedom of Speech"??? He can ask question as he likes, even stupid questions, as you called it. You have the right to NOT reply to his comment. It's that simple. And besides that: There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers, like yours.

CMoth wrote: Despite the comments on "voluntarily opting in" I had to go in and opt out of it. I made no "voluntary" step to do anything, I was automatically opted in, possibly due to my season's pass.

But, it was simple enough to go in and correct the issue.

SVRGN wrote: Do you feel so alone, right, Eruadur?

Steam remembers your beta opt in setting. If you had opted in to the previous betas you will stay opted in until you manually change the setting and opt out. Edited April 8, 2016 by popcorn71

[0xFailsafe]

In response to post #36264185. #36272420, #36280400, #36281620, #36294745, #36295480, #36307360, #36313620, #36340025, #36344490, #36347635, #36348020, #36368590, #36372830, #36372990, #36373850, #36382245, #36384055, #36384285, #36385985, #36391440, #36414355, #36422860, #36433295 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.

Eruadur wrote: @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....?
:)

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 :)

jomoe18 wrote: then dont. simple as that. but yet u still feel the need to comment

xdustsmile wrote: Seriously....?

Yes. Seriously.

TheGhostface1973 wrote: @Eruadur
You talk about "Freedom of Speech"? So the OP has no "Freedom of Speech"??? He can ask question as he likes, even stupid questions, as you called it. You have the right to NOT reply to his comment. It's that simple. And besides that: There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers, like yours.

CMoth wrote: Despite the comments on "voluntarily opting in" I had to go in and opt out of it. I made no "voluntary" step to do anything, I was automatically opted in, possibly due to my season's pass.

But, it was simple enough to go in and correct the issue.

popcorn71 wrote: Steam remembers you beta opt in setting. If you had opted in to the previous betas you will stay opted in until you manually change the setting and opt out.

Do you feel so alone, right, Eruadur?

[Deleted7103646User]

In response to post #36427895.

Fatalmasterpiece wrote:

 

 

In response to post #36389965.

Fatalmasterpiece wrote:

You do not have to play survival mode. The other modes are still available for play.

you don't have to play at all, but that kinds of comments are lame.

 

As someone that used Project Nevada and FWE for a long time, having a real hardcore mode is something I'm all in for. So I do want to play survival, just not the way it is right now, unbalanced and with features that have no place in Fallout.

 

That's not even what I meant. Someone asked if you have to play Survival or if you can opt out of it. This is an understandable question because on Fallout 4's social media accounts they are posting like Survival mode is some kind of retroactive overhaul of the game with posts like "Now ammo has weight" without implying "...only in survival mode". It confuses a lot of people, especially considering that the patch isn't even live so why the hell are they advertising it?

 

Anyways I believe there should be a way to turn on survival features in all difficulties and then have one, full featured hardcore mode which has them all on. It should be like a character creation choice.

It's always smart to say what you mean, instead of saying 5% of it, and then when someone reacts to incomplete information, come with the rest.

But i fully agree with you on your entire explanation.