Yup ... what I was thinking.

You're missing the point. My concerns with this have absolutely nothing...nothing...again, NOTHING at all to do with difficulty. It has to do with not wanting to lose tons of progress due to a crash or a bug. To use your anology a bit more, it's more like ordering from the regular deluxe menu and having them screw up your order and give you something from the sale menu because a cashier didn't enter your order correctly.

I'm fine with all the features, although I see an issue with No Fast Travel and Settlement Attacks.

How are you supposed to defend Abernathy in time when you're in the Quincy area? With FT this wasn't a problem, but without FT time isn't on your side here and those quests will fail due to distance alone.

If they would make settlements able to successfully defend themselves without you being present, it might work.

I agree. This way it would be much better. I had to replay many times because of glitches. I would waste hours if I had no option to save manually. And not because of being killed.

They can at least add a sleeping bag that you can carry with you . I think I had such thing in FO NV. It was very heavy, so I had to throw away some stuff from my inventory, but at least it`s an alternative.

QuantumCurt posted this earlier in this thread in response to a similar comment.

"This was actually addressed in the last patch. There's basically a dice roll based on your settlement resources and defenses. Settlements with a high defense relative to their resources have a higher chance of auto completing the defense tasks. I've had them auto complete probably 8-9 times since installing the 1.3 patch."

I haven't seen this myself though. No settlement attacks for me since 1.3 that I wasn't there for.

Well if that really is your only reason for such a demand, yeah I get it. However, taking into account backdoor safety measures for the well-known-yet-publicly-hushed fact that their games crash, would hardly ever be on a bulletin list of anything they publish or even admitted.

There's a difference to adressing bugs in patches and going "here's this stuff we added/didn't add because we're well aware this thing is gonna crash eventually. Oh well."

Aside from the fact that IMO settlements should have been able to defend themselves to a more "realistic" degree all along, fast travel or no, I actually like the idea that it turns returning to the settlement into a loaded decision. Provided you had enough virtual time, it would actually take at least the "4th wall tedium" out of it by making them less redundant events.

Nothing has been confirm yet! Bethesda said their still trying things out.Hopefully they will let the save when sleep feature burn, other than that I can't wait!!

Yep. After spending so much time with the game never auto-completing defense tasks, it's probably going to take a lot of people a long time to figure this out just because they're used to immediately responding to them. I noticed it basically on accident. I got a settlement defense notification, and I was in the middle of doing a bunch of building. I forgot about it, and a while later I got a notification that it was successfully defended. I'm not sure if anyone has figured out an actual formula for what determines whether a settlement is successfully defended or not, but from the experience I've had so far, it seems like settlements with a defense rating that's greater than the food+water has a pretty high chance of success. I've set up some of my settlements to test this to at least some extent. I have one where the defense is equal to one half of the food+water, one where it's equal to the food+water, one where the defense is double the food and water, and a bunch of others with significantly higher defense. So far, the settlement with one half of the food+water has been attacked once, and was not successfully defended. The one with defense equal to food+water hasn't been attacked since the 1.3 patch, and the one with double the food+water has been successfully defended twice. The ones with way higher defense have all been successfully defended as well.

Changing Survival to Easy/Normal/Hard/etc. won't be happening, as I assume it will be like HC in NV, ie, you can only enable Survival one time during the playthrough, if you switch it off, it's gone for good. What would be the point if we could toggle it as much as we want..it would defeat the purpose.

-

As for no FT, I'm sure Bethesda has a few tweaks in place to make sure we can get to a Settlement defense. Most importantly...

PSA for most of you:

This isn't the whole change-log for the Update, there will be more tweaks and most of you are getting ahead of yourselves. Calm down until we get the Beta and get to see ALL of the changes; in practice.

What kind of VG community would we be if we didn't angrily discuss murky details on things that are still largely hanging in the air?

This is very true. The list we have here is certainly not a finalized list by any means. You make a very good point that Bethesda wouldn't call attention to the buggy nature of their games.

This is my assumption as well. I highly doubt that we'll be able to switch to a lower difficulty and then back to survival on the fly. As you say, it would defeat the purpose.

So now we are forced to play easier difficulties? I can't play survival with all that extra garbage, too tedious and now I'm afraid it's either going to be between easy mode and annoying. Good thing I didn't preorder anything.

Preordering doesn't matter. It will be part of a free update.

Bethesda make a dark souls/bloodborne mode where you will die,die,and die and people don't like it. Don't play survival mode then. Who is forcing you to play it. Lol

I think the slower repopulation thing was the deal breaker for me. Things take forever to repopulate as is, especially since respawn timers RESET when you approach an area that's already been cleared. That little fact is the only reason I stopped hoofing it everywhere and just started fast traveling, much to my chagrin. Hoofing it just keeps the world empty, while fast travel accelerates respawn rates.

On the bright side, everything is more lethal, so while bullets might have weight, I'll need less of them than before.

It's about choice.

Some of the features I like ... so much so I tracked down mods that add it into the game. Ammo Weight, No Fast Travel, Eat/Drink. and so on.

Other features I don't like. No Save. Sure, I'll mods Save back in when available.

Others don't have that choice. Or don't like using mods.

Seems like it'd be less hassle for everyone if instead the people who are in favor of this feature being implemented just abstain from saving.

So for the sake of keeping ideas flying, rather than bullets...

Top of my head, what if they simply put saving under the same restrictions as fast travel is now, i.e. not when enemies are alerted or even nearby? That way, you would still suffer from bad preparation and pay dearly for letting yourself get ambushed, but you wouldn't lose too much progress if the game crashes.

I have no problem with that ... I also think it's been mentioned before.

Am I understanding correctly what you are trying to say?


So when the enemy NPC's are alerted or nearby you can't Fast Travel, but when they are not alerted or nearby you can Fast Travel?

I like this compromise.

Yes. That is how it works now. Same thing "could" be applied to Saves.

Oh.

But the game is full of sleeping bags. So its just like having check points you need to reach. Your talking 1 or 2 mins to find a sleeping bag to save your game. What's the problem with that.

I for one thing its great.

The adrenaline feature is great.

As for sleeping/saves... great. This is supposed to be hardcoe/Survival,

This way of playing does not need quicksaves and reloading because you got bitten by a Bloatfy and contracted some disease in your last encounter.