Exactly. Here's sorta how I'd imagine it working:

- You come across small camp in the middle of wasteland, consisting of two mattresses and a campfire. The camp is empty - no friendlies or hostilites in sight. You decide to sleep there. Being outdoors, there's the chance that you'll be attacked in your sleep by some random foe. If there are friendlies around though, the chance of being attacked is considerably lessened.

- You come across a shack in the wasteland. You enter the shack. The shack is empty and it doesn't look like anyone has lived here for years. There's a bed in the shack. You decide to use it to sleep. It is completely safe, carrying no risk of an attack (can be explained as the main character having locked/barricaded the door and thus, he can't be surpised by an unwelcome visitor).

- You enter a cave that turns out to be a raider hideout. You clean it out. There's some beds there. You decide to sleep there. If you do, then if it's your first time in the cave, then there's a chance that you'll be attacked by a few of the raiders pals returning.

- You enter a NCR camp. Being friendly or neutral with the NCR, it means they're willing to let you use a bed. It is completely safe.

- You enter a building. There are hostile robots in the building. You mostly clean the building out, but not completely. Seeing a bed and seeing that your sleep-meter is low, youd ecide to take a risk and sleep. Sleeping there though, means that you may be attacked by the remaining enemies that you deidn't clean out - had you cleaned it out completely, sleeping there would've been perfectly safe.

- You enter New Vegas. You decide to use a hotel there. Using the hotel is completely safe and carries no risk whatsoever of an attack (unless maybe quest/story-related)?

- You enter a cave. It turns out to be a Yao Guai lair. The lair has some mattresses in it. If you have the Animal Friend Perk, then the Yao Guai are your bestet pals and thus it's safe to sleep there. However, if you don't have it, clean the cave out instead and then sleep there, then there's a chance that you'll be attacked by a Yao Guai returning from a hunt...

Having companions with you would also lessen the chance of being surpised in your sleep - after all,attacking more thna a single person (the player) would be seen as more risky for any would-be attackers...

and the necessity of making sleeping this over elaborate is?...

Realism, of course. Yeah, you said that realism needs to sit this one out, but really, everyone wants different degrees of realism. If you don't want realism to this degree, then that's your thing of course

"realism" means you would have a knife in your throat or your head smashed in with a blunt object if you were ever caught sleeping by a hostile human. They wouldn't even waste ammo on you.

Those are only the thoughts behind it. In-game it could be as easy as a cursor over a bed going from green to yellow to red.

For me the beds discussion doesn't even matter that much, I assume there will be (just enough) places to safely sleep, primarily I want (to know the) consequences of not getting sleep in time. If you do fall asleep eventually at the spot your standing on, fine but then I indeed like it to have risks involved. Of course if that can happen, it is a small step to be able to sleep anywhere and have safe-none safe locations. It doesn't change anything for your normal routine where you'd get sleep in time, in a safe place, before bad things happen

Haha, possibly, even if even this wouldn't be guranteed to work on someone who had Power Armor and/or was a light sleeper (hmm, maybe that could be a perk?)...

well the thing is it′s easier to have less then more, it′s harder to accept and play a game you find to realistic then a game you find less realistic.


so yeah I′m not posting out of what I think, but what I think is best for a game that′s suppose to be appealing to the public, not to a small circle of uber realistic who torture them self with over elaborate mechanics "because it′s realistic"

Point taken, althrough it should be pointed out that since we're discussing the hardcoe mode here, it means that it'd be entirely your own choice whether to go along with it or not. People who just wants to enjoy the game can do that simply by not choosing the hardcoe mode...

That is the whole point - forcing you to plan. Exploration is still very possible, but no, you couldn't just set off in a direction and walk as far as you wanted like in FO3. You would have to do like real military or explorers do, and move forward into unknown areas incrementally, always coming back to base camp that provides for all your needs. Eventually you plan for or find a new base camp, and your explorations leap forward another step.

hardcoe Mode should be called Survival Mode, because that seems to be its chief focus. Those of us wanting danger associated with sleeping - not for its own sake, but for the sake of forcing planning - don't want sleep to become some simple routine that you check off a list every time you find a piece of cardboard for a bed lying out somewhere.

We aren't wanting the extra challenge to be "hardcoe" or for bragging or because we are masochists. We like being forced to plan ahead and formulate strategies for dealing with the challenges such things present to us - almost like a chess game where we must plan our movements ahead of time or find ourselves in a checkmate position later on. Survival is it's own kind of cerebral fun - every bit as entertaining and rewarding for some players as finding great loot or figuring out the best strategy to use against an enemy is for others.


What you say is generally true, especially for "our" world as it currently is. You are forgetting, however, that most of these animals in Fallout's wasteland are starving - barely scrapping by. And you probably are aware that the number one reason for animals attacking humans besides having their young threatened, is starvation. We know this is a contributing factor in a lot of mountain lion, grizzly bear, wild dog, and shark attacks. Factor in that mutations have made the animals in Fallout larger, and there is less food available to them, and a lone human becomes a very tempting target. Especially if your character is carrying any kind of fresh food on them like brahmin steaks . . . .


Excellent. That is exactly what I'm talking about.


Being woken up under attack in game would represent you hearing the attacker approaching before they actually reached you. Obviously if you failed to detect an enemy creeping up on you in your sleep, you wouldn't wake up, but that would certainly be no fun in a game - or real life.

and forcing you to keep track of your food, water, ammo and where the nearest bed is isn′t thinking enough for ya?




oh so you mean only the privilege who like your version of hardcoe mode, everyone else should just forget about it and play vanilla


sorry chumb but that card don′t work, you can′t use the fact it′s a optional mode as a excuse to drive it too far with the realism.

Realism is awesome isn't it?

Realism is only good in video games when it serves to make the game more enjoyable. If fallout were exactly realistic 99% of players would die 2-10 mins into the game. Combat would take hours, long periods of boredom interspersed with 30 seconds periods of being scared [censored]less. Stealth builds would be highly favored, seeing as the only way to achieve any sort of descisive victory in ANY form of modern/futuristic combat is through trickery. Engagements ranges would be in hundreds of meters. Killing ONE supermutant would be an exceptional act of bravery and combat prowess. This kind of realism works well for games like "ARMA" who are going for that kind of thing, but persoanlly I don't want to make my character use the bathroom once every 6 minutes (considering an in-game day is 24 minutes). I can do without the tedium of sleeping encounters.

Sure.
I wanted to find out about the consequences of failing to meet those requirements of sleeping/eating/drinking. It is unknown apparently and some - in my opinion - fine ideas were posted.

What kind of penalties would you "like" if you don't have that bed near or sufficient food/water? Just drop dead when the meter(s) run dry?

Hmm? Nah, I simply mean that playing hardcoe or not is your own choice. Would you have it any other way? Remember, back when Fallout 3 was released, there were numerous threads complaining about the lack of reality in it - Radiation damage was for the most part a ridiculous thing and didn't force you to think twice before drinking irradiated water (for example), food was largely unecressarilly as most people live don stimpacks, you could simply sleep or drink a lot to heal ANY damage, you could go for weeks without needing sleep, etc... And in the midist of the debate, there was also the nay-sayers, who were perfectly happy with FO3 as it were and detested the very idea of adding "realism" to ruin their fun. In response, the guys at Obsidian have created the optional hardcoe mode. This means that those who don't want realism can simply go on like in FO3 and those who wants relaism can go for hardcoe. Everyone gets what they want, more or less.

And "Too far" is a matter of opinion - as I already have said, some people considers even what the hardcoe mode consists of right now to be too much realism to be fun for them - for them, the "You get shoot, you're hurt" realism is enough for them. But obviously some of us thinks some more realism is fine enough, eh? :shifty:

But, yes, I realize people may simply want different degrees of realism too, but there's no solving that one expect maybe adding different of degrees of realism one may or may not want to hardcoe mode.

I think the point he is trying to make is that a lot of people don't enjoy gritty realism in games. That's fine, those of us who do (including myself) are getting the optional hardcoe mode made specially for us (yay). Lets not spoil the already realistic hardcoe mode with obsessive attention to minute realism details that only a fraction of the community finds enjoyable. I don't want to have to play vanilla, but then again I don't want to have to put up with some of the ridiculous changes that have been proposed in the thread. A lot of people dont like hardcoe, a lot of people do. Only a few people want there to be an "ultra real hardcoe mode", which is exacly why there isn't one.

Critters attacking you in your sleep has been in Morrowind, can't see why it can't be in F:NV.

yeah but that was a fantasy setting with insta healing spells, not F:NV hardcoe mode where you don′t even regain health sleeping...quite a difference.

No, that is not quite a difference. The amount of healing you receive has nothing to do with this.

of course there is, having a ambush mechanic in a fantasy game with healing spells work because there you can manage the health quick and easy.

in F:NV hardcoe mode you can′t even rely on stimpacks to heal ya quick, so if caught at a bad time you could be dead before you know what hit ya.


thus quite a difference.

The ambush wouldn't happen every time though. Could be irritating to reload and all, but... B)

I'm intersted in hardcoe mode for a lot of reasons, one of them being it will work well with the setting. In fo3, I always felt like I should take everything from my fallen opponents, because you might need it. After a few levels, it made little sense to do this, because the things you didn't need often weren't worth enough caps to justify carrying around. And it got ridiculous, carrying two or three suits of power armor, eight or nine guns, 12 packs of smokes, etc etc.

Things having weight is good. I hope the weight means something this time, because in fo3 with even mild strength/endurance, you can carry hundreds and hundreds of pounds of junk. The Wanderer really could do with a pack animal of some sort, haha.

Random attacks could wake you up, but have you have lowered stats (Groggy) and sluggish movements.

Im not a big fan of marines, and you sound too intelligent to be a marine.

And you shouldnt have 'gobbled' your food in the first place, did your instructor not inform you during selection?

Chew your meals 32 times before swallowing, never exceeding the amount of available water.

I don't understand why there is a debate about this, really.

It have nothing to do with "eliteness" or "privileges", it about choices.

"Do you want to deal with the headache of watching your back while you sleep? (If this actually becomes live), no? Then you have the choice to turn hardcoe mode off.

Its not like "vanilla" will be without its own challenges.

As for me I am going to try it. If I find the "realism" too much, I will turn it off.

Simple

one of the best feelings in F3 was having a crippled head, low on ammo and supplies and being in the middle of nowhere and praying that you stealth skill gets you to a nearby safehouse..

as long as hardcoe expands this feeling I will be happy.

Haha. How can you not be a fan of Marines? I've trained with Royal Marines and Chilean Marines, and all we great - though not as good as U.S. Marines, obviously. :hubbahubba: Honestly, the media and movies like to portray Marines as mindless gung-ho grunts, but many are very intelligent. When you are working on projecting the image of being lethal, efficient, blood-crazed killing machines, the charm and love of classical thought and reasoning can get lost in the mix. Though, uh, we do have our http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAZI4ydY6R8.

And yeah, I learned at some point that throwing a lot of calories into a starving body was not a good idea, but that distant memory escaped me during my first brush with starvation. When you haven't seen so much as a soda cracker in 4-5 days and have been hiking kilometers a day over rough terrain carrying a full 80 lbs load of gear, you wolf down apples and bread and whatever else you get pretty quickly afterwards. Not chewing it into small enough pieces is really the least of your concerns - it is the sudden electrolyte imbalance and shock that wreaks your ungrateful body.