Rhawkas

I think it's a safe bet that you won't be able to earn any achievements on that game anymore. After all, what would be the point of disabling achievements if they were just re-enabled after the console commands were turned back off? You could just start a new game, give yourself max stats, experience, money, abilities, and whatever else you might want, disable the console commands and then have a hell of an easier time getting some of those more challenging achievements.

Yeah, I'm doing the same thing. Kinda frustrating when the main character is so far ahead of the others. =/ Also, does anyone know what to use when trying to do attributescore name stat # on player made companions? I know you need to use "player" for the MC, but can't figure out how to boost the custom companions. =/ Regardless, thanks to everyone who has posted helping out here so far. =)

Yeah, random seeds is what I was thinking of but couldn't remember what it was called. XD Also, I mentioned bashing chests and stuff, but people inclined to save scum would probably do so once they found out that bashing chests open could destroy some of the items inside (like in Baldur's Gate). Course, you could just not leave indications of the broken items (no "Broken Item" items in the chest, etc.) then they wouldn't know if they broke something. As for your idea, it sounds like the easiest way around it would be to create a bunch of extra save files to run up the timers on while trying to get the desired result and then just regularly delete or overwrite them all with the original save to try again with fresh timers. They'd really just be inconvenienced. Worse is that it would affect players playing normally that are just having a lot of trouble with an encounter, which is really unfortunate since that's nowhere near the intention. =(

May I counter that argument with thhe following: Just because you cannot stop save scumming, doesn't mean you can't discourage it.Save scumming is not the issue, it's the symptom of the real issue: game balance. If the only way to succeed is to save and reload often, something is wrong with the balance of your game. If the optimal way to defeat an encounter is too play it again and again until you have the correct solution, something is wrong as well. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to reload, even often. I'm saying you shouldn't have to, at least not often. I'm perfectly OK with failing, and then reloading, but it shouldn't be the go-to solution for dealing with tough obstacles. One way to deal with this is delaying notification of failure, or altering the outcome and progression following a failed encounter to represent your failure in a different narrative outcome. I'll give you an example. Fred wants to be the leader of an organisation, as a journeyman he's worked his way up the ladder to a position of power. The leader is old and gives all his lieutenants a task, and whomever succeeds can succeed him. Fred fails the task. rather than just end the story for him, instead, he now has to find a different path. He can coerce and manipulate, maybe even kill the competition. He can try to prove his worth a different way, by doing something even more impressive. He can discredit the person who succeeded. Or, he can accept his fate and forever be #2 in his organisation. His failure didn't end his story, and thus, there was no reason for Fred to reload and try again. You make some good points there, and the example given at the end really works well. Save scumming itself doesn't need to be removed/prevented, the reasons to do so need to be addressed. Example: Larry and his party come across a treasure chest. Naturally, he runs up to and tries to open it. A trap goes off and blasts him for 1/2 his health. He's alive, but upset. He didn't save before trying to open the chest, so he doesn't load because he doesn't want to redo all the exploring he had just done. Now, when he tried to open the chest he wasn't able to because it was also locked, so he sends Rebecca the Rogue to the chest. This time he saves, because he remembers something unpleasant that happened before with a locked chest. Rebecca tries to unlock the chest but fails. She keeps trying and failing and eventually manages to jam the lock. Oops. Now, the treasure isn't out of their reach just yet, but some of it might be. Larry and Co. can smash the chest apart and take the loot from inside, but fragile stuff (potions, etc.) have a very high chance of being broken when the chest is. This is that bad experience he had before, so he reloads. Rebecca works on the lock again and this time she gets lucky and manages to unlock it before jamming the lock. Larry saves his game. Larry runs up to the chest and opens it. The loot inside can barely be called loot, much less treasure worth all the trouble he went through, so he reloads and tries again. The loot on the next attempt isn't much better, so he reloads and keeps reloading until he finds something he's happy with. Now, there are numerous reasons why someone inclined to save scum might do so here. 1. The trap. It didn't kill him, but he knew about it after triggering it. Had he saved more recently, he would have loaded and tried actively searching for traps until he found it. A possible solution to this might be to make trap/secret spotting passive, or only allow one attempt to spot traps/secrets for passive spotting and active searching per character per trap/secret. 2. The lock. He was still able to continue, but there was more stuff waiting for him if he reloaded and tried to unlock the chest. A possible solution here would be to either have all the rolls preset (say he rolled a 13, 12, 8, 11, 15, and 2, jamming the lock with the 2, he'd get the same set of rolls no matter how many times he reloaded). Alternatively, it could be reliant on player skill, like in Skyrim or Bioshock or other games where there's a little mini-mini-game to unlock chests. 3. The loot. He knew the loot was randomly generated when he opened the chest, so if he save before opening it he could try for different loot until he got something he wanted. A possible solution here would be to make chests and other loot-holding items generate their loot when the map or even that playthrough is started, that way the loot would be different from other players', but it would be the same for him no matter how many times he opened it the way he did. Saving in combat however, probably shouldn't be allowed. Otherwise I'm sure many people will be inclined to save scum their way through particularly difficult fights, which is really a shame.

1. Male Human Fighter with a pistol and sword 2. Female Human Paladin with a halberd if available, greatsword if not 3. Female Human Ranger 4. Female Elf Rogue with short swords 5. Female Elf Wizard with a focus on fire magic 6. Female Human Cleric with a sword and shield Naturally, all of this is subject (and likely) to change once I actually have all the choices at my fingertips. XD

I save scum. I'm not proud of it, but in some games (usually permadeath games like roguelikes and Project Zomboid) if that's what I have to do to enjoy the game then I will. It doesn't affect the games or enjoyment of the games of others, so they shouldn't have a problem with it. If you know what you are doing, then you can save scum in many instances. As long as the save file is saved locally and you have access to it then you can save scum to your heart's content. Simply copy the save file, place it somewhere safe, play the game and if something you don't want to accept happens, simply place the backup save in the save folder and overwrite the one the game made when you played last. The only way to prevent save scumming is to force the players to play online and have save data stored on a server that they can only get at to load their game when they log on to play and auto-save the game every few minutes and when they log off.