More Awesome Than You!

Hi :)

I'm wondering if there's any way to fix this problem. I'm guessing Maxis never thought people could accumulate that many aspiration points, so they've imposed this limit on them. But i'm finding that my sims are all reaching this level long before they die & I'd really like to know just how many points they were actually able to score.

The only thing I use points for are smart milk & thinking caps, so i don;t spend a lot of them to start with, but, it's kind of discouraging to think that the points they should be accumulating are actually just disappearing into some black hole.

So, is there a way to increase the limit?

No. 32767 is the maximum available inside a signed 16-bit integer, which is what TS2 uses. Note that the "0" is a red herring. There are no singular aspirational points. Internally, the game represents it as 32767 ASP, and the 0 is purely cosmetic, because apparently the idea of something being ONE point would blow the puny liittle minds of sheep. Therefore, 32767(0) ASP is the logical maximum as constrained by 16-bit integers, and it is not physically possible to change this. It's not a problem. Why would you want more, anyway? Due to the weird "10" effect, as well as the 16-bit thing, it's not possible to create an object that costs more than 32760 ASP to purchase (typing 32767 into the price box results in truncation due to the nonexistence of single-ASPs).

Nothing gives less than 100 aspiration points anyway, does it?

Since you got your answer, I hope you don't mind me hijacking the thread with an only vaugely related question...
I have some business owners with the reward that gives double influence points, and when they fulfill a really big want, like a LTW or similar, the influencebar overflows and resets.  Is this also a string limitation?

That seems to be the case:

http://www.moreawesomethanyou.com/smf/index.php/topic,6522.0.html

Ah, I see. It's not that I need more than those points - LOL - I hardly ever use them. It's just that once they reach that limit anything else they earn just disappears. I really only wanted to be able to tell how many they earn over their lifetime. I'll think of something - maybe just buying a bunch of elixirs - to keep track of the amount.

Thanks for the explanation.

I know someone who spent the extra points on elixirs... and ended up with a whole room full!

Too bad you can't sell asp rewards -- your sim could have a nice business selling love tubs. :)

Sort of like how the scoring for Quidditch is retarded, because everything comes in multiples of ten, when the point system could (and should) just be 1 point for goals, 15 points for the Snitch? That's always bothered me . . .

Keeping track of aspiration points quickly gets ludicrous, anyway, because they're so easy to get.

I'm pretty sure the entire game is retarded, from what I recall of the scoring mechanics, which trivializes basically everything-but that "Snitch" thing. I mean, how often have you seen a sporting event where one team dominates another one by 15 goals? You may as well just skip going after the rest of the stuff and just focus on that "snitch" thing, none of that actually matters.

I think the entire point of how that game is set up is to make Harry important.

I wouldn't really know, I've never read any of that.

Well, the strategy behind the Snithc comes into play later in the game. It isn't released at the beginning of the game, and once it is caught the game ends and never before that. So, if your team is down by 150 points or more, you shouldn't catch the thing, and you need to delay your opponent getting it.

That and it makes Harry important.  :P

Yes, but if your team is down by that many points, you hopelessly suck anyway and being owned is inevitable. The players should simply just sit around waiting for it to come out and save their energy. Even in major sports defeats, people don't tend to lose by 15 goals. Using, say, American Football as an example, even in 35-0 blowout, the losing team is only down by 7 goals or so.

In the inverse solution of this silly Quaddatch thing, even if you ARE blowing them out by a large margin, anything less than 15 points is totally irrelevant.
It's a stupid game.

its not thaaaat stupid. If u just focus on the snich your oponends have plenty of time to score 15 goals and kill you with the blodgers. And if you catch the snitch to early u win but you dont get that many points so another team that wins by more points may beat u in a contest.

I have no idea what you're talking about. This in turn convinces me that this game is even more stupid than I understand it to be.

funny, i thought you would like the part with the balls tryng to get people to fall of their brooms and brake some bones ;-)

If you're playing in a competition which uses tie-breakers, the number of points by which you win can be relevant.

(However, this is a stupid way to do it - if you can be confident of taking the Snitch eventually, and of outscoring your opponents over any given stretch of time, your optimal strategy is to stretch the game out forever. In most other sports with an event-based end, the optimal strategy, in terms of tie-breaks, is to win as quickly as possible.)

That's because sports is derived from a simulation of ritual combat. Sports which hold true to these roots would thus, like in combat, aim to conclude the battle in victory either as quickly as possible, or with as few losses as possible. In no form of realistic combat is it ever a good idea to drag out indecisive fighting indefinitely, and a sport which promotes this sort of behavior is a sport which has lost touch.

There was a somewhat curious incident in the 1999 Cricket World Cup that arose from oddities in the way the scoring system worked. In that tournament, the twelve teams were divided into two roughly-equal-strength groups of six. The top three from each group would go through to a group of six, carrying forward any points they had scored in the first group stage, and then play the top three from the other group. The top four from that group of six would then qualify for a knockout stage to determine the winner.

Going into the final group games in group B, this was the scenario:

Pakistan (eight) v Bangladesh (2)
West Indies (6) v Australia (4)
New Zealand (4) v Scotland (0)

So Pakistan were through. Scotland and, barring some kinds of miracles, Bangladesh, were out. On the reasonable assumption that New Zealand would win against Scotland, Australia knew that they would have to beat the West Indies to qualify. Now here's the sting in the tail: Australia wanted to beat the West Indies without eliminating them from the tournament. Because New Zealand had beaten Australia earlier in the tournament, if Aus and NZ qualified, Aus would reach the second group stage with 0 points, whereas if Aus and WI did, Aus would reach it with 2 points.

West Indies batted first against Australia and were bowled out for 109. Australia therefore needed to make 110 runs off 50 overs (for those of you who know cricket, you'll realize this is a piece of piss for a strong international side). They furthermore couldn't drag the match on longer than 47 overs, because otherwise their run rate wouldn't overtake the West Indies', and they might be eliminated anyway. However, provided they won within the 47 overs, it was to their advantage to win as slowly as possible, to maximize the chances of their opponents' joining them in the last six.

Australia eventually scored the required 110 runs in 41 overs, which is very slow indeed, but New Zealand beat Scotland so convincingly that they qualified anyway.

My head spins. The only thing I know about cricket is that there are bats, and these bats are good for head-whomping, which makes them ideal for anti-zombie combat.

I take it you're a Shaun of the Dead fan.

Never seen it, actually.

It's actually a decent movie. But it's British humor, so it's probably a bit dry for most of our (American) tastes. I have to admit though, I think I like British comedy because most of the cliches are new to me.

'...How's that for a slice of gold.' Heh, I really don't know what that means, but it sounded funny when Sean said it.  :)

I like British humour, but then I have strong British roots soooo....

Wasn't that the world cup in which South Africa had that highly suspicious loss against Australia?

I luuurv Shaun of the Dead.  In my opinion, it is the only even slightly realistic zombie movie.  For god's sake, they shuffle!!! Just run, you fools! 

Haha. I totally luuuuuuuuurve Shaun of the Dead too. It's a farking excellent movie!!! The hubby and I totally love British humour. We went to see it in the theatres, and after the movie, we overheard these two guys sayin how it sucked. Ugh. Some people are just totally uncultured and lack the sophistication and intelligence to truly appreciate quality entertainment. They're probably the kind of generic, boring, average people who love things like Everybody Loves Raymond, 7th Heaven, the Cheetah Girls, Martin Lawrence movies. ::)

If you love British humour, you totally need to check out the British version of the Office. In many ways, it was a lot better than the American version. Although recently, the American version has gotten a lot better. Especially last season and this season has been great. It definitely has a different vibe to it tho. British humour, I find, tends to be a lot more darker, cynical, sardonic. That's probably why I like it more. Shaun of the Dead had Lucy Davis, who was in the British verion of the Office. She was the actress/best friend of Shaun's girlfriend who tried to teach them all to act like zombies. Hehe. That part was hilarious! Martin Freeman also had a bit part. IIRC, he was one of the people in the part where Shaun and his group bumps into that other girl (I think it was his ex?) and her group. That was one of my favorite parts too. Hehehe. Hell, the entire movie was awesome! Also... Reece Shearsmith was one of those people too. He's from another hilarious and twisted British series, called League of Gentlemen. The first series is probably the best. It is just totally off the wall and really strange. The two later series are still funny, but there is a noticeably darker twist in the tone. The 3rd series is probably the darkest and the most abstract and absurd.

On a somewhat related note, I think 28 Days Later is one of the best zombie movies ever. It's also British and very dark. It stars Cillian Murphy, who is probably better known for playing the Scarecrow in Batman Begins. It also has Brendan Gleeson, who's a great character actor and has played great parts in great movies like Gangs of New York, Cold Mountain, The Village, and you might recognize him as Prof. Alastor 'MadEye' Moody from the Harry Potter movies. I love zombie movies and one of my favorite video game series is the Resident Evil series by Capcom. I love that the zombies in 28 Days Later actually RUN when chasing you. It's one of the better, scariest zombie movies I've seen in a long time. :o

Ste

28 Days was good; Cillian is sooo hot, but the ending was a little, ehh.  I love the resident evil movies (Milla is action queen), but if the Zombies are kind of slow and shuffly, why are the zombie dogs so god damned fast?  Still one of my favorite scenes though; down right creepy.  As for Brit comedy, I love love love it.  I haven't seen either Office, yet (I'm not much of a TV viewer, but will probably rent both on DVD).  I grew up on PBS Brit shows, though.  My all time fav is Are You Being Served?; it is the shit!!!  I also like Keeping Up Appearances, and who could forget Red Dwarf, although I have not seen a lot of that, as I started it much later.  But I can remember staying up late as an elementary school kid to watch Are You Being Served? with my Grandma; in fact, we were just reminiscing about it earlier today.  And, on a side note, Douglas Adams is my very favorite author.

Don't you mean the endings - you should watch all the way through the credits - it gives a far more realistic ending to 28 Days.

Yeah, yeah, two endings, ehh.  ;)

Yes it was.

The 1999 World Cup semi-final saw Australia defeat South Africa when Lance Klusener set off for the winning run only to be involded in a farcical mix up, with Alan Donald getting run out when South Africa required just one run to win from the last over. Australia went through and won the final.

I remember thinking, "aha", when all those revelations about Hansie Cronje came out.

Ricky Gervais and Steven Merchant developed The Office in England. Americans copied it, as they often copy British shows. Just wanted to note that the Brit series is the original and the American one is a version.

I want to note this because IMHO The Office is the best telly in the last decade, although I will confess to being too scared to watch the American copy, the sheer black bleak cringeworthiness of the original could so easily be translated into American banana skin unsubtlety. (The Life and Loves of a She-Devil is a good example).

I did read a review that said the American version of The Office wasn't as bad as expected and did hit it's own stride some way in to the series. Although without Ricky and his shifty little piggy eyes...

The Office to me is very black, I reckon it speaks to peoples' deepest fears that they really do appear to be such a prat to others - or maybe that's just me. :D I do know quite a few people that can't bear to watch it, literally cringing with embarrasment for the characters, watching people watching The Office is almost as funny as watching the programme itself.

PS Red Dwarf was the star of the decade before that. In fact the only DVDs I own so far are The Office and the first four series of Red Dwarf.

Shaun of the Dead is my favourite movie too, I can watch it every day and not get bored of it :D I love the bit when they are beating the crap out of the zombie pub landlord with snooker cues to the soundtrack of Queen-I can watch that bit over and over again!

Well duh. :P Any true fan of the Office would know that it was originally a British series. That was sort of implied. Hehe. Ricky and Stephen are credited as the creators, and they have producing and writing credits as well for the US version.


Actually, the US version is pretty good. It's probably the best sitcom in a long while, certainly the best that NBC has developed since the end of Seinfeld, Friends, Frasier, and Will & Grace. About the only other good sitcom on American tv is Scrubs. Everything else is shite. Don't believe the hype. My Name is Earl is total crap. :P The Office has definitely hit it's own stride and I think it's better when American versions of British shows veer off and develop their own character/identity that differentiates themselves within the context of the original model.


The US version is definitely lighter fare, but I think that's best for American general audiences. The British series is just a tad too real and too dark for most Americans, especially the 2nd series and how it ended... and in light of current ongoing events, I think American audiences could use light comedy. The same thing kinda goes for Queer As Folk. The British series was definitely darker.

Spoiler alert

Hell, the Ted character (US) actually died from the drug overdose in the UK version, rather than actually being one of the main characters in the show. However, the recreational drug story line was fleshed out a lot further in the US series. I definitely feel like Season 3 of QAF was a lot darker than the first two seasons. Both Seasons 3 and 4 were a lot more serious and dealt with relevant political issues in current events at the time, such as gay marriage. I haven't watched Season 5 yet. I guess, in a way, I'm a bit sad that it's over, even tho I sorta stopped watching midway during the 3rd season. Thank goodness for DVDs :D

Regardless, the hubby and I love dark humour, so we can definitely appreciate the original British series.

Incidentally, we finally watched the Office Special, and I am really glad to see how everything turned out in the end. I think it is definitely worth watching to at least note the interesting parallels and individually characteristic differences. There are many story lines that are similar, yet slightly different in a way that works well for American audiences, and I think that's what makes it brilliant. If anything, it's interesting, for me at least, because it's sort of like a parallel universe. Plus, there have been rumors about characters from the British series possibly popping up for cameos. :)


How many series were there for Red Dwarf, and why only the first four? I've been meaning to get around to watching that show. I've also heard good things about Father Ted, Black Adder (?), and Fawlty Towers.

Also, I don't remember if I mentioned it already, but Lucy Davis is on the US show, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. It was created by Aaron Sorkin (Sports Night and the West Wing) and it's actually a pretty good show. It's pretty much Sports Night and the West Wing combined with a different backdrop, a Saturday Night Live sketch comedy show. It's still got brilliantly written dialogue and sharp, witty sociopolitcal commentary. The West Wing is still better and everyone I know who loved that show recommend seasons 1-4 (Aaron Sorkin left after Season 4). Studio 60 started off strong and then struggled for a bit, but I also think it's started to hit it's own stride. Hard for me to say tho, because I haven't really watched the West Wing in it's entirety, and my best friend (who's a nut for the West Wing) noted that a lot of the dialogue has been recycled from Sports Night and the West Wing, but tends to lose it's effective impact in a less than provacative setting (certain speeches don't seem as significant or grandiose on the set of a sketch comedy as opposed to the White House). It's got a really great cast of some often underrated or overlooked actors (Amanda Peet and Sarah Paulson come to mind, and then of course there's Steven Weber, Matthew Perry, and Bradley Whitford to boot).

Ste

Blackadder I-V... Rowan Atkinson's best work to date. I really dislike Mr Bean, but love Blackadder.

You've never seen Fawlty Towers?  Damn, Ste, get your butt down to a video store and rent it at least -- it may be the funniest show to come out of the UK  since the original Monty Python shows.  We've seen every episode (there are only 12) at least a dozen times, and they still put us on the floor in tears of laughter.

It's a damn shame that Fawlty Towers didn't last longer.  :(

I kinda like that about the UK shows -- they say what they have to say, and are then done with it. They don't drag shows out well past their prime just for the ratings or dollars (or pounds :) ) like the US networks do. The original Office was only 12 or 14 shows too -- just two of their seasons worth. The UK Coupling, which was also brilliant (and way better than that horrible remake here) was only 4 seasons of 8 shows, too.

   All this chatter got me going down memory lane for my favorite British shows on PBS as a youngster.  Fawlty Towers, most definitely you have to go rent it.  Another of my favs was The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin.  Then we could go on forever about 'Classic' series/shows that we Yanks got to see.   I Claudius, The Miss Marple series, Poirot, Upstairs/Downstairs, anything that David Attenborough did (was Connections American or British?).  Ahh, the memories.

Absolutely Fabulous was and still is, one of my favourite British sitcoms.

Faulty Towers was a classic piece as was Open all Hours with Ronnie Barker. That show is up there as an old favourite of mine too.

How could I possible forget AbFab???  Watched them all at a college party, stoned off my ass and very possibly tripping?!  Good times, good times.  ;D

ETA: Just one more punctuation mark, please.

Yep. AbFab was even funnier watching it while stoned, as was The Young Ones!  :D

OK - you convinced me, you sound like you know what you're talking about and many of the shows you mention I have enjoyed, I'll give it a go. Gird the loins and all that. :D

Oh Gareth, I hope they pick Gareth, I'd love to see how he'd go down in a different cultural setting. Although as you mention, the current US climate may not be the most suitable for a psychopathic control freak who's obsessed with the army - oh wait, sorry - that's Pescado's territory!

Don't know how many series there were in all, but after the cast changed and a woman replaced Rimmer, the series never seemed to jell again. Their timing was off somehow.

Best invented swearword from the series - smeg. (Look up smegma - which is where I think the word smeg was found.)

All the other shows you mention are very good, though as others have commented Fawlty Towers is classic. John Cleese's character lives in a world of incandescent rage, resentment and revenge, he gallops round the set, long legs pistoning like a man possessed. The rest of the cast are well-defined characters, each with their own quirks, yet provide an entirely believable setting for Cleese's madness.


Same! Have you seen Ever Decreasing Circles?


AbFab - oh yeah. Best throwaway line:
Edie pauses in her hallway on her way out, there's a small eastern type shrine, she sprinkles some drops of water on herself and chants a brief singsong phrase. Patsy says, 'Are you still doing that?'

'Almost religiously darling', replies Edie.

If you're a fan of Scientifiction, check out the new Doctor Who and its spinoff Torchwood. It just doesn't get any better than that. While in the UK it is suitable for children (but not childish), I think for a US audience it would be classified for adults.

Be warned that especially Torchwood deals heavily with topics which may upset some conservatives: the main character is openly "omnisexual" (not just bisexual), and the series' episodes' stories tend to be on the dark side.

There were eight series in all, the first six were great, the last two, not so much. I don't think it was wholly to do with the cast change (Kris didn't really replace Rimmer, he was still in four episodes of series seven and all of series eight), though I was never impressed with Chloe Annett. I think the break up of the writers had more to do with it, Paul Alexander just wasn't a good enough replacement for Rob Grant.

Yes I'm a science fiction addict, generally more books than movies though. We've had the new Dr Who here, I did watch a few episodes and really enjoyed them. I've not heard of Torchwood, we get some things late or not at all, The Office (USA version) only started the first series here about a month ago. Straight after The Simpsons episode that was penned by Ricky Gervais - which I missed dagnammit.

Though there's talk of putting some quality drama/comedy/movies back on one of the free channels - oddly enough people left in droves when the programming kept dumbing down over the last few years. I only watch about 2 shows/movies a week, so it's not worth paying for satellite. I'll have a poke round the net, see if I can find Torchwood.


Ah, thanks for that, it's been a while since I saw the rest, I just had a memory of Rimmer zooming in and out for cameos as Ace.
I think it was Laeshanin said that Charles Wossname who played Lister was last seen playing a seedy taxi driver, on TV I think. So sad, he was cute as a button.

He plays Lloyd in Coronation Street, though his character has disappeared for a while as Craig Charles was suspended for drug use. I don't watch it, but as I was reading this I opened the newspaper and there was a photo of him back at work on the third page.

The US version of Coupling was an exact copy of the UK version. They had the exact same scripts and almost exactly the same blocking. The US cast was soo very blah and there was also a general opinion from those who had no idea that the US Coupling was merely a copy of Friends. I don't think that it stood a chance.

Never even gave the US version a look, but yea, the blah cast is something I heard about, and it could ruin a show that depends on some liveliness in the characters.  Not to mention that some things are just funnier when said with a British accent. :)