Two mods: Quicker Conversion and Household Chance

[J. M. Pescado]

ELIZA has almost no intelligence whatsoever, only tricks like string substitution and canned responses based on keywords. Yet when the original ELIZA first appeared in the 60's, some people actually mistook her for human.

Yes, but they haven't dabbled in writing CONVINCING chatbots. I have written ones that are utterly convincing. One of them emulates me, and people only notice when I switch it off and take over, immediately accusing the actual me of being replaced by a bot. The other emulates a typical 12 year old boy. Like actual 12s, it possesses almost no intelligence whatsoever, but armed with poor spelling and punctuation, and a homophobic insult generator, it can create dialogue utterly indistinguishable from an actual 12. The key to convincingly emulating conversation is antagonism. Far too many people focus on things like comprehension and syntax: In truth, most humans lack these features. All you really need to pass as a human in conversation is plenty of antagonism.

[spockblock]

The other emulates a typical 12 year old boy. Like actual 12s, it possesses almost no intelligence whatsoever, but armed with poor spelling and punctuation, and a homophobic insult generator, it can create dialogue utterly indistinguishable from an actual 12.

It's RapeLlama, isn't it?

[Jeebus]

I have this crazy idea that snowbawl is just a chatbot made by Pescado for his own pleasure.

[jezzer]

I have this crazy idea that snowbawl is just a chatbot made by Pescado for his own pleasure.

Crazy ideas abound when you apply Alphatard logic.

[superstition]

ELIZA has almost no intelligence whatsoever, only tricks like string substitution and canned responses based on keywords. Yet when the original ELIZA first appeared in the 60's, some people actually mistook her for human.

Yes, but they haven't dabbled in writing CONVINCING chatbots. I have written ones that are utterly convincing. One of them emulates me, and people only notice when I switch it off and take over, immediately accusing the actual me of being replaced by a bot. The other emulates a typical 12 year old boy. Like actual 12s, it possesses almost no intelligence whatsoever, but armed with poor spelling and punctuation, and a homophobic insult generator, it can create dialogue utterly indistinguishable from an actual 12. The key to convincingly emulating conversation is antagonism. Far too many people focus on things like comprehension and syntax: In truth, most humans lack these features. All you really need to pass as a human in conversation is plenty of antagonism.

Yes, I know what you mean about antagonism. Does your AwesomeMod affect any of the values adjusted by these tuning mods? If so, I should make a note of it in the opening post. Do you know if the code is still current for one or both of these? I've been planning to reinstall the game and get it to the current version to see if the code is still around, but I wonder if there is a way the code may still be around but no longer used. It's straightforward to test the conversion mod, but the chance mods seem harder to pin down.

Also, if there are, as one person said, mods around that affect the chance values, do you think it would be better to remove the version of the Household Chance mod that affects multiple values and stick with just the same-sex value? One more question. If these mods load after other mods that affect the values, is that a safe way to supersede such code duplication in some circumstances? I understand that that was occasionally a way to work around Sims 2 mod/code redundancy, but I am not as familiar with Sims 3 mechanisms.

Thanks. I am not an expert coder by any means, but I am interested in making these mods as useful as I can.

[J. M. Pescado]

Yes, I know what you mean about antagonism. Does your AwesomeMod affect any of the values adjusted by these tuning mods?

Nope. AwesomeMod does not touch any of these tuning vaues.

If so, I should make a note of it in the opening post. Do you know if the code is still current for one or both of these? I've been planning to reinstall the game and get it to the current version to see if the code is still around, but I wonder if there is a way the code may still be around but no longer used. It's straightforward to test the conversion mod, but the chance mods seem harder to pin down.

I don't really think the code in question does anything that is actually useful, really.

[superstition]

I don't really think the code in question does anything that is actually useful, really.

The chance code only, or the chance code and the conversion code? Is the chance code that Household Change affects no longer around in recent versions of the game, or is the code ignored?

When I tested the conversion mod with 1.4.6, it definitely worked. I consider shaving 5 artificial forced interactions off same-sex autonomy useful, and also bringing the chance of having same-sex households up from 1% seems very helpful for players who don't want to have to manually create gay couples all the time — but perhaps EA changed the way the game handles this. Do you have any information related to this part of the game?

[superstition]

Hmmm, I actually find the current state of homosexuals in the game pretty good.  I get about 4-6 couples in the neighborhood.

The chance code (as of the old version of the game I developed these tuning mods from) for same-sex households was 1%, I recall. So, something has to explain why you are getting a higher percentage. With 1% odds, it seems statistically unlikely without other variables, like:

a) The code was deprecated or eliminated and replaced with something else.
b) The code works in conjunction with something like a "neighborhood conversion" factor. So, if a player "converts" characters or neighborhood with manual initiation of same-sex romance, then neighborhoods have a higher chance of having new same-sex couples.

Srikandi said on the Sims 3 site at one point that entire neighborhoods are optionally converted to having gay autonomy, via manual player-initiated action. So, it's possible that my mod would affect the neighborhood, not just the Sims involved directly.

I'm still in the process of getting other projects sorted out, but I'll install the game again soon -- to at least see if the conversion mod still works and if the code for the two mods is still around. It would be nice if someone with greater knowledge of the game's code could clarify some of this, though.

I just want to know if there's a mod that allows them to adopt when not playing them.  That would be super.

Wow, another surprising "oversight" by EA - that opposite-sex couples get children in the background but not same-sex couples. This is also odd, given this code, which indicates that same-sex couples should have children. The original EA chance must have been really low as it is with the same-sex couples chance. That could explain why you're not seeing your gay couples get kids:

My edited values are there, but look at the code descriptions. It suggests that the gay (at least at one point) did provide background kids to same-sex couples. I don't remember the value offhand, but I know it's rather low, although perhaps not as low as the 1% value for same-sex couples. I assume partner refers to same-sex couples here:

<kPercentChanceOfSameSexHousehold value="19">
      <!--Chance of same sex household, in percent-->

<kRelationshipDistributionWithKids value="65, 10, 25">
      <!--Relationship distribution for couples with kids [spouse, fiancee, partner]-->
    </kRelationshipDistributionWithKids>

    <kRelationshipDistributionWithoutKids value="35, 25, 40">
      <!--Relationship distribution for couples with no kids [spouse, fiancee, partner]-->
    </kRelationshipDistributionWithoutKids>

[Skadi]

Please stop double posting. You can reply to two people in the one post. Trust me when I say that you are not special enough nor are the posts interesting enough to warrant double posting.

Secondly, you are arguing about game behaviour based on an old version of the base game. Perhaps you should get around to patching before debating game mechanics.

Lastly, bleating misinformation about what AM does and then getting snippy when people point and laugh at you makes you a speshul snoeflake. We don't like speshul snoeflakes here. By all means, get offended and soup; I doubt many people are keen to play guinea pig with a mod not tested on any recently current patch.

If only you had made a intelligent discussion about your old mod, perhaps something good would have come of it.

[cwurts]

Please stop double posting. You can reply to two people in the one post. Trust me when I say that you are not special enough nor are the posts interesting enough to warrant double posting.

Secondly, you are arguing about game behaviour based on an old version of the base game. Perhaps you should get around to patching before debating game mechanics.

Lastly, bleating misinformation about what AM does and then getting snippy when people point and laugh at you makes you a speshul snoeflake. We don't like speshul snoeflakes here. By all means, get offended and soup; I doubt many people are keen to play guinea pig with a mod not tested on any recently current patch.

If only you had made a intelligent discussion about your old mod, perhaps something good would have come of it.

I would like to submit this to the grammar police for a scathing review.

[Skadi]

Awe, Cwurts loves me.

GET IT OFF! GET IT OFF!

[spockblock]

Awe, Cwurts loves me.

GET IT OFF! GET IT OFF!

It is a love that you can't wash off, Skadi. I would look into an exorcist.

[Skadi]

Damn it. Does this mean I will be haunted with visions of Oona?

[spockblock]

You're not already?

[Skadi]

I think my Adblock is saving me.

[spockblock]

You will make a fine Senator, indeed.

[cwurts]

Normally Oona doesn't eat mushrooms - they give her gas; but she's never tried this particular species before.  Oona always says: don't knock it until it's lodged in your eosophagus.