327,670 Aspiration Points

[Morague]

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?

[J. M. Pescado]

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).

[Gwill]

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?

[kutto]

That seems to be the case:

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

[Morague]

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.

[miros]

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

[jsalemi]

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

[Oddysey]

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.

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.

[J. M. Pescado]

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.

[Oddysey]

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

[J. M. Pescado]

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

[kutto]

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. 

[J. M. Pescado]

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.

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.

[trudy]

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.

[J. M. Pescado]

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.

[trudy]

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

[Jack Rudd]

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.)

[J. M. Pescado]

(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.

[Jack Rudd]

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.

[J. M. Pescado]

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.

[kutto]

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

[J. M. Pescado]

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

Never seen it, actually.

[MxxPwr]

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. 

[Andygal]

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

[rohina]

There was a somewhat curious incident in the 1999 Cricket World Cup that arose from oddities in the way the scoring system worked.

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