What I like is when the game (3) makes your sim act autonomously when you leave them, but immediately cancels that action when something else comes up (both by the game - carpool for instance - or the player). Like playing the computer, or listening to a guitar. You don't have to cancel that action when it was autonomously. Only when you ordered your sim yourself to do something you have to actively cancel the action. A player's action is clearly treated differently than an action triggered by the game.
It took me almost the whole of a party to get my sims to help the toddler blow out her candles. They kept ignoring me and socializing with the guests or cancelling my commands. I even moved the cake and had them stand near the toddler. Nope they kept changing to check toddler.
Basically like this: Action 1: Tell parent 1 -> Help blow out candle (selected toddler) Effect 1: Cancels command and keeps doing current action (talking to guests)
Action 2: Cancels current action (talking to guests) Effect 2: Takes forever to stop
Meanwhile, moves cake from where I placed it directly in front of the Parent 1 to the kitchen counter.
Action 3: Switches to parent 2 and Queues Action 1 twice Effect 3: Goes upstairs to toddler's room stands outside and cancels action again (switches to check toddler)
Meanwhile the sim (Parent 1 and 2) has not made the usual indication you receive if the sim cannot go to the destination of where I want them. Like wave their hand with the path blocked icon on their heads.
Moved the cake again to another counter just to be sure because the first counter had a dish washer in it.
By the time they finally helped the toddler the party was ending in 55mins sim time. There goes my party gold
@DeservedCriticism and to all the people bothered by it :
From what I saw in the game files, they are taking into account whether an interaction is user-based or not and whether it should be overriden or not by another interactions, so it seems to me the system is definitely there. Thus if you have any situations where it's not doing what you'd like it to do, odds are it's something that is specific to these situations, and I'd suggest you give more details about them : what your Sims were doing, which interaction did they autonomously switched to, how were their needs, etc.
I don't doubt it is in the game files properly. The Sims ultimately do what you ask which is how the game file are set up but it is not immediate.
Example:
My Sim autonomously wants to grab food out of the fridge. His bladder is in the yellow as well as hunger. I want my Sim to pee first because we all know as long as it takes them to eat they might wet themselves eating first. I send said Sim to the bathroom near the bedroom. Before my Sim leaves the bedroom I cancel out the food action and tell the Sim to use the toilet. The Sim will walk all the way to the kitchen may or may not open the fridge grab a plate put it back and then walk all the way back to the bathroom to do what I asked. That is ridiculous.
@DeservedCriticism and to all the people bothered by it :
From what I saw in the game files, they are taking into account whether an interaction is user-based or not and whether it should be overriden or not by another interactions, so it seems to me the system is definitely there. Thus if you have any situations where it's not doing what you'd like it to do, odds are it's something that is specific to these situations, and I'd suggest you give more details about them : what your Sims were doing, which interaction did they autonomously switched to, how were their needs, etc.
I don't doubt it is in the game files properly. The Sims ultimately do what you ask which is how the game file are set up but it is not immediate.
Example:
My Sim autonomously wants to grab food out of the fridge. His bladder is in the yellow as well as hunger. I want my Sim to pee first because we all know as long as it takes them to eat they might wet themselves eating first. I send said Sim to the bathroom near the bedroom. Before my Sim leaves the bedroom I cancel out the food action and tell the Sim to use the toilet. The Sim will walk all the way to the kitchen may or may not open the fridge grab a plate put it back and then walk all the way back to the bathroom to do what I asked. That is ridiculous.
@keekee53 and then you end up with something like that:
But even though she ate on the toilet, she didn't actually used the toilet.
@MissCherie Yep, that's exactly the result I get too. Trying to queue food and toilet back-to-back just results in a meal on the toilet where they skip using the bathroom entirely.
The issue is that objects have more weight than commands, when I command my sim to bath his toddler, he put the toddler in the bath, and take him out right away to put him down, so that he can look at the talking toilet, so that's annoying cause you need to stop your sim's action, command again to bath the toddler.
There's a lot of objects like that that I cannot even have in my house or my sims obsess over it to the point of cancelling commands, and I had to sell those objects cause it always cancel my commands, the talking toilet is an example, but there's stuff like the toddler cube table, I heard the bulletin does it, I haven't tried it myself, but yea that's annoying.
@MissCherie Yep, that's exactly the result I get too. Trying to queue food and toilet back-to-back just results in a meal on the toilet where they skip using the bathroom entirely.
You do know that objects in the game advertise to the sims and so when you want them to actually like you said read the vampire lore book and they don't they probably don't find that object as appealing. Not saying that your sims shouldn't be following everything you say but its more that certain objects advertise more then others and thats why you see them gravitating more towards those objects.
@MissCherie Yep, that's exactly the result I get too. Trying to queue food and toilet back-to-back just results in a meal on the toilet where they skip using the bathroom entirely.
You do know that objects in the game advertise to the sims and so when you want them to actually like you said read the vampire lore book and they don't they probably don't find that object as appealing. Not saying that your sims shouldn't be following everything you say but its more that certain objects advertise more then others and thats why you see them gravitating more towards those objects.
If the AI is prioritizing actions it determines as 'appealing' over player initiated actions then it's effectively broken.
The only time a player initiated action should be interupted (cancelled autonomously) is when a Sim has a low need conflicting with the action your sim is doing (where the sim will refuse to do it, visibly, until the need is filled), or when your Sim experiences need failure.
This is not about autonomy, it's about autonomous cancellation of player initiated actions.
I don't understand what the heck you expect to achieve, and you continue to fail to explain it. You continue to justify yourself by insisting this topic needs tone police. That's all you ever do, and that's the problem.
Adding to what @Neia said, I'm thinking back to what I remember (from playing) about interactions that are almost never disturbed by autonomy. Those are the "Practice X" interactions, like Practice Writing, Practice Singing, etc. If started autonomously, they can be exited autonomously, but if started by the player, they will only exit on a special condition like "motives near fail" (e.g. one or more Needs being extremely low).
It sounds like what some of you are asking for, is for most interactions to operate like the "Practice X" interactions.
But I think the reason it's not done this way is just a difference in design style. If one is accustomed to micromanaging, then having player control nearly always override autonomy is probably the ideal.
But if you imagine a more looseweave way of playing, where the player and autonomy are sort of both operating part of the "machinery" of their sims.... I think having most interactions be like "Practice X" could make autonomy feel very stilted. As in, you give a sim one command and now it's suddenly like they've lost their free will, until you go and cancel it, or it times out. In some scenarios this might be ok, like going to the bathroom (and I don't think I've often seen a command like that interrupted anyway). But if you get into interactions that have the potential to last a while, you're looking at scenarios where you tell your sim to do something and even though (for example) work is two hours away and their fun is full, but they need to eat, they still keep reading that book because it's what you commanded them to do. And you're trying to manage 4 other sims, all of whom are being just as plum.
Granted, there are scenarios like this anyway, where sims waste time. But I'm not so sure it's a fundamental design problem, so much as it is a problem, like Neia is getting at, of particular scenarios having issues.
If I were to reach for what might be a fundamental design component that holds the system back (or rather, lack of one) is that it may be missing what I'm going to call "Short-Term Vision." I'm not sure if it has anything like this or not, but the general idea in terms of comparing to reality is that human beings often plan ahead a little bit in the moment. Or they have a set routine that they follow during a particular time of day. So in the prepping for work scenario, for instance, a sim who wants to be ready for work in term and is like us humans might sense that they need to stack certain actions. They might queue up three or four actions; bathroom, shower, grab some cereal. They wouldn't necessarily be queue items, but would be higher priorities (for instance, in the existing system, they might rank higher in Desire in the lead-up to work if they're a responsible sim). Or they might have a system that ranks getting each of their Needs over a certain threshold as a priority.
Mind you, I'm not saying that's how TS4 needs to be or that it should be designed in the manner I described. I'm just trying to explain what the concept is in my head. I think that kind of prediction/planning is probably a whole other level of AI, especially when you take into account needing to design it in such a way that sims will have different priorities.
I mean, there's probably bits of the concept in the system already. But I think the series should continue to aim for making sims smarter, is my overarching point. Rather than prioritize player actions more. I think giving the player a more flexible experience would be found in more detailed autonomy controls.
Yeah no lol. I don't doubt you and not saying you're lying, but that same coding clearly isn't doing it's job. It's not 1-2 exceptions, it's many exceptions to the point the coding may as well not exist. People have named several exceptions here (reading books, dollhouse's new "play with," wash hands or drink water, Dream Big on Basketball, social interactions in general, toddlers forcing interactions, getting drinks, just to name a few), so at this point I would definitely say the staff needs to review that same coding to ensure it's working, because it's quite clear it doesn't work in many, many cases.
I mean I would assume this would be a general rule that affects all actions equally. There's no reason for them to assign priority to playing piano but not for reading books for example. Of course they'd want to apply priority to ALL player actions universally. The fact that so many slip through the cracks implies something must seriously be wrong with this coding, and if I had to guess, multitasking is probably at least partially responsible.
I mean it when I say that I think Sims 4 has the worst AI of the franchise, and it's really both amazing and pathetic that this is even possible. Sims 1 had Sim brains exploding if they tried to use a door the same time as someone else, but everything else functioned as you'd expect. Sims 4 often has us fighting our Sims for control. The most logical conclusion, to me, is that this multitasking system of Sims 4 is responsible, because it doesn't make sense that Sims 4 suddenly has abysmal AI when the past three all delivered better AI without hiccups like this one. I would question if, for example, the actions listed are falsely processed as being actions that can be multitasked (aka the game thinks you can multitask working out on a machine and playing basketball as an example someone mentioned), and then when it attempts to multitask these, then that results in canceling the first one. I'm not sure, it's just a theory, but it's very clear that some other system must be fighting this one, and it's winning.
EDIT: Cool, seems like your link in your second post more or less supports my theory. Poor tuning and categorizing of certain actions may be the culprit causing some actions to falsely register as multitasking-capable, which leads to premature cancellation.
I'm pretty sure most of the examples you listed are unintended and I have to raise an eyebrow at your phrasing "many, many cases." The majority of autonomy isn't causing problems.
I think some of them are separate issues, too.
Dream Big: Not sure what's going on there, but it's not just the autonomous urge to use it. There's some kind of pathing or posture weirdness that can happen as well. I had it a couple times where my sim was sitting on the couch, tried to do dream big, did some kind of flip water animation like they were swimming and then resurfaced. EDIT: I looked into this one tonight for the sheer heck of it and submitted a fix to MTS for the thing where Active Trait sims get their exercise canceled out from Dream Big. Not sure when it'll get through the queue, but yay and stuff.
Toddlers forcing interactions: I'm guessing this is an unintended consequence of trying to ensure that caregivers don't ignore their toddlers and watch them get taken away. I guess it got overtuned somehow, in some cases.
Drink water: I'm guessing part of the problem here is that thirst is an actual "motive." It's just hidden and doesn't decay as fast as other needs, or have as much weight in autonomy. So it could be what's happening is people are ending up with sims who have low thirst, but they obviously can't see the need to tell that their sim is in need of water and they just keep canceling out the going for water. It could also be that Maxis heard feedback on people being weirded about thirst not being a "real" need and overtuned things a bit somewhere along the line, as I don't remember the going for water thing being a problem early in TS4's history.
Wash hands: Possibly something to do with the weight of it being too high, comparative to how little hygiene it fills.
Social interactions: I have gotten annoyed by this one a lot in the past, but to play devil's advocate with myself, human beings are social creatures and most of them tend to find each other and socialize when they're in enclosed spaces. The issue here seems to be with how it works, rather than the frequency itself. For example, the inevitable annoyance in a large house where one sim paths halfway across the house to socialize with another sim, only to have one of them cancel out by the time they get there. Or they get there just to wave hi and then go do other things. I'm not sure I'd categorize this as a problem with autonomy exactly... I think it's more a logistical problem to do with time and pathfinding.
Wouldn't "Short-Term Vision" be really costly in performance though ? I mean, look ahead/look behind can quickly be costly so unless you rely on heuristics to define some common sets of action (like in the morning), I'm not sure it would be doable. We already have some actions that followed each other, like using the toilet -> washing hand (which I think is done through the hand hygiene need) or cooking something -> grabing a plate, but it's mostly ones that have a logical link. I guess making some longer string of actions is probably doable (like the cleaning frenzy), or tying some needs to the hour of the day but I think there would be a risk of making them a bit too predictable.
The drinking obsession is indeed very likely related to the thirst need, I didn't keep my Sims hydrated and they were drinking autonomously. I made the thirst need converges at 100 instead of 0 and it stopped. I'd say the fact they were constantly attempting to drink was probably because the autonomous action was overriden by my owns, so as soon as they finally managed to grab a drink, I told them to do something else, and they put it down, still as thirsty as before. Which lead to lots of glass everywhere from their vain attempts at filling their thirst need Washing hand may be for the same reason, there's also a hand hygiene need (and an oral one which is only used when your Sims puke).
For the waving, I think it may be related to the different hello/greeting interactions that were introduced in GT. It's an interaction that isn't visible to the user, but when you cancel a social interaction, it still runs, and you can't do anything to cancel it. I wonder if it's intended or not. I would expect this type of interactions to be cancelled if I tell my Sims to do something else instead, but that doesn't seem to be the case from what I've seen in-game (I haven't checked in the game files).
You're probably right about performance cost. I haven't really thought through the logistics of it; was kinda just spitballing theory. And yes, I agree about predictability. I think it'd have to be done in a way that allows for randomness in some way, or it would just be a set of predictable actions.
Good to know about thirst and hand washing. I didn't realize there was a separate hand hygiene need; makes sense though. I was looking around for something like that at one point, but I think I was looking in the wrong places. Wasn't occurring to me to look for a need specific to washing hands.
That is curious about the greeting. I wonder now how the mechanics of it work. I don't think I've ever looked much into that particular aspect of the game.
Yes, I think they meant it to be a realistic touch, the Sims even get more thirsty by doing sports for example, which is a nice touch. But the problem for me is that drinking is lowering the bladder so much. I tend to avoid coffee for that reason too. I think perhaps the bladder need shouldn't be lowered if the Sims is thirsty. That way you'd only need to pee if you drink too much.
I think that'd be a good change. ^^ That or just tweak way down how much bladder gets reduced from drinking. I've always found it weird how fast it decreases from drinking water.
I'm not sure how it works in the code, but I think what'd be more realistic is if drinking gives you a temporary buff that increases the bladder decay rate by a small amount. Something like 1.1, or 1.2, for 2 sim hours. Then it's more true to life where the drinking has an ongoing impact on your bladder. And then if you pee before the buff dissipates, peeing removes it. (Granted, this might be too much of an overlapping priorities "creating a problem" out of a solution way to do it, since you might get decay rate fighting for priority, with things like pregnancy potentially getting screwed up. I'm not sure about the modifiers for stuff like decay rate in buffs when they are numbers other than 0, if it factors them together at all, or if it chooses one as the priority and ignores the rest.)
And a side note for anyone who may be interested, the fix for Active Trait sims having their exercise canceled to go Dream Big that I mentioned in the edit of my other post... it's now up on MTS: http://modthesims.info/download.php?t=595966
@bunny-🐸🐸🐸🐸 I think the computer has higher pull than some things. Not entirely sure in what way (I've never looked into that particular aspect of the code). I've definitely noticed what you're talking about in gameplay.
As for babies and checking on toddlers and the like, interestingly, it seems to me like they wanted to make sure that toddlers wouldn't be a case of being ignored, so they made sure that sims (particularly those who have a toddler as care dependent) will check on them regularly, even if the toddler doesn't need anything in that particular moment. It may be slightly overtuned and it probably could be adjusted, though I don't know myself enough about the numbers of it to guess at how things would need to be adjusted in that situation.
I haven't played with babies much, but if they are being ignored, I bet they could set them up with the same "adopt as care dependent" mechanics, so that caregivers will regularly check on the baby, like they do with toddlers.
But yeah, happy to be of help and share what I know.
Post number 5, half of which is still on the topic of the thread:
Except you can. Sims 1, Sims 2 and Sims 3 all did a wonderful job of figuring out when player-queue'ed actions should remain and when they should be overridden. Sims 4 cannot do this, for whatever reason. Whether that reason be a failure of multitasking, poor priorities/programming regarding guarenteed vs. intertial or what-have-you, I really don't care. I don't care because it's obvious they succeeded at this system thrice in the past, so whatever the cause may be, it's inexcuseable.
Sims in Sims 1, 2 and 3 can all be assigned to watch TV or to use the bathroom without being trapped to the TV or toilet and without failing to understand when they can cease the action. Sims 4 sims by contrast are eager to abandon a fair amount of player-assigned tasks, while likewise eager to queue up actions regardless of the scenario. (a Sim with max fun might obsess over a nearby TV)
There's a problem. Sitting here and discussing why that problem exists seems pointless to me, because you're more or less trying to tell me a system that's existed thrice already is suddenly super hard to do. If this were the first game ever and we didn't know how to resolve this issue, sure, let's discuss the cause, but here...? They've already succeeded thrice. There's simply no excuse for why the Sims 4 has such poor optimization with action priority. The only scenarios where I think discussing the cause would be of any use would be if A.) the Devs were explicitly asking us to help pinpoint the problem so they could fix it or B.) the cause itself helped suggest a workaround or why this problem might worsen/improve on it's own in the near future.
To my understanding, the previous sims games didn't have much in the way of sims being able to operate on their own... like, to a point certainly, but an extremely limited point. In this one, they can be left alone, with the caveat that they'll be a bit plum about some things.
That, to my understanding, is the primary difference in the systems. They made sims "smarter" in TS4, when operating independently, and thus it came with its own set of problems, some of those problems being associated with playstyles that involve micromanaging (which some had become accustomed to from previous sims titles).
What you are saying in this post is frankly crowd-pleasing nonsense. I get it, you are being the voice of, "We want we want, give it to us now!" Congratulations for playing the crowd. The reality is, TS4 is designed as it is designed and has been designed as it is for over 2 years. That you have the gall to talk like actions in TS4 are an abject failure, while implying that it's easy to fix, amidst more than one person sharing details about the workings of the code with you, while you pull back to say that the details don't matter, is some of the most intellectually dishonest behavior I've seen from you. And I'm saying this from the perspective of having a certain amount of respect for your interest in fact and logic, despite not always agreeing with how you go about it, or most of your positions.
It's one thing to critique. It's another thing to sensationalize. And this "shoot the messenger", "the devs can figure it out themselves" stuff is not remotely constructive, or adds a single plum thing to discussions about the sims series. For someone who is usually so ready to write a ten page manuscript on what needs changing, you sure are shutting down in the face of an actual detailed discussion about the workings of the game. It seems like a copout to me. After all, how can you lose an argument if you dismiss the details out of hand? I've seen that tactic before. Heck, I've used it before throughout my life. It's a face-saving tactic, nothing more. You're better than that.
Post number 6, after you've told me I'm "off-topic"
Seriously now, I feel like at times you guys are just here to argue
Are you kidding me? That's basically all that you do here is argue. That you're going to use it as some sort of point against me, or anyone else, is laughable.
I have never tried to hide the fact that I like TS4. Naturally, that means my arguments are more often going to fall on the end of a perspective on the game that is positive. That doesn't mean my arguments are automatically wrong.
You want to act like you're being targeted, but then you'll act like a dbag to people who are meeting you on the terms that you so often ask for; having a discussion and/or debate with facts and logic. I get that some people at some times target criticism of this game with a level of unfair and dismissive ire, but that doesn't give you license to go off on anyone who challenges your positions; at that point, you're just being the thing that you hate.
You want a debate, have a debate. You don't get to do a fallback maneuver to save face or play the victim when your arguments are failing; it's disingenuous and goes against the very ideals that you preach, undermining the core of most of what you say. It's more damaging to your own efforts than it is to anyone who becomes the target of your ire. Realize that if I only cared about TS4 being perceived in a positive light, I would let you self-destruct your own efforts without saying a word. It's because I care about ideals to do with logic and reason, and about the environment on this forum being constructive, that I care enough to say what I'm saying.
Post number 7, after you've basically forced me into an in-depth, off-topic conversation, fulfilling your own prophecy:
For someone who talks about using logic over emotion, you sure appear to be sensitive here. The first post contained two paragraphs that were completely focused on the arguments over sims AI and nothing else. The second two paragraphs criticized you for trying to act like you'd won and like other posters were somehow plum or something, so that you could duck out of an argument that you were slipping on having enough know-how to back up your positions. In other words, it was criticizing you for attacking others as a way to save face and escape a losing argument.
The other post was more focused on you, yes. But again, about calling you out for trying to play the targeted victim and attack others to get out of an argument.
Two total of my posts in this thread. Most of my posts in this thread were 100% focused on the topic at hand and discussing it.
Apparently you missed the point about "what one is here to do" though. Half my posts here have had some argumentation; my point is, so what? I'll reiterate: That you'd try to use that as a point of dismissing someone is laughable, considering that nearly everything you post on these forums is argumentative? In other words, if the purpose being to argue is something bad or wrong, then your existence on these forums is a "what on earth" moment by your own incredulity.
What I said in those two posts wasn't even really about you. It was about not wanting to see people get attacked and treated like plum because you, or anyone else, doesn't like what they say. That's why I drew the comparison to, and acknowledged the happening of, people getting attacked when they criticize the game; like I said, that happens. But it doesn't excuse you going off on people who defend it. It happened to strike a chord with you in particular only because you tend to be so ardent in your position that the facts and the logic and the arguments are what matter. So for you to turn around and talk down to people because you aren't happy that they're undermining a complaint of yours about the game is just staggering levels of hypocrisy.
Again, as personal as you will probably take this, it's not about you. It's about the environment on the boards and how people get treated. You just so happen to be a loud presence and you like to proclaim a number of ideals, so if you're going to proclaim ideals, you better be ready to live up to them, or at least admit it with a modicum of humility when you don't, or the contrast is going to be starkly recognizable where it isn't for some others.
I don't understand what the heck you expect to achieve, and you continue to fail to explain it. You continue to justify yourself by insisting this topic needs tone police. That's all you ever do, and that's the problem.
So out of a total of 7 posts, I made 2 and a half that were "off-topic." Whether I did any tone policing or not is irrelevant to your lie. The fact is that 5 and a half of my posts were discussion of the topic at hand, some of them going into great depth on the subject.
Next time you decide to lie, I suggest doing it in a format where the words aren't recorded.
@Triplis Boy you sure proved me wrong when I said you constantly argue semantics.
On the plus side, there's a brilliant irony to that post: in your effort to show that "that's all you ever do" isn't literal (shocker!), you're arguing more semantics and more tone-policing (in it's own way), which is exactly what I was saying. It's never the context or the message of the thread, it's ALWAYS line #237 where someone said something that technically isn't 100% literal! Ho'snap! You've gottem now, Triplis!
Please do me a favor and if a statement seems ridiculous if read at face-value, don't take it at face value and waste our time with pointless clarities of that much. You can focus on the message and what people are trying to convey without needing to nitpick word choice. I believe in you.
@Triplis Boy you sure proved me wrong when I said you constantly argue semantics.
On the plus side, there's a brilliant irony to that post: in your effort to show that "that's all you ever do" isn't literal (shocker!), you're arguing more semantics and more tone-policing (in it's own way), which is exactly what I was saying. It's never the context or the message of the thread, it's ALWAYS line #237 where someone said something that technically isn't 100% literal! Ho'snap! You've gottem now, Triplis!
Please do me a favor and if a statement seems ridiculous if read at face-value, don't take it at face value and waste our time with pointless clarities of that much.
So basically what you're saying is, it wasn't a lie, you were just being ridiculous.
Comments
Basically like this:
Action 1: Tell parent 1 -> Help blow out candle (selected toddler)
Effect 1: Cancels command and keeps doing current action (talking to guests)
Action 2: Cancels current action (talking to guests)
Effect 2: Takes forever to stop
Meanwhile, moves cake from where I placed it directly in front of the Parent 1 to the kitchen counter.
Action 3: Switches to parent 2 and Queues Action 1 twice
Effect 3: Goes upstairs to toddler's room stands outside and cancels action again (switches to check toddler)
Meanwhile the sim (Parent 1 and 2) has not made the usual indication you receive if the sim cannot go to the destination of where I want them. Like wave their hand with the path blocked icon on their heads.
Moved the cake again to another counter just to be sure because the first counter had a dish washer in it.
By the time they finally helped the toddler the party was ending in 55mins sim time. There goes my party gold
I don't doubt it is in the game files properly. The Sims ultimately do what you ask which is how the game file are set up but it is not immediate.
Example:
My Sim autonomously wants to grab food out of the fridge. His bladder is in the yellow as well as hunger. I want my Sim to pee first because we all know as long as it takes them to eat they might wet themselves eating first. I send said Sim to the bathroom near the bedroom. Before my Sim leaves the bedroom I cancel out the food action and tell the Sim to use the toilet. The Sim will walk all the way to the kitchen may or may not open the fridge grab a plate put it back and then walk all the way back to the bathroom to do what I asked. That is ridiculous.
@keekee53 and then you end up with something like that:
But even though she ate on the toilet, she didn't actually used the toilet.
There's a lot of objects like that that I cannot even have in my house or my sims obsess over it to the point of cancelling commands, and I had to sell those objects cause it always cancel my commands, the talking toilet is an example, but there's stuff like the toddler cube table, I heard the bulletin does it, I haven't tried it myself, but yea that's annoying.
If the AI is prioritizing actions it determines as 'appealing' over player initiated actions then it's effectively broken.
The only time a player initiated action should be interupted (cancelled autonomously) is when a Sim has a low need conflicting with the action your sim is doing (where the sim will refuse to do it, visibly, until the need is filled), or when your Sim experiences need failure.
This is not about autonomy, it's about autonomous cancellation of player initiated actions.
Post number 1 of mine in this thread alone:
Post number 2 of mine in this thread:
Post number 3:
Post number 4:
Post number 5, half of which is still on the topic of the thread:
Post number 6, after you've told me I'm "off-topic"
Post number 7, after you've basically forced me into an in-depth, off-topic conversation, fulfilling your own prophecy:
Lol.
[/quote]
So out of a total of 7 posts, I made 2 and a half that were "off-topic." Whether I did any tone policing or not is irrelevant to your lie. The fact is that 5 and a half of my posts were discussion of the topic at hand, some of them going into great depth on the subject.
Next time you decide to lie, I suggest doing it in a format where the words aren't recorded.
On the plus side, there's a brilliant irony to that post: in your effort to show that "that's all you ever do" isn't literal (shocker!), you're arguing more semantics and more tone-policing (in it's own way), which is exactly what I was saying. It's never the context or the message of the thread, it's ALWAYS line #237 where someone said something that technically isn't 100% literal! Ho'snap! You've gottem now, Triplis!
Please do me a favor and if a statement seems ridiculous if read at face-value, don't take it at face value and waste our time with pointless clarities of that much. You can focus on the message and what people are trying to convey without needing to nitpick word choice. I believe in you.