The Sims 4 Immortal Dynasty Challenge

[Metropolis Man]

One more thing, @Playalot - remember, with the new rule the team is not giving everyone carte blanche permission to seed their town to make things easier. It's only allowed IF the town dries up.

[Playalot]

@Metropolis Man  *nods* 

[Whirligig]

Thanks very much, @Trip for your quick response. I do appreciate it.

One more thing, @Playalot - remember, with the new rule the team is not giving everyone carte blanche permission to seed their town to make things easier. It's only allowed IF the town dries up.

Would it maybe be worthwhile establishing some solid parameters as to what 'dried up' actually means? How many sims in houses/in world (apart from the Dynasty House) constitutes 'dried up'? Only 2 other non-ghostly households? Or none at all? And when replenishing the town, should there be a limit to the number of sims we can add? (Say, no more than 10? Or, can we move some of the 'not in world' generated sims into the existing houses, rather than making our own? Thus simply lowering the likelihood that game-generated sims will be culled).

As Playalot said, this does make the challenge a bit easier, (And MetroMan did make a point that the challenge also becomes easier as more features are added - using clubs to their full potential feels like borderline cheating, but I digress) and I would likewise be inclined to add my own restrictions around using this rule in my own world, but could I still suggest imposing some solid parameters around how exactly this rule can be used overall?

But yeah, I'm essentially a newbie again, so feel free to disregard this. (I am breathing a sigh of relief that I don't really have to worry about the pollinator anymore. Every feminist bone in my body was going 'this is ridiculous. Talk about assumptions surrounding the gendered nature of child-rearing. He's not even paying child support!').

[Nutella]

@Whirligig

Yes we will set some parameters.  The team is currently discussing this issue and will set it up as a rule once we come to agreement on the details.

[reggikko]

My 3rd gen heir is currently a child. I chose not to pollinate and all but a handful of the original townies have died off. I have noticed that every time I send my Sims to a community lot, new townies are being generated. They haven't been put into empty houses yet, but I'm trying to spend time in each neighborhood to see if that gets the game to move them in. I have evicted two ghost households, as well. I would say that my town is not dried up because there are lots of Sims wandering around community lots even though they aren't housed. Granted, this is only Gen 3 and that may change as time goes on, but at this stage, adding Sims would feel like cheating to me. My goal when I started (and before the rule change) was to see if I could make it through with no helpers and no pollinator, mainly just to see if it can be done that way. I have used the cancelled adoption in order to get kids in the game for my heir to befriend and sending my 2nd gen heir to the gyms caused two new trainers to spawn.

I think having some firm parameters in place--though it's hard to quantify "dried up"--is a good idea. I also like the idea of moving a few game generated families into empty houses rather than adding player made Sims.

Also, the new xpac is going to add a lot of new Sims. Granted, that is a few weeks away, but it may be a factor in what the team decides.

[dethdukk]

Guess I'll put my 2cents in as well.  There's no need or reason to allow Sims to be added to the game.  The game generates more than enough sims on its own, especially if you visit parks, bars, and other shared lots.  Even if the game is failing to generate sims, you can easily make your own by:  starting and canceling an adoption, visiting gyms or libraries to force the game to make a new trainer/librarian once the current one is too old, playing as a policeman and solving cases (each case generates a new sim), and I'm sure there's more that I haven't thought of. 

The issue isn't that sims aren't being generated, it's that houses aren't being populated with them.  Just make the rule that you can move pre-existing households into houses, and you don't need to worry about all this "only when the world is dead" "no sims from the gallery" "no manage worlds unless" nonsense.

And honestly, you don't even need sims in houses to complete dynasty requirements, it just makes it so your heirs required friends don't get culled.  There's literally no reason to introduce this rule other than to make the challenge easier.

[Metropolis Man]

The issue isn't that sims aren't being generated, it's that houses aren't being populated with them.  Just make the rule that you can move pre-existing households into houses, and you don't need to worry about all this "only when the world is dead" "no sims from the gallery" "no manage worlds unless" nonsense.

We're still ironing out what to do. And this is important. It's impacted several players in a big way. It's not nonsense.

[Nutella]

And honestly, you don't even need sims in houses to complete dynasty requirements, it just makes it so your heirs required friends don't get culled.  There's literally no reason to introduce this rule other than to make the challenge easier.

One of the reason to introduce this rule is to allow players more flexibility in storytelling, which is the main point of playing a dynasty.  Sit back enjoy the game, write some heartbreaking stories and relax.  This rule may make the challenge easier, but everyone knows that this rule is nothing compared to the club expansion pack that EA released.  If I want hard-mode, I would for sure ban club xpac and all the potions for my own dynasty. 

We are still ironing out a few details on the rule, and we also have a new dynasty coming out soon - which is going to be harder than Immortal and Rival.  So those that want something more challenging, wait for it in November.

The issue isn't that sims aren't being generated, it's that houses aren't being populated with them.  Just make the rule that you can move pre-existing households into houses, and you don't need to worry about all this "only when the world is dead" "no sims from the gallery" "no manage worlds unless" nonsense.

One person's nonsense could be another person's sense. 

[dethdukk]

We're still ironing out what to do. And this is important. It's impacted several players in a big way. It's not nonsense.

One person's nonsense could be another person's sense. 

First thing, I think I was unclear.  I don't believe that the issue itself is nonsense, I think that trying to put in a rule that is only put into play based on a per game basis is nonsense.  If you want to put this rule in, make it a solid, applies to every game no matter what rule.  Example, You can move sims into households, but can only have up to 10 Sims that you manually placed in houses at any time OR You can move sims into households at any time OR You can only move pre-existing, randomly generated households into houses. 

Please don't make a rule that is reliant on what happens within the game and gives a distinct advantage to those people that get to use it.  It's nonsense to have a rule that is a clear advantage to anyone using it but not give that advantage to everyone, and make it usable based on a fairly ambiguous prerequisite.

Next, I know that the non-populating houses is an issue.  I have a dynasty at generation 7, and I haven't had a single random Sim in a house for about 5 generations now.  So yes, I know that it's a pain, I know that it affects how you play the game.  But I also know that there are workarounds for it, it is more than possible to do the dynasty without introducing this rule. 

As for Dynasty's being made for story-line and this making that easier.  Yeah, that's true, with this rule you can put in almost any Sim you want, but that's also one of the issues with the rule.  Ever since this Dynasty was made, people have been asking if they can add Sims that they made themselves into the game as spouses/helpers, and the answer has always been a solid no, you may not add player created sims, as they would give an unfair advantage due to being able to set what their traits and aspiration is.  This new rule basically negates all of that.

[MarianT]

First thing, I think I was unclear.  I don't believe that the issue itself is nonsense, I think that trying to put in a rule that is only put into play based on a per game basis is nonsense.  If you want to put this rule in, make it a solid, applies to every game no matter what rule.  Example, You can move sims into households, but can only have up to 10 Sims that you manually placed in houses at any time OR You can move sims into households at any time OR You can only move pre-existing, randomly generated households into houses. 

Could you try to refrain from criticizing until the prospective changes have actually been posted? It's possible that some of your concerns will be addressed.

Please don't make a rule that is reliant on what happens within the game and gives a distinct advantage to those people that get to use it.  It's nonsense to have a rule that is a clear advantage to anyone using it but not give that advantage to everyone, and make it usable based on a fairly ambiguous prerequisite.

We'll be defining the conditions under which someone may add new Sims.

Next, I know that the non-populating houses is an issue.  I have a dynasty at generation 7, and I haven't had a single random Sim in a house for about 5 generations now.  So yes, I know that it's a pain, I know that it affects how you play the game.  But I also know that there are workarounds for it, it is more than possible to do the dynasty without introducing this rule. 

As for Dynasty's being made for story-line and this making that easier.  Yeah, that's true, with this rule you can put in almost any Sim you want, but that's also one of the issues with the rule.  Ever since this Dynasty was made, people have been asking if they can add Sims that they made themselves into the game as spouses/helpers, and the answer has always been a solid no, you may not add player created sims, as they would give an unfair advantage due to being able to set what their traits and aspiration is.  This new rule basically negates all of that.

To some extent, it's our fault for not paying more attention to players' complaints about the game-generated Sims sooner. When TS4 first came out, we followed the model from TS3. With 5 traits and a non-changeable aspiration, there could be a big difference between game-generated Sims and player-created ones. But in TS4, aspirations can be changed at will, and traits don't make much difference. I've had noncommittal Sims accept proposals and Sims who hate children take good care of the baby. They get tense, but you can easily override that.

We are not trying to make the Immortal Dynasty easier, but we are trying to make it more enjoyable. One of the things people liked about Union Cove was that we added characters like Marilyn Monroe and also Carl, Pam, and Metro. And players won't be able to get away with making all their additions creative, cheerful, and romantic. YAs and older will be required to have one negative trait.

I doubt very much that allowing players to do this will make the Immortal Dynasty that much easier. There are still skills to max and parties to throw.

[dethdukk]

The Manage Worlds screen is off limits unless you need to evict ghosts from households. If your world needs re-populating, you are allowed to add EA created Sims and/or Sims with a blank slate - no rewards/skills, etc. Gallery Sims from other players are not allowed.[/size]

RULES UPDATE:

The Manage Worlds screen is off limits unless you need to evict ghosts from households. If your world needs re-populating, you are allowed to add EA created Sims and/or Sims with a blank slate - no rewards/skills, etc. Gallery Sims from other players are not allowed.

Important:  You can add sims only if your world needs re-populating, if your world is fine with plenty of NPCs then you are not allowed to add anyone.

One more thing, @Playalot - remember, with the new rule the team is not giving everyone carte blanche permission to seed their town to make things easier. It's only allowed IF the town dries up.

Could you try to refrain from criticizing until the prospective changes have actually been posted? It's possible that some of your concerns will be addressed.

@MarianT I'd say, based on the fact that Nutella has posted the full rule, Metro has backed it up, and it's on the first post rules, that it's been added to the rules as-is.  I'll come back and reply to the rest of your message when I have more time, but unless I'm seriously misreading like 3 posts, I'd say its been posted.

[MarianT]

@dethdukk, No, you have not seen the full version that is currently under discussion. We're still awaiting input from a couple of team members -- that's what Metro and Nutella meant by "ironing things out."

[dethdukk]

Could you try to refrain from criticizing until the prospective changes have actually been posted? It's possible that some of your concerns will be addressed.

@dethdukk, No, you have not seen the full version that is currently under discussion. We're still awaiting input from a couple of team members -- that's what Metro and Nutella meant by "ironing things out."

Well I'm glad to hear that the current rule is just a placeholder.  Though I am a bit confused, if you guys are actively discussing what the rule should be wouldn't now be the perfect time for me to put in my opinions on what the rule should and shouldn't be, rather than waiting for the "official" version of the rule?  I mean if the official rule meets what I'd like, awesome, but if it doesn't then my points will still stand anyways.

We'll be defining the conditions under which someone may add new Sims.

This is exactly what I'm against.  There shouldn't be a condition that does or does not allow a player to add Sims to their game, it should either be allowed for any and all players, or not at all.  Giving players who's games meet a certain condition an advantage over players who don't shouldn't happen.  If adding Sims will be allowed for anyone, it should be allowed for everyone, and the limitations should be set on how you add Sims or which Sims you can add.

To some extent, it's our fault for not paying more attention to players' complaints about the game-generated Sims sooner.

Yes.  No offense intended, but it's been two years since this challenge was created, multiple people have completed the challenge, and this issue was reported to you guys literally weeks after this challenge was released, by Playalot and others.  There are literally PAGES on this forum topic discussing the lack of random Sims, what the player can do to get more Sims generated, people asking if they can move Sims into houses, people asking if they can add Sims to the game, people asking if they can use Sims within the household as friends, since their heirs friends keep getting culled...  So why is it only 2 years later that it's suddenly so huge an issue that the Dynasty team feels that they have to add this rule, that goes against so much of what used to be banned in the challenge?

When TS4 first came out, we followed the model from TS3. With 5 traits and a non-changeable aspiration, there could be a big difference between game-generated Sims and player-created ones. But in TS4, aspirations can be changed at will, and traits don't make much difference. I've had noncommittal Sims accept proposals and Sims who hate children take good care of the baby. They get tense, but you can easily override that.

I completely agree, Sims 4 traits don't really change how a Sim behaves, and even the ones that do can be easily forced against their natural behavior... but there's still a difference between having to work with whatever traits you get (especially in the early generations) and getting to custom build whatever Sim you want. 

We are not trying to make the Immortal Dynasty easier, but we are trying to make it more enjoyable. One of the things people liked about Union Cove was that we added characters like Marilyn Monroe and also Carl, Pam, and Metro. And players won't be able to get away with making all their additions creative, cheerful, and romantic. YAs and older will be required to have one negative trait.

Trying or not, you will make it easier.  Admittedly, not by a huge amount, but the ID challenge has already had it's level of difficulty kneecapped by all the expansions and changes to Sims 4 anyways.  Making YA and older need 1 negative trait won't affect a smart player.  If it was me, I'd just make a family with a teen daughter/son who's set with 2 traits and an aspiration that I want, then I'd just move her into my dynasty house before she aged up so I could control the last trait. 


Edit:  One last thing to note.  With the exception of LenalJ, none of the Challenge team has actually completed the ID challenge, and even LenalJ did it in a speed run form.  The only player who has completed the challenge and commented on this rule change @Playalot has made it clear that she's strongly against it.  If I may make a recommendation, maybe run the rule by the people who have played and completed the challenge, see what their thoughts on it are, rather than keeping it entirely in house.  Sadly I cant include myself in that list, but I do suspect that I'm one of less than 15 people total who have made it past gen 6.

[Joria]

Geez Louise guys!  I sure didn't mean to start a fire storm here, but since it seems I did, allow me to add my two cents.  First of all, yes, we can generate Sims a multiple variety of ways.  Having more Sims isn't particularly the issue.  It is a matter of have some houses full so A. Sims you know and are friends with don't get culled, B. so your towns look nicer and you have places you can go visit for whatever purpose, like stealing high tech computers, C. so you can make your stories better, not just following the same ol' same ol' daily grind all your gens are going to have to go through to make it through.  I believe any Sims put into houses should come from the generated Sims and definitely not ones you create yourself or from the Gallery.  This would probably mean having to go into Manage Worlds in order to put homeless Sims into a home.  Once you "know" a Sim, he/she shows up as "not in world" in Manage Worlds.  So how is that making the challenge easier?  Ok, it means folks don't get culled.  Does that really make it easier?  Just my two cents.  I'll go with whatever the team decides when they decide.  My apologies for causing any controversy.

[MissZoef]

Wow such a discussion going on. I would like to have sims in houses again. Just because it's nicer and if feels like you don't live in a ghost town anymore. I don't really think it will make it easier, at least, I don't find the challenge that hard and I will be fine without sims in houses, but it is a shame that they don't get added, even though you have the out fill option on. Whatever you guys decide is fine with me

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk