Frustrated with the no job icon bug

[toxic1456 1]

no matter how big or small, what map im using, how efficient i put my transportation, how close commercial or industrial close to my sims i get the no job icon and its mostly on high wealth sims (R$$$) Its annoying i cannot find a solution ....HELP :L

[GMT 389]

but you do have high wealth jobs, do you?

[zahrul3 472]

Try reducing the demand for R$$$, that might probably help.

by preventing R$$$ growing in low demand spots. Most of the times a building gets built and no one occupies it, so...

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

It is not a bug.

You have to control your R$$$ Sims and C$$$ lot occurrences by adroit management of zones and, perhaps, taxes. One of the solutions I use is to zone 2 x 1 lots in early stages of a city. If these are in blocks of 8 2 x 1 lots back to back, there is no way the game can squeeze out a 4 x 4 or 3 x 4 lot to build a mansion for some R$$$ who then cannot find a job in the C$ and C$$ lots I am building.

Oh yes, friends, I hand zone, and I avoid using the click and hold zoning at all costs. I also don't zone much at a time. Small towns don't. I also have several clusters of 2 x 1 R growables I got from the STEX. I also zone 1 x 1 both C and R after a while. There are some interesting small lots by Paeng and others.

If your current crop of zots bothers you, you can eat them with the cheat tastyzots. This command removes all the current zots, but does not stop new ones from appearing.

A large number of R$$$ and of C$$$ buildings is not a good thing. Get over it.

Oh, and watch out for that demand graph. It is showing demand for lot types (density of occupancy) not lot wealth.

  Edited October 7, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[His Divine Hand 244]

There are two things to keep in mind.

First, that wealth level your commercial or industry display? Doesn't mean much when it comes to the wealth level of jobs in that place. For instance, high-tech industry lists as high wealth, but only 10% of jobs provided go to high-wealth sims. CO$$$ only hires 25-30% high wealth sims. That means what look like a lot of high wealth jobs in actually very tiny amount. And it gets worse.

Second, there is a bug in the game where high wealth sims cannot work in high-tech industry. There is a fix on the STEX, but it requires some extra work to successfully get it into the game.

Oh, and watch out for that demand graph. It is showing demand for lot types (density of occupancy) not lot wealth.

Wait, what?

Figuring that the demand graph actually lists by wealth type, and there is no such thing as "density demand" this seems a bit non-sensical.

[westy177 203]

Just remember R$$$ wont work in any kind of industry or cs$

[z1 566]

Are you using the NAM? One of the side effects of using the Maxis traffic simulator (which comes with the game) is that you often get a lot of "no job" zots, and these tend to be concentrated among high-wealth residences.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

There are two things to keep in mind.

First, that wealth level your commercial or industry display? Doesn't mean much when it comes to the wealth level of jobs in that place. For instance, high-tech industry lists as high wealth, but only 10% of jobs provided go to high-wealth sims. CO$$$ only hires 25-30% high wealth sims. That means what look like a lot of high wealth jobs in actually very tiny amount. And it gets worse.

Second, there is a bug in the game where high wealth sims cannot work in high-tech industry. There is a fix on the STEX, but it requires some extra work to successfully get it into the game.

Oh, and watch out for that demand graph. It is showing demand for lot types (density of occupancy) not lot wealth.

Wait, what?

Figuring that the demand graph actually lists by wealth type, and there is no such thing as "density demand" this seems a bit nonsensical.

No, its quite true. The zoning is by occupant density, not wealth. I've held for some time that the labelling of that graph is spurious. Look at what you are doing with the various keystrokes (I don't bother with the stupid GUI):

q - low density residential (single occupancy)

w - medium density residential (MURBs)

e - high density residential

a - low density commerical

s - medium density residential

d - high density residential

z - low density industrial (farms)

x - medium density industrial

c - high density residential

These are the only zoning types. To zone for what the graph labels as CS$$ do you use the s-key or the d-key? The game has this rather ambiguous aspect, and I believe it makes one think a little. Similarly if you want to zone CO$$$ is the d-key the only solution? I am not so sure. And what about R$$$ mansions? Seems they will grow on any 4 x 3 or 4 x 4 residential lot (a mansion is a single family occupant). I would not be so sure about slavishly associating the demand graph with building wealth.

There are more things in SC4 than perhaps are dealt with in your philosophy. It is quite possible that not all the developers were in agreement on this, and it shows in the way the game behaves.

[His Divine Hand 244]

No, its quite true. The zoning is by occupant density, not wealth. I've held for some time that the labelling of that graph is spurious. Look at what you are doing with the various keystrokes (I don't bother with the stupid GUI):

q - low density residential (single occupancy)

w - medium density residential (MURBs)

e - high density residential

a - low density commerical

s - medium density residential

d - high density residential

z - low density industrial (farms)

x - medium density industrial

c - high density residential

Well yes, that is quite true. YOU CANNOT ZONE FOR WEALTH TYPE! You can only zone by density type, and can only try to control wealth type by affecting desirability.

These are the only zoning types. To zone for what the graph labels as CS$$ do you use the s-key or the d-key? The game has this rather ambiguous aspect, and I believe it makes one think a little. Similarly if you want to zone CO$$$ is the d-key the only solution? I am not so sure. And what about R$$$ mansions? Seems they will grow on any 4 x 3 or 4 x 4 residential lot (a mansion is a single family occupant). I would not be so sure about slavishly associating the demand graph with building wealth.

There are more things in SC4 than perhaps are dealt with in your philosophy. It is quite possible that not all the developers were in agreement on this, and it shows in the way the game behaves.

That is because you do not zone for any wealth zone. You can control what will grow, and yes, zoning can be a tool in that, but the demand chart lists what the game will allow to grow, and to a degree what you will need. Zoning only gives you control over how many and whether it is residents, commercial, or industry.

[anytownUSA 32]

Install the NAM. The Z traffic simulator will take care of it.

[toxic1456 1]

nope i tried everything you guys said... the only thing that i can do is raise the tax of the R$$$ to 20% and it would keep them out of my city. But the funny thing is when i make a neighbor city the R$$$ travel to the neighbor city and work there but then later on they start getting the no job icon

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Try to hold your R$$$ population to around 15% and make sure they can drive to work. If you have to demolish R$$$ residentials and downgrade (by zoning) the lots, do it.

[z1 566]

Try to hold your R$$$ population to around 15% and make sure they can drive to work.

Although there must be a road connection from Sims' residences to their jobs for them to be able to get there (even if they take mass transit), the requirements for roads are no greater for R$$$ Sims than for lower wealth types, despite the slight preference of R$$$ Sims for driving over mass transit. Adding more roads or widening existing ones will not solve the underlying problem, as long as there is at least a single road connection of the type I described above. Toxic1456, what you have is essentially a traffic problem, which in turn causes lower desirability among residentials. R$$$ Sims are most sensitive to desirability, so they abandon first. It's not necessary to rebalance the population in various ways; you just need to solve the traffic problem. The first step is to install the NAM traffic simulator, which you've already done. If this is not sufficient to clear up your abandonment problems, implement the Subway Solution, which is described in . In any halfway-reasonably built city, this will fix things up.

A large number of R$$$ and of C$$$ buildings is not a good thing. Get over it.

There's nothing wrong with those buildings as long as you have the transportation system to support them. I have many cities with large numbers of these buildings, virtually all in perfect health. It comes down to a matter of individual taste.

Oh, and watch out for that demand graph. It is showing demand for lot types (density of occupancy) not lot wealth.

I can tell you by looking at the exemplars that are the supporting data for the demand graph that this graph does exactly what it claims: It shows the demand for the different RCI wealth levels. It has nothing to do with lot density, which is based on completely different data.

  Edited October 14, 2012 by z1  

[Mister Giggles 310]

nope i tried everything you guys said... the only thing that i can do is raise the tax of the R$$$ to 20% and it would keep them out of my city. But the funny thing is when i make a neighbor city the R$$$ travel to the neighbor city and work there but then later on they start getting the no job icon

If you've installed NAM, then if the jobs exists your R$$$ sims WILL find them (With enough subways). Time to crack out the Census Repository Mod. Look at the Drives number for R$$$ sims. Is this number lower than the number of R$$$ sims actually in the city? Then the city simply doesn't have the jobs necessary to support them. Time to start adding more jobs.

  Edited October 14, 2012 by Mister Giggles  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

@Z1: Unless you are one of the complimenters, how do you know your interpretation of the exemplars is correct? I've had better play by considering the demand graph to be an indicator of available building permits rather than the need for specific wealth Sims. You cannot zone for the five types of C, but only for density. You are also looking at four types of I with only tools to zone for three. There is definitely some portmanteau thinking need here.

[z1 566]

@Z1: Unless you are one of the complimenters...

I assume you mean "implementers" here?

...how do you know your interpretation of the exemplars is correct?

That's certainly a fair question. First of all, in my experience working with the CAM and NAM traffic simulator development, I got deep into the guts of how demand works in this game, and I never saw a discrepancy between the demand graph and what all the other data was telling me. I could not have developed the NAM traffic simulator to the point where it is now if this graph did not display what it claims, nor would my CAM demand-bug patch work. Secondly, I'll turn to the work of RippleJet, who arguably knew more about the workings of demand than anyone else in the SC4 community. He took the graph at face value; in fact, a slightly modified version of it comes with CAM. None of the labeling is changed though (not counting the scaling), because the labeling is correct. Thirdly, RippleJet created his Census Repository Facility using the same demand data (when you run it, you see that it matches the graphs), and the CRF has been used to debug problems with countless cities with no indication that there is any problem with the demand figures. If they were incorrect, this would have shown up in the CRF usage long ago.

To be honest, the workings of demand in the game are subtle and complex, and what the demand actually is often turns out to be counterintuitive. But if you work hard enough, you can always see where the numbers came from.

I've had better play by considering the demand graph to be an indicator of available building permits...

There is no such quantity in the game.

You cannot zone for the five types of C, but only for density.

True.

You are also looking at four types of I with only tools to zone for three.

True again.

There is definitely some portmanteau thinking need here.

Now I have to look up "portmanteau". OK, according to Merriam-Webster's, I get:

1 : a large suitcase

2 : a word or morpheme whose form and meaning are derived from a blending of two or more distinct forms (as smog from smoke and fog)

I'm afraid you've lost me here...

Oh, and watch out for that demand graph. It is showing demand for lot types (density of occupancy) not lot wealth.

Density of occupancy is controlled by stage limits, and is completely separate from the demand graph. These limits are detailed in the Prima Guide, but you can also find them described in RippleJet's excellent tutorial Stage Limits and Thresholds (Rush Hour). The data he uses was all obtained directly from the game. It is these stage limits in combination with the zoning type that determine what density of building will arise on a given lot. There is no graph for them in the game because the limits are static, and can be easily calculated for any lot.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Portmanteau: My expression is derived from Lewis Carroll's definition of portmanteau words such as brillig and slithy. I was thinking that the demand graph combines several concepts because of limited space.

I really think the way one interprets it is a matter of what one is comfortable with. Because of the multiplicity of classes in C and I especially, I prefer my interpretation than simply wealth. Wealth is certainly a part of it, but I don't agree that it is all of it.

I believe that far too much emphasis is placed on stages and caps. I hardly ever encounter these limitations any more, but that may be simply because I don't try to fight with the algorithms. Maybe because I've been playing so long, I just have a feel for how things will go.

There is such a thing as too much information. The stuff in the CRF is in that class.

  Edited October 16, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[z1 566]

I really think the way one interprets it is a matter of what one is comfortable with.

That's fine. But for those people who want to know what those numbers actually are, the definitive information is useful. For example, with regard to your original statement:

Oh, and watch out for that demand graph. It is showing demand for lot types (density of occupancy) not lot wealth.

Although the graph simply shows demand for certain types of jobs of a certain wealth class, this has a direct effect on what density of buildings will grow, which is what you have been noting. A couple of things to note about the graph.

1) The scaling is not linear, as is implied by the display. The graph actually uses exponential scaling. This is why you see a lot more movement in the demand when the bars are short than when they're near the extremes. A given amount of movement near the baseline represents far fewer Sims than the same amount of movement at the extremes.

2) The numbers at the extremes (and the exponentially interpolated numbers in between) are the actual numbers of Sims in demand for that wealth type. The graph maximum in standard SC4 (which is 6000) is actually the maximum number of Sims that can be in demand at any given time for any given RCI wealth type. (This is not necessarily true; for example, in CAM, the graph maximum is 24,000 which is also the maximum demand for all the R and C wealth types, but the Industrial demand is still capped at 6000). So this 6000 (in the standard game) is actually an undocumented type of demand cap; it is temporary and completely different from the long-term demand caps that are documented. It means that at no time will you ever have more than 6000 workers or residents available for a building, and since each growable building needs to have a demand for a specific number of Sims (based on its capacity) before it will grow, this places an upper limit on the size of growable buildings in the game. Of course, with a few tweaks to the exemplars (and the graph), you can raise this limit to whatever you want.

This also has important implications for any size building. If demand for a given wealth type is only a few hundred jobs, then you're not going to get any massive skyscrapers growing for that wealth type. So it follows that the higher the demand for a given RCI wealth category, the bigger the building that can grow in that category, subject to zoning and stage limits in effect at the time.

So that's why although the graph simply shows demand for RCI wealth categories, it happens to correlate closely with the density of buildings that grow.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Yup. I agree with you. However, don't confuse me with facts. My mind is made up.