Like being taller and bigger gives you an advantage in melee but also means you're way more likely to get hit by bullets. That kind of thing. Also, I know this is probably going to piss some people off, but aren't males with normal body types supposed to be way stronger than females with normal body types? I've had too many young men getting killed by berserking grandmas to not gripe about this lol
I would honestly say yes. I think it would add extra depth to the game, which is always interesting. Some may say its sexist, but honestly the truth of the matter is men are bigger and stronger than women...
I don't think it's worth the effort. Damage depends on weapon wielded. Chance to hit is determined primarily by the melee skill. Even if males have a small boost of some sort, it's still going to come down to who has the better melee skill. The player will most likely never notice this feature unless you make it wildly unbalanced.
Just give male a +1 damage bonus on mellee damage, and female a bonus on mellee cooldown ! :-)
No. This is an idea that only enforces stereotypes.
Skill influences your ability to fight, not your body type or your gender. A black belt or other similarly trained person will whoop an untrained person regardless of age or stature.
Quote from: ZestyLemons on December 24, 2016, 08:21:24 AM
No. This is an idea that only enforces stereotypes.
Skill influences your ability to fight, not your body type or your gender. A black belt or other similarly trained person will whoop an untrained person regardless of age or stature.
Well said!
Like with literally everything else in reality, skill is the most important aspect of an activity. Especially when it comes to fighting.
A guy that is big and strong, yet not very good at fighting, will get their ass beaten by a 80lbs-soaking-wet girl who knows martial arts.
Stop reinforcing negative stereotypes.
Quote from: ZestyLemons on December 24, 2016, 08:21:24 AM
No. This is an idea that only enforces stereotypes.
Whats so bad about that? I mean, the stereotype that men are stronger is true. Also, Skill is PART of it. You might be an amazing swordsman, but if someone has twice your strength, its an uphill battle, even if they aren't the most skilled.
Dark souls is a good example, where many monsters aren't per-say skilled, but are strong enough they can shit all over you unless you have immense skill.
I would honestly say that in reality, some weapons require a certain strength amount to use EFFECTIVELY. Sure, an average woman could wield a sledgehammer, but a man could use it far more effectively most of the time, even if hes not trained in fighting, just because he can more easily lift, swing, and handle the heavy weight. This is assuming the male is stereotypically strong, and the female is weak, of course, but this is statistically true.
Honestly, I don't even see the big deal, women are better snipers, men are better brawlers...why is everyone so offended?
And why is it a NEGATIVE stereotype? You guys are enforcing the NEGATIVE stereotype that women want equality in all things. :P (Incase you don't get it, I'm poking fun at the idea of "stereotypes" and that "oh no, stereotypes are always bad!!!)
I'd rather offend EVERYONE with stereotypes which reflect reality, than outright DENY reality...which is what most people do. They insist that the average woman is always toe to toe with an average man in all fields, and this is simply NOT the case. Physically, physiologically, psychologically, men and women are VERY different, and YES, these differences have effects in performance of many things...which means sometimes men, or women are OBJECTIVELY BETTER for some tasks on average.
True, some men and women are exceptions, but this doesn't mean statistically its untrue. Generally speaking pistol rounds to the head are fatal, but do you want to test with your own brain to try and fight the "stereotype" on traumatic gunshot wounds to the head? Didn't think so....
Quote from: Boston on December 24, 2016, 08:45:17 AM
A guy that is big and strong, yet not very good at fighting, will get their ass beaten by a 80lbs-soaking-wet girl who knows martial arts.
Citation?
Part of combat is force...ever seen a bunny rabbit KILL a lion?...no?..Want to know why?...The scale is entirely off...Theres simply NOT ENOUGH FORCE which the body of a rabbit can generate to kill a lion. Even with a rabbit high on drugs, versus a lame, sick lion, the lions paw weights more than the rabbit, so killing it is easy. The lion puts less effort into killing it than the rabbit puts into trying to flea.
inherently, FORCE IS NEEDED to do damage... Ever wonder why theres the stereotype of a girl beating savagely on a guy and the guy ignoring it? Because this is reality sometimes, where a girl, even at her angriest, cannot generate the force to damage or stun the male. Sure, skill is an element, but that brings up another factor : if 2 equally skilled people, male and female fight, is the female evenly matched? No...Because a man has larger bones, longer limbs, taller frame, bigger strength, and even with similar, or WORSE skills, the power factor can easily compensate.
Just like the lion and rabbit, skill is meaningless if force does not scale. You might be an expert mechanic but if you cannot lift something, you will NEVER get that job done alone. And likewise, you might be an expert martial artist, but if you lack the strength to cause harm to a male, or the size to effectively breach their defenses, you wont be winning anytime soon.
just remember the core element to it : Skill is how effectively one can USE force, but if one has less force, its unlikely they will do BETTER than one with more. Some tasks that are less laborious are different, but someone who can effortlessly do a task, but isn't very skilled will do better than someone which knows the job inside and out, but has to exert all their strength just to barely do the task.
Quote from: ZestyLemons on December 24, 2016, 08:21:24 AM
No. This is an idea that only enforces stereotypes.
Skill influences your ability to fight, not your body type or your gender. A black belt or other similarly trained person will whoop an untrained person regardless of age or stature.
The fact that you suddenly bring skill into the equation shows that you have no concept of scientific methods and controlled environment. (Ever heard of the phrase "all else being equal"?)...
A man and a woman engage in combat. Both of them are equally skilled. Now you're forced to bet on who wins. Your life depends on the outcome. Who will you put your money on? 9 out of 10 of any sane group of people would bet on the man because they are not as delusional as you are.
Also, body type does not influence your ability to fight? Really? So when you're super overweight, you fight just as well as when you're fit and muscular?
Exactly...
Also, I DEMAND video of a 10 year old black belt kicking the ass of a 350 pound, pacifist body builder. Get on it guys, for equality ~ :P
Actually, lets use another analogy.... 2 robots are made, both for destroying concrete with a hammer.
1 is VERY simple, just a 5 lb sledge hammer swung with plenty of force. Nothing fancy, kinda shaky, but it does the job, and has a sturdy frame
another robot is developed with math being done by the robot to account for the most effective angle to strike, aiming for the weakest point, and striking in an angle so the force hits the weakest areas of concrete corresponding to the xrays the machine can take of said concrete... But the engine is smaller, and the hammer head is lighter, and its frame is not made of steel, but of machined aluminum
Now, objectively robot 2 is WAY more "skilled" as it takes into account so many factors...this said, can it even exert the necessary force to break the concrete?... Not likely...does all the fancy gizmos n math make up for it?...not really.
And so, even though one is an "expert" at how to break concrete, it doesn't have the HARDWARE for it.
Actually thats a good comparison, skill is like software, force is like hardware. Good software helps, but nothing gets done if you dont have the hardware. And better hardware can often do better with worse software, than good software with bad hardware..
Oh my! How controversial!
Dunno about the female disadvantage but I think body types influencing combat seems alright. As long as it's just small advantages.
Don't forget this isn't the present. This is way in the future. How do you know that females aren't on par with males in terms of strength, size, etc?
disagree, unnecessary for a near-unnoticeable (or way overboard if it is noticeable) effect.
I have 3 years of Karate experience and during sparring I got the upper hand on more physically fit and vastly(8+ yrs) more experienced fighters on several occasions by being stronger and heavier than them. By steering the fight into positions where I would gain more advantage, such as against the wall on on the ground where my inferior speed and skill was less of a penalty, and by being willing to take a few hits while doing so. Bulling them against the wall, even luring them into headlocking me so I could reach down and grab their legs with my hands and lift them off the ground and slam them down on their backs. Much easier to get on top and utilize weight and strength advantage. Even if my opponent was equally sized or even stronger, as one was, I was still able to pin him to the ground because I could add more of my weight to my grapples than he could on his back. If it weren't sparring and instead lethal combat, it could still play out similarly, just everyone would be much more injured afterwards.
Skill makes a big difference and is obviously the single best contribution to effectiveness. However strength, size, pain tolerance, and more importantly the willingness to take hits, makes a big difference. It can serve as a tie breaker and also can close some of the gap in case of skill disparity that scales more and more the bigger the difference.
Quote from: milon on December 24, 2016, 10:08:28 AM
Don't forget this isn't the present. This is way in the future. How do you know that females aren't on par with males in terms of strength, size, etc?
Well, we don't know that for sure and it doesn't make evolutionary sense. Women didn't evolve to have as much upper body strength because they didn't need it. We're not going to evolve *naturally* much in the next few thousand years and anything technological would be available to everyone.
However if we're discussing gender effects on gameplay, while men would be stronger, faster, clot slightly faster, and able to tolerate heat a little better.. Women would tolerate cold better (even though they always say they are cold) suffer less in the short term during starvation, live a bit longer, and be slightly less likely to catch as well as recover a little faster from illness.*
*on average
Quote from: milon on December 24, 2016, 10:08:28 AM
Don't forget this isn't the present. This is way in the future. How do you know that females aren't on par with males in terms of strength, size, etc?
Your answer is kinda answered by the ingame lore when you check out the information text about humans:
"Humans are largely unaffected by evolutionary pressure on other planets."
Meaning they're kinda the same like the present. Which means men are statistically stronger than women.
Then again if you just can't these stereotypes and get triggered, I'll even out the playing field for you and give a statistically proven male stereotype:
Women have statistically proven better social skills than men.
Quote from: milon on December 24, 2016, 10:08:28 AM
Don't forget this isn't the present. This is way in the future. How do you know that females aren't on par with males in terms of strength, size, etc?
My guess would be the continuation of human biology, where men are the disposable "workers" and women are the ones to bring up, and care for children, generally speaking.
It comes to 1 thing irremovable from sex : a womb is more important than testicles, and this honestly shapes much of society, where women are protected, and men are expected to take risks...why is this?
If you want to genocide a group, and have the opportunity to kill of 70% of 1 gender...killing the females will cull population far more effectively than the males, as males can impregnate females FAR more than females can BE impregnated. This is why with animal population control having females is significantly more important than males, as 1 male can easily get busy with 3 females.
Societies INHERENTLY adjust to this, especially in trying times / areas (you know, like rimworlds) its also expected that society would continue to reinforce the stereotype, out of a need of survival. Women CAN do certain tasks, but it goes against their nature, their biology, and is less effective. And if risky tasks like combat or mining were more likely to cause fatalities, why would women, who are essential to continued population be sent out, when they are better at caring for the colony? If we assume that men continued to be stronger unless there was a setup to enforce equality (IE, glitter-worlds) Then the lore of the rimworld universe also supports it, with midworlds, urbworlds, medieval, tribal worlds, ect... all having men as enforced to be masculine, and women to be feminine. And these segregation of genders in jobs causes continued enforcement of these gender norms with natural, and sexual selection
And this isn't even TOUCHING on sexuality in general which ALSO enforces stereotypes. Quite simply, most men tend to prefer feminine women, and women masculine men...So even in a glitter-world with no mechanical need for masculine men / feminine women (which is subjective anyway) Sexuality would still value masculinity and femininity in general, which would by ITSELF enforce gender norms, as people want a mate, and will conform to expectations to get them, or have less odds of a mate, and for those whom mate successfully, their parents will instill ideas in their children by proxy. One could even try to argue glitterworlds would genetically grow people in pods or whatever, but theres 2 issues with this.
1 : glitter-worlds are the minority in the universe, and in the rimworld scope. The rimworld is far away from glitter-worlds, and they are slightly irrelevant to those there. Somoene might be from a glitterworld, but the rimworld is a new world, new culture...and this change in culture would cause a change in the person, over time.
2 : Children growing without parents statistically, in present time, do FAR WORSE, and so for a kid grown in a pod, with no parents, I would assume they would do worse off as well. I would then assume the standard family unit would still be prevalent for mentally / emotionally healthy offspring, but I admit, this is talking about a fictional future we know almost nothing about, so this is just conjecture in a way.
The social / culture shift would have to start, and get momentum somewhere, and on the rimworld, I just can't see it happening...maybe on a glitterworld, but I doubt this change would reach as far as midworlds, urbworlds, and all that, not when the cultures of such places ENFORCE gender stereotypes.
Also, I don't understand why people say it would be "overboard" if it was noticeable. you mean to say training a male in melee combat over a female, because a male would have +15% damage would be overboard, while females having more manipulation ability would also be too much? I don't get it.
Also as headshot said, pretty much that... Couple that with the fact most humans are used to rimworlds, urbworlds, midworlds, medieval worlds... And I see men / women who are "equal" physically and psychological in terms of genetic evolution to be an IMMENSE rarity in the galaxy, far rarer than gay people, because it would mean, by evolutionary standpoints, that one would need to of been genetically in a glitter-world for a few thousand years, and resolve all cultural, sexual, and physical needs for gender roles...which, while maybe possible, if you believe men and women could "evolve" out of their roles, would be EXTREMELY unlikely.
It would be so rare, it might as well not be rendered in game, just like people with blue skin from silver consumption.
@Headshotkill:
Good counter point. :)
But my reading puts the emphasis on other planets. It also says humans have evolved tolerance for radiation, so human evolution hasn't stopped.
But I admit I haven't read the lore recently, and can't really do so from my phone, and I'm away from my computer right now. So I could be wrong.
I believe something that is being largely ignored is the nurture side of things. Let us disregard, for a moment, the question of whether or not there is a biological predisposition for strength or social skills or what have you for males and females. Let us examine, then, the more relevant question of whether nurture, societal norms in particular, can impact physical bearing.
The obvious example to bring up is the Chambri People.1 In their culture, the traditional roles (socially and occupationally) are reversed from what we're used to in the west, and indeed most of the world. This seems to be strong evidence for the notion that, regardless of any biological predisposition, nurture, or the societal norms, can overpower it. So biological predisposition is, by my reckoning, overshadowed by the dominant factor of societal function.
Assuming I'm not mistaken in the above, the next response is, "Okay, cool, but there's still a biological predisposition." I would argue that there is not. One of the studies most commonly cited is this one, which asserts half to two-thirds strength in women compared to men.2 Although one could argue this study is invalidated by the tiny sample size (n=16) alone, let's disregard that for a moment and focus on the core fallacy; this does not describe a biological predisposition. This describes eight typical specimens of each gender in the current social climate. That means that women already have a strong tenancy to be weaker physically than men because that's how society tells them to be; just look up pictures of "beautiful woman" and "beautiful man". The first will tend to show waifish figures, possibly a full bust and healthy rump, but generally minimal visible musculature. Contrast this with the beautiful man, which tends to be corded and well-defined muscle. If anyone would like to argue this point, I'd be happy to find some studies that confirm this difference in beauty standards. In short, current society tells women that their ideal shape is willowy and lean, while men should aim for a bulky and sculpted look. Since many aim to bring their body in line with the physical ideal, the consequence of men developing through effort stronger musculature seems forgone.
Let's assume (however unlikely it may be) that you've agreed with me so far. The next logical argument is, "Well, then, men still put on muscle easier, so they tend to be stronger naturally." This is another oft-repeated argument, and one which holds little weight. Firstly, let us examine the muscle fibers themselves: there is no discernible difference between male and female muscle fibers.3 The chief difference is rather the quantity of muscle fibers, as one would expect. The argument has been made that males put on muscle faster. This is also false; it appears that, given identical exercise regiments, females put on muscle at a very similar rate to males over a 16 week span.4
In conclusion, I believe significant evidence for the equality of the genders, all else being equal (age, occupation, societal pressure, etc.) in melee combat or any other arena. Of course, one could argue that this culture or that culture will demand different things between men and women, but then it becomes a question of specific case and Rimworld lore, not real-world simulation.
Regarding stereotypes, regardless of whether it's "positive" or "negative", they can be quite damaging. For instance, the stereotype of "men are strong" can quickly turn into a liability for any who are not physically strong. Rather than it being a minor personal deficiency, it instead shifts to "they must be a failure as a man". Similar to the "statistically proven" assertion regarding women and social skills. (Incidentally, science and statistics can never prove anything. All it can do is provide evidence, and leave valid theories to explain them. One of the biggest tenants is that we don't truly "know" anything, we just have highly likely possibilities.)
Regarding body type, I can see a strong argument for its inclusion; the way a beanpole fights will be vastly different from the way someone built like a brick house would fight. The lean build would very conceivably have a bonus on cool down, possibly movement speed on account of the less momentum. However, against blunt force trauma (and, to a much lesser extent, slashing trauma) there would be increased vulnerability; an impact would be far more likely to hit something functional, e.g. directly impact muscle or transmit a shock through to an organ. The larger fighter in turn would have the opposite; the large frame and fat deposits would increase momentum making for a slower fighter (all else, including musculature and muscular cross-section) but conversely those fat deposits would distribute any blunt trauma over a wider area, mitigating its effect, and slashing weapons would have to cut deeper to achieve the same level of physiological disruption. (E.g., severed muscle fibers, lacerated blood vessels, cut organs, etc.)
I also agree that the bonus from body type should be small; there are plenty of accounts of people large but fast, and I'm pretty sure we all know someone skinny but slow; personal traits (e.g., lazy vs fast walker, brawler, etc.) should dominate, but the addition of a small bonus or penalty for colonist body type would not, in my opinion, be a bad thing. I'm not sure how much work it would be mechanically to differentiate between them, particularly since something like fat deposits is unlikely to change survival outcomes for a gunshot would, but the concept, at least, appears sound.
References:
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambri_people
2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683
3: http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/musclephys.txt
4: https://books.google.com/books?id=rk3SX8G5Qp0C&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=national+strength+and+conditioning+association+women+strength+gain&source=bl&ots=o6lCqfDgUP&sig=05WMzI3kuKJhRm671sNoLGPA9cE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit27yVl43RAhVMRiYKHYFCBfMQ6AEINDAF#v=onepage&q=national%20strength%20and%20conditioning%20association%20women%20strength%20gain&f=false p.152
"Urbworld Researcher" indeed. ;)
+rep, if that were a thing here
BR, skeletal frame is EVERYTHING...
Do you know about leverage? how 5 lbs of force can do more if applied to a longer lever? The same applies to males and females
Lets say a male and female have the exact same amount of muscle, but different skeletons. Males are larger, longer limbs, and thus, make the muscle MORE effective due to higher leverage. Its the same principle as why a long handle hammer hits harder than a short handle one, because the leverage applies the force more effectively.
Add onto this testosterone in the system, which in itself is a physical stimulant to promote muscle growth, aggression, ect, and yes, men are objectively stronger. Societally women can be made more masculine, and men more feminine, but this is a socially engineered change.
Also keep in mind, while you value you speed in your argument, you completely ignore the benefits of mass.. If what you say is true, why dont quick colonists kick the crap out of grizzly bears in unarmed?
Because mass....
Mass effects many things, total stamina, total hitting power, durability, ect. Higher mass doesn't mean one is more vulnerable, unlike in games, higher mass generally means also a higher amount of durability as well. As theres more there to damage and break, and more which can be damaged and still function.
Pain is generally scaled in size to our body. A 3 inch deep stab wound might ruin a day for a human, but hardly effect a bear, because the scaling is very different. A stab wound like that to a bear is like a papercut, where as for us, its nearly fatal.
While men aren't quite bears, this STILL applies. Men have more muscle, fat, bigger bones, so blows and cuts are less damaging in the scale of things. And this applies to offense as well as defense, which makes it doubly more an issue.
Take a man and women, unarmed, normal gender stature. The woman has smaller bones, less muscle, less testosterone typically. If a woman punches a man...first, her fist is smaller, weighs, less, and hits with less impact because of it. this is AMPLIFIED by the fact the man is larger, has more muscle and fat deposits, larger, stronger bones, better able to take stress.
Now if you invert....The man has LARGER arms, with more mass, more muscle, fueled by testosterone, larger bones to create a stronger, faster swing, with more weight behind it...and atop THAT, it is hitting a target which is smaller, squishier, less coated with fat, muscle, and smaller, more breakable bones....
So at least in combat, women are in a severely losing battle.
"but, thats blunt trauma!" you might say
"give them knives!" you might say
Ok, lets do that
each person gets a 3 inch blade, plenty sharp, and made of steel.
The male STILL has higher mass, and longer limbs on average, bigger bones and testosterone as a performance enhancement.
If the woman stabs the man in the gut, the larger layering of muscle and fat will protect the male better from hitting anything vital. Not by much, but slightly. The female also has less force to drive the blade into the flesh, and less reach to compete. The male also has more blood to bleed than the woman, so even if stabbed, he can walk it off slightly better than the woman.
The male stabs the female and well....longer arms, stronger blows, more mass.. ..hitting a smaller, weaker target. With less blood, less mass...the damage is more, in terms of how badly it effects them.
Dont get me wrong, women aren't completely incapable of combat, just as logs arent completely useless as a weapon...they just arent the best. And this is the thing, if you want results, you want to use the best you can...and if this means using a man as your brawler, so be it.
I will give you this though : If this were to be applied, it should effect unarmed, blunt weapons, and swords the most, while minimally effecting knives. Guns should be mostly even, short of BIG guns (miniguns, LMG, sniper)
But then again, we still aren't touching on men having better reaction times, which are key for combat.
Mumble, you make some good points; thank you! :) This helps me both refine and change my argument to be more in line with truth. For instance, your point about height (and, correspondingly, limb length and leverage) is well-taken. Particularly for blunt weapons, such as fists and clubs, that makes a significant difference. Whether it's worth including in the game or not is another discussion, but at the very least yes, there is a difference there.
I was going to point out that you had assumed that the male had more muscle, but then I realized you meant they had proportionally identical muscle, i.e., the muscular cross section relative to skeletal cross-section is identical. In that case, you're correct that for (the unequal) average height male and female specimens, the male would necessarily have more muscle mass.
Regarding stabbing weapons, you're correct that the increased flesh thickness of the male would provide a small amount of protection, though I'd argue both that it's negligible, and further argue that the stabbing force is largely irrelevant; human skin has a tensile strength of 5-30 MPa1 and though I was unable to find a typical knife cross-sectional area (to determine the amount of force required to pierce skin) that same article suggests that 18-36 N of force is sufficient to pierce skin.2 That's under 4 kilos of weight under earth gravity, or less than 8 pounds of force on the uppermost limit. Any strength in excess of that is wasted as blunt force trauma as the hilt impacts the body, and has no bearing on the actual stab wound.
That said, strength would force the knife off any obstacles (e.g., ribs, bones, etc.) and into a deeper stab, but for any sort of stab wound I think we can safely say that strength is of minimal importance. Things such as speed, foresight, reaction time, etc. are likely to play much more into a knife fight scenario, excepting of course when unarmed (e.g., grappling, counter blows, etc.) comes into play.
More interesting to me would be the effect of force on cut depth. Unfortunately, I've got a few things to do today, so I can't find any data on that at this time.
It sounds like we do agree on a few things, though; namely, if gender or frame differences are included, it should only be for melee combat. (I think we disagree on whether it should apply to piercing weapons like shivs and spears, but that's a minor point we can continue to debate. :) ) It sounds like we also agree that significant variation among individuals (e.g., height, conditioning, skill) should dominate the combat, with any frame or gender differences being minor at best.
I think my core argument is this: Any differences, if any, are small enough and based on high-variance things (e.g., frame, height, weight) to be not worth modeling. For instance, adding the gender-based buffs/debuffs would be universal, but without adding the frame buffs/debuffs, individual variance of height, weight, and BMI as well as the mechanical effects of those, and so on, what we get is less a more accurate simulation and more an oversimplification. I compare it to what it'd be like to have a shooting skill, but have wounds have no effect; having a highly skilled shooter is nice, but if they have only one, heavily scarred eye, it feels a bit off to have them be a crack shot.
Regardless, Mumble, thank you for the good points; it forced to me reexamine some of my assumptions and better develop a viewpoint around them. I appreciate your civil and intelligent engagement; it's things like this that let us both get smarter! :)
Also, Awwww, Milon, you're making me blush. *hugs!*
References:
1: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0811/0811.3955.pdf p. 3
2: ibid, p. 10
I am trying to figure out why this thread is still here, or why the original poster did not realize it would start massive arguments. I am guessing it was made intentionally to start fights.
That being said. The male and female body are both capable of the exact same thing when it comes to strength and force. A woman and man, both equal height and equal weight, can gain the same muscle tone and strength as the other. The same knowledge of whatever the situation is, whether that be combat or not.
No two females or males are exactly the same, which means a male could have health issues that make them weaker than the female.
Let's take this example of a male and female that are the same height and weight. The male has fragile bones which could cause them to break easier than a womans, the woman is slightly slower in aspect of movement. Let's say they have the same exact knowledge of combat, mainly being to use your opponents weakness against them.
The man could out maneuver the woman, landing jabs and such here and there, however, he would be limited on the force in which he could put behind a full on attack because of his bone issues. The woman, albeit slower, could put more force behind an attack, potentially using the males weakness against him, causing fractured/broken bones.
That is all hypothetical, simply put, after being in the United States Marine Corps, I have learned that women are perfectly capable of anything a man is. I have watched men twice a womans size get their ass kicked in a no hold back fight. There are always advantages to size differences, weight differences, and knowledge differences. There will always be something you have the upper hand in, and the ways of combat is to learn to use that and exploit the ones you are fighting against.
So now, let's stop all the sexism, feminism bullshit, and degradation of one another, and go back to enjoying the damn game.
Quote from: DaemonDeathAngel on December 24, 2016, 01:15:40 PM
I am trying to figure out why this thread is still here, or why the original poster did not realize it would start massive arguments. I am guessing it was made intentionally to start fights.
That's my guess as well. More hidden/misc Melee modifiers isn't a good thing. Just handwave it as being part of the Melee skill rating and move on. Frankly, covering all melee fighting (unarmed, knife-fighting, sword-fighting, spear-fighting, etc) under a single skill is more unrealistic than treating all genders/bodytypes the same.
Excuse me? Having just read this thread, I fail to see the "fights" that were started. Both sides of the discussion trotted out their arguments and discussed them, that simple.
So we can't talk at all about gender differences in the game, even when the discussion is civil? Nice. I think you need to reevaluate your priorities here, especially since you continue to add to the discussion.
Whether civil or not, it is still a verbal argument, some of you are still forming sexist sides of the argument. Some of the people in the discussion more than likely have no real life experience as to what the male and female body are actually capable of.
I commend those that are putting forth effort of using citation through the internet, but that doesn't prove anyones point. And test/experiment made is on a closed and controlled group, which can not adequately represent an entire population.
The only real way one can post their opinion is entirely personal experience based. One persons experiences and opinion could, and will, be completely different than anothers. However, the fact that some of the posts here state that women are not capable of the same things as men, doesn't show anything but sexism and ignorance.'
Edit: I am going to request a moderator or administrator close this thread, before someone does actually take offense to something someone says here. This is a topic that went off course, and has delved into discussion that could seriously upset someone.
Quote from: Bozobub on December 24, 2016, 01:57:49 PM
Excuse me? Having just read this thread, I fail to see the "fights" that were started. Both sides of the discussion trotted out their arguments and discussed them, that simple.
I've gotta add a +1 here; I know I, personally, have tried to be as friendly and civil as I can in presenting arguments, sources, and acknowledging the good points others make. There were a few jibes towards the beginning, I think, (e.g., "you may need to learn what 'all else being equal' means") but even that was quite mild. I know my personal experience here with Mumble has been of enlightened discussion; even when (s?)he and I disagree, (I dunno why, Mumble, but I want to characterize you as male. Are my instincts totally lying to me?) (s)he has been both civil (tone was polite) and topic-based (all arguments were about what we're discussing, no ad-hominems that I was able to detect).
Further, I think those in this thread have done a great job of
avoiding the blanket characterization you seem to be refuting, Angel; I don't think anyone here argued "all men can beat all women", but rather were arguing the more reasonable stance of, "Men
tend to have more muscle mass than women" which, while I agree is necessarily the case, I can also see is a reasonable attitude given the difference in average heights. This could (regardless of veracity) be modeled as a small bonus in-game; individual traits like brawler and melee skill and whatnot would create the variation you yourself were talking about, where a highly skilled and strong fighter (who happens to be female) thoroughly trounced a heavier fighter (who happened to be male.)
tl;dr: I agree with your stance, though I feel like your comment mischaracterizes the thread itself a bit. Is there something I'm missing?
EDIT: Just saw your response. Responding to it now.
Quote from: DaemonDeathAngel on December 24, 2016, 02:17:26 PM
Whether civil or not, it is still a verbal argument, some of you are still forming sexist sides of the argument. Some of the people in the discussion more than likely have no real life experience as to what the male and female body are actually capable of.
This is an ad hominem argument, and the first I've seen; truth is truth regardless of who says it. It also tends to be counterproductive, as it can ruffle feathers more than cause someone to see the light.
Quote from: DaemonDeathAngel on December 24, 2016, 02:17:26 PMI commend those that are putting forth effort of using citation through the internet, but that doesn't prove anyones point. And test/experiment made is on a closed and controlled group, which can not adequately represent an entire population.
The only real way one can post their opinion is entirely personal experience based. One persons experiences and opinion could, and will, be completely different than anothers. However, the fact that some of the posts here state that women are not capable of the same things as men, doesn't show anything but sexism and ignorance.'
The above is patently untrue. Point of fact, studies and statistics are the primary way by which people can form inferences about the general population. If we rely, as you suggest, solely on anecdote, then we see tremendous errors appear. Anecdote is the gateway to all sorts of biases; if I have only ever been the victim of a crime by the hands of a black man, by anecdote I would conclude that black men are more criminal than other ones. This would be an
extremely racist conclusion. If, instead, I look at crime figures, I might find something quite different. The same goes for religion, sex, gender, orientation, et cetera, et cetera.
The scientific method not only discards anecdote, but actually demands citations and experiments. So unless you're suggesting we avoid the scientific method, which I don't think you are, I'm confused about what you're trying to say.
Regarding locking the thread, I suppose nobody can stop you from making the request, but I would hope that the administrator or moderator will leave it open; I've seen some interesting points here, and even if I don't agree with them, closing down a conversation because it
might upset someone, particularly when the conversation in question has been carried out in a very civilized manner, strikes me as anathema to the point of a forum.
Anyone can be upset by anything; if something is deliberately or excessively incendiary, I can understand locking it. However, if a conversation is going on which allows not only the calm discussion of controversial topics, but further allows people to
reform the opinions on the same, it strikes me as a difficult but ultimately good process, by which people better themselves. Again, this is only my opinion; I've been wrong plenty of times before. But that's my two cents about it.
Eh, remember the inspiration is Firefly. Plenty of ass-kicking women in that show, as well as weak ones that men could push around in the "traditional" way. No reason that Rimworld shouldn't have ass-kickers and wimps of both genders. It's fine how it is, and it's not necessary or desirable to trot out science to prove that women are weak or whatever.
If you really can't handle the idea of your male colonist being whipped by a female pirate, make a mod so only males appear on raids. It isn't appropriate to include sexism (even on a "realistic" basis) in the main game.
Quote from: brcruchairman on December 24, 2016, 02:41:14 PM
Further, I think those in this thread have done a great job of avoiding the blanket characterization you seem to be refuting, Angel; I don't think anyone here argued "all men can beat all women", but rather were arguing the more reasonable stance of, "Men tend to have more muscle mass than women" which, while I agree is necessarily the case, I can also see is a reasonable attitude given the difference in average heights. This could (regardless of veracity) be modeled as a small bonus in-game; individual traits like brawler and melee skill and whatnot would create the variation you yourself were talking about, where a highly skilled and strong fighter (who happens to be female) thoroughly trounced a heavier fighter (who happened to be male.)
The discussion/argument/fight has been relatively well mannered thus far, but from personal experience on this specific topic, it can go from perfectly civil, to absolutely catastrophic in less than 5 minutes. That is mainly due to the specific topic, and how touchy many people are nowadays when it comes to the entire "equality" standpoint.
Quote from: brcruchairman on December 24, 2016, 02:41:14 PM
tl;dr: I agree with your stance, though I feel like your comment mischaracterizes the thread itself a bit. Is there something I'm missing?
I am sure I managed to miss something in my comment, that tends to happen after I read, and attempt to reply to 15-20 different comments within one single comment. Perhaps I should have chosen to specifically pinpoint aspects of comments that I found to be a bit unclear or that peaked my interest.
Quote from: brcruchairman on December 24, 2016, 02:41:14 PM
This is an ad hominem argument, and the first I've seen; truth is truth regardless of who says it. It also tends to be counterproductive, as it can ruffle feathers more than cause someone to see the light.
Age old saying of "The Truth Hurts". I guess that would be a good enough point in this case.
Quote from: brcruchairman on December 24, 2016, 02:41:14 PM
The above is patently untrue. Point of fact, studies and statistics are the primary way by which people can form inferences about the general population.
The main issue is still the same as I stated prior. Many people tend to "Statistic-Thump" you much like "Bible-Thumping" Science and religion are not much different in that aspect. Statistical standpoints are fine, but the largest issue is, many of your "Statistic-Thumpers" don't care if you are different than what the statistic says possible. Thus, causing the person "thumping" to effectively, and quite correctly, become sexist.
Quote from: brcruchairman on December 24, 2016, 02:41:14 PM
If we rely, as you suggest, solely on anecdote, then we see tremendous errors appear. Anecdote is the gateway to all sorts of biases;
While this may be correct, it is also the sole position one originally bases their opinion off of, before ever taking into account statistics, or others opinions.
Quote from: brcruchairman on December 24, 2016, 02:41:14 PM
if I have only ever been the victim of a crime by the hands of a black man, by anecdote I would conclude that black men are more criminal than other ones. This would be an extremely racist conclusion. If, instead, I look at crime figures, I might find something quite different. The same goes for religion, sex, gender, orientation, et cetera, et cetera.
That would make you racist to assume that, however, what if you come to that conclusion based off "anecdote" and it turns out that the highest crime rate within your specific area is in fact caused by that specific race? Does that then make you a racist, or does it make your opinion justifiable?
Quote from: brcruchairman on December 24, 2016, 02:41:14 PM
The scientific method not only discards anecdote, but actually demands citations and experiments. So unless you're suggesting we avoid the scientific method, which I don't think you are, I'm confused about what you're trying to say.
I am not saying to avoid it by any means, I am simply saying that to base the entirety of ones opinion off of nothing aside from statistical data, makes you both ignorant, and completely incoherent to the world around you. Mainly due to the reasoning I have stated prior, a.k.a "Statistical Data is Controlled".
Quote from: brcruchairman on December 24, 2016, 02:41:14 PM
Regarding locking the thread, I suppose nobody can stop you from making the request, but I would hope that the administrator or moderator will leave it open; I've seen some interesting points here, and even if I don't agree with them, closing down a conversation because it might upset someone, particularly when the conversation in question has been carried out in a very civilized manner, strikes me as anathema to the point of a forum.
I can't disagree with you concerning the "interesting points" but I feel as if someone is going to step over the line, and when they do so, it could be terrible.
Quote from: brcruchairman on December 24, 2016, 02:41:14 PM
Anyone can be upset by anything; if something is deliberately or excessively incendiary, I can understand locking it.
I tend to live by my mindset of "Bite the problem in the ass before it ever happens"That tends to keep drastically less issues. Some people search for absolutely any reason to be offended, and a thread such as this is basically giving ample fuel for someone to throw a fit.
Quote from: brcruchairman on December 24, 2016, 02:41:14 PM
However, if a conversation is going on which allows not only the calm discussion of controversial topics, but further allows people to reform the opinions on the same,
I am unsure how you would "Reform" someones opinion, to my knowledge, you cannot change someone elses opinion. You can give ample amounts of information to someone, but they will not take it to heart unless they absolutely want to, which most never do. Basically "You can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink"
Quote from: brcruchairman on December 24, 2016, 02:41:14 PM
it strikes me as a difficult but ultimately good process, by which people better themselves. Again, this is only my opinion; I've been wrong plenty of times before. But that's my two cents about it.
It's impossible for someone to make you reform your opinion, or for you to reform someone elses. Only you, yourself, can do so. Someone elses opinion could be a contributing factor in the process, but is would never be the sole, underlying reasaon behind someones opinion changing.
Humans are creatures of habit, and will forever remain so, with that, people will more than likely never stray from their habits or opinions, unless they absolutely desire to do so.
Quote from: DaemonDeathAngel on December 24, 2016, 01:15:40 PM
I am trying to figure out why this thread is still here, or why the original poster did not realize it would start massive arguments. I am guessing it was made intentionally to start fights.
Why is this always the "default" assumption whenever people engage in intense discussions? Granted, some posts in the thread are pretty out there, but people are still mostly civil, all things considered.
Quote from: DaemonDeathAngel on December 24, 2016, 01:15:40 PM
That being said. The male and female body are both capable of the exact same thing when it comes to strength and force. A woman and man, both equal height and equal weight, can gain the same muscle tone and strength as the other. The same knowledge of whatever the situation is, whether that be combat or not.
Ever been into bodybuilding? One of the first few things you learn about is that it takes WAY more and WAY longer for women to gain the same amount of muscles that men gain by doing the exact same sets of exercises and having the same diets. (SO respect for those super muscular bodybuilding women you see on the posters.) You will also quickly learn that some men have what they usually refer to as the "superman genes", which means it doesn't take much for this type of men to be all buffed up. This occurs very rarely in women.
I just skipped the majority of page 2 here. Reason: Men and Women are different. There's no need to discuss that.
I think the question is, simply put, should RimWorld incorporate that (Genders, body types and stuff)? I personally would say no, there's no need to be hyperrealistic. But if it's going to happen one day, it should cover all/most of the aspects. Fighting is by far not the only thing that's affected by gender differences, body types, ...;
Quote from: Thyme on December 24, 2016, 03:43:04 PM
I just skipped the majority of page 2 here. Reason: Men and Women are different. There's no need to discuss that.
Yeah. When I started this, I thought that'd be kind of obvious and that the major focus of the thread would be to discuss whether to incorporate that into Rimworld. But apparently people still stuck debating whether men and women are different. I mean, seriously, have (some of) you guys looked out the window lately? Or walked on the street? I wonder how much liberal brainwashing it takes to make a person become completely detached from reality and go like,"yeah, there's no difference between men and women at all." I'm all for equal opportunities and shit, but men and women are not born equal. The assumption that they are born equal actually cheapens female struggles when you think about it. You are not acknowledging that it takes them a lot more to get certain physical tasks done. (Like it takes female bodybuilders a lot longer to buff up. Again, so much respect)
Quote from: DaemonDeathAngel on December 24, 2016, 03:16:50 PMThe discussion/argument/fight has been relatively well mannered thus far, but from personal experience on this specific topic, it can go from perfectly civil, to absolutely catastrophic in less than 5 minutes. That is mainly due to the specific topic, and how touchy many people are nowadays when it comes to the entire "equality" standpoint.
This is true, as evidenced by vampiresoap's claim of liberal brainwashing later in the thread. *nods* Alright, I may be coming around. :p
Quote from: DaemonDeathAngel on December 24, 2016, 03:16:50 PMI am sure I managed to miss something in my comment, that tends to happen after I read, and attempt to reply to 15-20 different comments within one single comment. Perhaps I should have chosen to specifically pinpoint aspects of comments that I found to be a bit unclear or that peaked my interest.
Aah, I see. My bad, then; my apologies for jumping on you out of turn, then. :)
Quote from: DaemonDeathAngel on December 24, 2016, 03:16:50 PM
Age old saying of "The Truth Hurts". I guess that would be a good enough point in this case.
I take your point that unpleasant truths can also be painful, though I maintain that it's far more effective to let people come to the truth on their own, rather than attacking them, as the second tends to cause highly defensive reactions.
Quote from: DaemonDeathAngel on December 24, 2016, 03:16:50 PM
The main issue is still the same as I stated prior. Many people tend to "Statistic-Thump" you much like "Bible-Thumping" Science and religion are not much different in that aspect. Statistical standpoints are fine, but the largest issue is, many of your "Statistic-Thumpers" don't care if you are different than what the statistic says possible. Thus, causing the person "thumping" to effectively, and quite correctly, become sexist.
Ah, I think I see why I was disagreeing here. I had misinterpreted what you're saying as "anyone who uses statistics will cherry pick the ones they use, and use only sources they agree with." My counterpoint was, "No, people can use statistics and sources well by doing open-ended research and revising their point of view if they find that's the way the evidence leans." So basically, it looks like I was misunderstanding your assertion and answering a point you never even made! :p That'll happen.
Regarding what I think you're actually saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) it sounds like you're saying that the use of statistics and numbers alone don't make someone right, and furthermore most people form the opinion from anecdote (e.g., "Look out the window") and find statistics to back it up after the fact, relying on confirmation bias. This is true; it does happen. However, I feel like it wasn't (before the last three or four posts) happening here. Of course, now all bets are off, and whether a self-fulfilling prophecy or not, I get the feeling you may be right in how it ends up.
Quote from: DaemonDeathAngel on December 24, 2016, 03:16:50 PM
While this may be correct, it is also the sole position one originally bases their opinion off of, before ever taking into account statistics, or others opinions.
I think I'd mentioned this above, but I guess for me you can't, as you say, control what other people do. All you can do is let them have every tool they can to come to their own conclusions. That's the thrust of what I try to do; I try to give sources and evidence and if someone wants to listen, great! If not, then it's no skin off my back. And, from a personal standpoint, when I do the research to get the sources, I typically use as open-ended questions as I can; it's happened many times where instead of finding a source for what I'm asserting, I find evidence against it. Then I promptly revise my opinions, and do my best to acknowledge the point I'd been debating. :p A great example of this happening is in the "Steel burns on Rimworld?" thread, in which Nonmomentus Brain did an excellent job of this.
Quote from: DaemonDeathAngel on December 24, 2016, 03:16:50 PM
That would make you racist to assume that, however, what if you come to that conclusion based off "anecdote" and it turns out that the highest crime rate within your specific area is in fact caused by that specific race? Does that then make you a racist, or does it make your opinion justifiable?
This seems to be another place where I was trying to debate a point you never made. :p To answer your direct question, depending on your personal philosophy, it could still make you racist. My opinion would have evidence backing it up, sure, but I wouldn't have formed that opinion because of the evidence. This seems to go back to that core misunderstanding I had; it sounds like you assume people start with opinions and then cherry pick facts they agree with, while my personal modus opperandi is the opposite. So whoops, my bad; sorry for the example which poorly interfaces with your point. I think I was too wrapped up in my own head to realize other people can do things differently. >.>
Quote from: DaemonDeathAngel on December 24, 2016, 03:16:50 PMI am not saying to avoid it by any means, I am simply saying that to base the entirety of ones opinion off of nothing aside from statistical data, makes you both ignorant, and completely incoherent to the world around you. Mainly due to the reasoning I have stated prior, a.k.a "Statistical Data is Controlled".
Now here is where I'm getting confused again. I believe that basing one's opinions (specifically about trends, not specific cases) off of statistical data is being
more in tune with the world, not less. It expands my reality from just what's within my senses (anecdote) to what's observed over truly vast areas.
I'm guessing you're more saying, "If you go off of statistics and apply them uniformly to things you encounter", in which case you're right. That would be ignoring individual cases, and basically saying, "X happens 51% of the time, so everything must be X." Which would be using statistics wrong. :p But I get the feeling that
isn't what you're saying; would you be willing to clarify for me?
As a related note, I'd beg you to, if you can, keep ad hominems out of it, too. I know I personally bristled at the "ignorant and incoherent [sic] of the world around you" comment, and had to take a step back and a few breaths and remind myself that you weren't trying to insult me. :p It seems to be a human thing to focus on the eight words which could cause distress and ignore the other thousand. :p
Quote from: DaemonDeathAngel on December 24, 2016, 03:16:50 PM
I can't disagree with you concerning the "interesting points" but I feel as if someone is going to step over the line, and when they do so, it could be terrible.
You may be right in that; the more deeply invested somebody is in a conversation, the more painful it can be when it turns south, and this could easily be a point of great importance to some. I suppose I disagree with you that it means we have to stop it, but ultimately that's all it is, a difference of opinion. It's an excellent difference between utilitarianism and categorical imperative; utilitarianism says, "Lock the thread, everyone will be happier" while categorical imperative would say, "Let the thread continue; people have to be allowed to make their own decisions about what to read." Both sides are right, just a matter of which one you ascribe to. :)
Quote from: DaemonDeathAngel on December 24, 2016, 03:16:50 PM
I tend to live by my mindset of "Bite the problem in the ass before it ever happens"That tends to keep drastically less issues. Some people search for absolutely any reason to be offended, and a thread such as this is basically giving ample fuel for someone to throw a fit.
This is another good point. As above, I personally would take the risk with the gain, but that's a personal decision, not an assertion of universal justice. Now that you've explained it to me, I suppose I could understand the locking of the thread, should it happen. Thank you! I appreciate you explaining the points I was unclear on. :)
Quote from: DaemonDeathAngel on December 24, 2016, 03:16:50 PM
I am unsure how you would "Reform" someones opinion, to my knowledge, you cannot change someone elses opinion. You can give ample amounts of information to someone, but they will not take it to heart unless they absolutely want to, which most never do. Basically "You can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink"
This also applies to the quote below, and I'd touched on it briefly above; you're entirely right that you can never force someone to change their opinion. It's also true, as you said, that you can give them the information. That's what I try to do, and what I respond to best when it's done to me; personally, if someone says to me, "You're wrong and a terrible person for thinking that" my response will be along the lines of, "Well screw you too, buddy." If they just say, "Here, these statistics are interesting, they seem to suggest that when you said X, you may have been misinformed" then I tend to respond, "Huh, really? Can I see the source?" And, when the source turns out to be valid, I change my opinion. It's the old saw: you don't use science to prove you're right, you use science to
become right.
All that said, I'm aware I'm a bit of an oddball. Not everyone is like that. The thing is, if only some people are like that, then discussing in a forum like this can still spread a little more truth. And, so long as I keep an open and compassionate mind, the truth may spread
to me rather than
from on one of the many, many areas in which I'm not correct. So from a personal perspective, it's not just about possibly convincing someone else, but also possibly
being convinced and bettering myself.
Quote from: DaemonDeathAngel on December 24, 2016, 03:16:50 PM
It's impossible for someone to make you reform your opinion, or for you to reform someone elses. Only you, yourself, can do so. Someone elses opinion could be a contributing factor in the process, but is would never be the sole, underlying reasaon behind someones opinion changing.
Humans are creatures of habit, and will forever remain so, with that, people will more than likely never stray from their habits or opinions, unless they absolutely desire to do so.
You may be right. You're almost certainly right. But the thing is that this thought, that you can have large portions of the population wrong and willfully ignorant, is depressing to me. I can't change the universe, so all I can do is change my outlook. I can assume that people are irrational and live my life in a cynical stupor, or I can assume people are rational and go through life cheery. This right here is my biggest chunk of cognitive dissonance, which is frankly shameful, but it's what I've gotta do to survive. As such, I respect your opinion, and acknowledge it may be, likely is, true. However, unless there's a good reason why my outlook will do me a disservice in this arena (I maintain cynicism in meatspace; gotta do that to avoid all sorts of bad stuff) then I apologize, but I've gotta stick with it.
Quote from: vampiresoap on December 24, 2016, 04:50:41 PM
Quote from: Thyme on December 24, 2016, 03:43:04 PM
I just skipped the majority of page 2 here. Reason: Men and Women are different. There's no need to discuss that.
Yeah. When I started this, I thought that'd be kind of obvious and that the major focus of the thread would be to discuss whether to incorporate that into Rimworld. But apparently people still stuck debating whether men and women are different. I mean, seriously, have (some of) you guys looked out the window lately? Or walked on the street? I wonder how much liberal brainwashing it takes to make a person become completely detached from reality and go like,"yeah, there's no difference between men and women at all." I'm all for equal opportunities and shit, but men and women are not born equal. The assumption that they are born equal actually cheapens female struggles when you think about it. You are not acknowledging that it takes them a lot more to get certain physical tasks done. (Like it takes female bodybuilders a lot longer to buff up. Again, so much respect)
The core sentiment there, that men and women
are different, is one I think we can all agree on. Even Angel mentioned how the male (in his hypothetical cateris paribus scenario) would have reach and speed, but the female would have power and durability. That there are differences is very true. I think what is being argued any judgements
attached to those differences. For instance, a flat bonus for males in melee combat is saying, implicitly, that reach and speed are superior to power and durability. That, I believe, is where most have an objection, the abstraction from highly nuanced differences to a simplistic "X is better than Y" scenario.
Also, VampireSoap, I'd like to ask you, as well, to keep ad hominems out of it; The, "have (some of) you guys looked out the window lately?" comment isn't going to make anyone say, "My god! He's right! I'm totally disconnected from reality! I must fix this!" Speaking personally, it's more likely to make me think, "Ugh. Way to bring politics into it and make me think I'm being attacked." Which, I'm 98% sure, is NOT what you're going for. After all, I'm a stranger on the internet. I doubt you care about me enough to even try to attack me. :p All the same, some of us academic-types can be delicate flowers whose rumps can get hurt quite easily. :p
Also, one more thing I'll note: referencing how things are now puts undue weight on biology and too little on environment. My assertion is that, while the biology is unlikely to change in a few thousand years, the culture can become drastically different, and if it has a focus on physical strength irrespective of gender (as opposed to our current western culture) then you may see a very different status quo.
I also note that you assert that females do NOT build muscle as quickly as men. I provided a source which suggests that women and men put on muscle at similar rates; if you can find something that refutes it, I'd be very happy to see! Like I said above to Angel, I try not to use statistics and sources to prove I'm right, but rather to become right; if you've got something up your sleeve, that'd be really good for me to know and incorporate into my world view. :)
No. Stupid idea.
When you reroll for skill levels, you are rerolling for skill levels. End of story. Rimworld characters are not generic, "baseline" male and female real life counterparts.
Average man vs. average woman, with a statistical sample of millions, will exhibit patterns along gender, race, height, etc. But there is huge variance between individuals.
Lumine LeBlanc is a female character with combat skill because of her background. Emmie Young is a female character incapable of violence because of her background. These are fully thought out characters who do not need further "rebalancing" because of what the statistical average (on real life 21st century Earth no less) may be.
Quote from: brcruchairman on December 24, 2016, 06:20:40 PM
Now here is where I'm getting confused again. I believe that basing one's opinions (specifically about trends, not specific cases) off of statistical data is being more in tune with the world, not less. It expands my reality from just what's within my senses (anecdote) to what's observed over truly vast areas.
I'm guessing you're more saying, "If you go off of statistics and apply them uniformly to things you encounter", in which case you're right. That would be ignoring individual cases, and basically saying, "X happens 51% of the time, so everything must be X." Which would be using statistics wrong. :p But I get the feeling that isn't what you're saying; would you be willing to clarify for me?
As a related note, I'd beg you to, if you can, keep ad hominems out of it, too. I know I personally bristled at the "ignorant and incoherent [sic] of the world around you" comment, and had to take a step back and a few breaths and remind myself that you weren't trying to insult me. :p It seems to be a human thing to focus on the eight words which could cause distress and ignore the other thousand. :p
You understood what I was intending, I meant that some people use statistics as "51% is this way, that's majority, that means they all are that way"
I want to thank you for not directly getting upset with me, as some may have, and actually taking the time to fully read into what I was saying, rather than pulling pieces and getting upset or angry about it.
we also hold a VERY VERY high standard for civility at ludeon (i like to think so anyway) , which is one of the reason I absolutely LOVE these forums. Any opinion can be expressed, and as long as you don't go around screaming at folks, you wont be banned.
I personally LOVE that, an this shouldn't be compromised on the "off chance" that someone gets heated.
-----
Zombra (and others) I'm not sayiing no woman can be kickass.
I'm simply suggesting a few small changes to the framework.
1 : addition of a strength modifier, which effects hauling, mining, and melee attacks ( melee would have larges bonus to fists, blunts, and heavier weapons like swords and spears ) And have a bellcurve of men and womens strength distribution, something like 70-100 for women, and 85-115 for men...so you can CERTAINLY find women who are capable, but men are GENERALLY stronger most of the time. This said, 115, and 100 respectively would be the HUGE levels of strength which are super rare.. a bell curve, NOT a flat range (actual numbers can be adjusted)
2 : have men and women also have a health pool modifier for extremities, pain threshold, and bleed out rates. Men and women are different size, and thus trauma effect them differently. A stab wound which encompasses 5% of a female might be only 3% of a male, and will be less of a bother. Pretty much, men could take more of a beating, bleed more, and have bigger limbs, which can take more punishment.
Even in THAT framework, you could still get a "badass" woman, whos viable for melee combat, but chances are, you COULD find a man whom could kick her ass, even if its by no means an AVERAGE man.
Oh and btw, melee weapons besides knives would still be more effective used by men for a couple reasons. First, because a heavy blade / spear needs more force to accelerate / swing than a knife, meaning more strength = more speed, thus a man swings a sword which weighs 5 lbs total FASTER, and second, Even for edged / piercing weapons, the extra strength / reach plays a big factor. A knife might not quite pierce a leather jacket in the hands of a woman, but pierce with the "oomph" of a man, and a man wielding a heavy steel spear is more likely to strike faster than with a woman.
Granted, even a knife, with force and speed modifiers would be a bit more effective to a man, but this is a small point
One thing to keep in mind with "speed" is it is several factors involved.
First, is "top speed". How fast someone could run, in and of themselves...men generally win out on this, with longer legs, bigger torsos, ect
Second, is acceleration of limbs. How fast a limb can go, in a punch, kick, or stride...men also win here, as mentioned by the leverage argument. Men can punch, swing, and run faster
Third, is agility and dexterity, which UNLIKE the first 2, is based on higher control and benefits from size which is smaller. Theres a reason rats and mice are so agile, because they have so little mass to redirect. If a 250 lb male like myself wants to run, and do a 180 turn, I need to stop, and then redirect 250 lbs of mass, where as a mouse has to do it with a few ounces. The few ounces is much easier, and faster, which is why they are more agile despite lacking strength or topspeed.
Women CLEARLY win out on the third, which is why they are better seamstresses, welders, ect, because big male hands are too big, and too clumsy for some jobs where smaller, delicate female hands are more capable. And its not even a matter of "can my hand fit up there", its a matter of fine motor control.
See, if a hand is trying to say, thread a needle, you have maybe a 1/16 or 1/64 inch gap to push an equal size thread through...but this ALSO scales.
See, my hand is significantly bigger than a womans, so moving my hand .5% would be a much larger movement than a womans .5%. Thus a woman finds it MUCH easier to thread a needle than myself, assuming shes smaller. This also applies to men, if smaller, but most men are bigger.
-----
@ statistic thumping : You COMPLETELY miss the idea behind statistics. :( Statistics DO NOT say "all women are weak" or "all head injuries result in death" or "all posts from mumblemumble get under peoples skin to some extent", they say MOST or MANY do. Its a theme, a pattern, not a law. Of course people can be outside the stereotype, nobody is saying strong women dont exist, they are saying stereotypes are more common than not. It also applies as stereotypes are much more believable than other claims if theres no evidence otherwise.
Quite simply, if a woman online were to tell me she could haul just as much as me, I would be less likely to believe her than a man, as she would be severely outside the stereotype / norm of women. Now, she MIGHT be right, but its still incredibly rare.
And thats the key point, statistics discuss rarity / common-ness of things, NOT if they do / do not exist. Please make note of this.
-----
On a final note, on equality in general...one must ask HOW do they think men and women are equal...are men and women equal in ability to bare children? To impregnate? To lift things? To grow facial hair? To breast feed? No, they are VERY unequal with this....This said, is anyone petitioning to give men breasts, and women facial hair?
Point is, men and women AREN'T equal in EVERYTHING, which makes the question of "are men and women treated equal" irrelevant. Its more important to ask "are they treated fairly". Nature already made them unequal in many ways, and society should try to balance the differences to make it fair, because having everyone treated equal in society DESPITE differences is very far from fair...
I mean, honestly consider if 100% treating men and women the same would be a "happy" scenario. Where women are treated with just as much callousness and aggression as men, where women DO NOT get any preferential treatment, where rape is trivialized on scale with men being assaulted by women (seriously, nobody really cares about MEN (not boys) being assaulted sexually by women, because its very hard to do, and less damaging. Imagine this applying to woman, due to "equality") where women CANNOT ever play the gender card to benefit them and are expected to perform like other men no matter what, or be fired....
And before you say "well obviously you keep in mind body type", first keep in mind, body type was dismissed in this thread due to skill being "more important" (which was debunked), men and women statistically almost ALWAYS have different body types / emotional setups (which is the origin of the sexes being treated differently) , and while men / women with smaller / larger bodies exist, they are RARER than men / women who FIT the stereotypes.
Generally how judgement of people works is as follows
1 : stereotypes based of minimal information (gender, weight, race, place of origin, ect)
2 : meeting person, gaining a first impression based off new info (how they look, act, carry themselves, performance)
3 : continuing judgement reforming the first impression and stereotypes to see how the person is different from the stereotypes, and who the person is by their actions.
Pretty much everyone does this, whether they admit it or not, its mostly subconscious, but it happens. Its not wrong to jump to the stereotype FIRST, its only wrong to insist the stereotype is right if theres proof its wrong.
and its not saying this applies to ALL, but sayinng it applies to MOST, and trying to be MOSTLY correct.
As an example, 98% (more?) people in the USA speak English. I assume most people WILL speak english due to this, and 98% of the time im correct. If someone is the 2%, I adjust my views on THEM, because THEY are an exception, but the rule still applies to everyone else unless proven otherwise.
this comes down to something which everyone encounters : trying to make a judgement off minimal information. Sure, you can go around asking and clarifying all day, but this would honestly piss MORE people off.
Well, again - there's just no need to try and make some scientific determination so different gendered game pieces can be STATISTICALLY ULTRA REALISTIC. Maximizing realism is not the purpose of the game. Women punch as hard as men in the game? You know what ... that's fine. We're not going to finally define men and women once and for all here on a video game forum.
When Zoe punches out that drunk in "The Train Job", we don't need to go, "Now wait a minute, she's a woman, is she really strong enough to do that, blah blah blah". She just does it and it is fine. In Rimworld, female raiders hit as hard as males and it is fine. End of story.
If you REALLY can't sleep at night knowing a female pawn beat up your male pawn, make a mod. Like other controversial subjects, unless statistical sexism can be shown to be absolutely necessary for the game to fulfill its basic vision, it is best left out of the official version.
In real life women are on average weaker than men. This has zero bearing on what makes the game interesting.
Since almost all pursuits in this game involve colonist labor, making women less capable than men adds nothing but definitely devalues female colonists.
Like childbirth and excretory functions, let's let reality be reality and art be art.
I agree. As I've said before, there's on ly so fine-grained the simulation needs to be ;D.
I'm going to break this down line by line.
Quote from: Zombra on December 24, 2016, 07:35:54 PM
Well, again - there's just no need to try and make some scientific determination so different gendered game pieces can be STATISTICALLY ULTRA REALISTIC.
So? should rimworld remove the health effects too? We didn't NEED those, strictly speaking.... And need for what, more importantly? nothing is EVER objectively needed, the need applies to fulfull a qualifier of a condition. Pawns need food to not starve, wounds need tending to not bleed out, ect...if these are acceptable, you dont "need" it.
QuoteWomen punch as hard as men in the game? You know what ... that's fine. We're not going to finally define men and women once and for all here on a video game forum.
its unrealistic imo. It doesn't match reality. You are correct we will never emulate the sexes perfectly in a game, but why not try to emulate them better? Perfection might never be reached, but why not work towards it? You are literally saying "we wont ever get it 100% perfectly correct, so why bother even trying at all.".
QuoteWhen Zoe punches out that drunk in "The Train Job", we don't need to go, "Now wait a minute, she's a woman, is she really strong enough to do that, blah blah blah". She just does it and it is fine.
not sure what movie(?) This is but first off, zoe is obviously above average in strength in the movie, and second, a drunk is easier to fight due to the delayed reaction time. Why can you not accept that stereotypes exist, and are true, but individuals can STILL fall outside the stereotype?
Stereotypes means it fits MOST or MANY of that group NOT ALL.
most...not all.
not all...most.
Zoe is not included, because its not all females...she is one of the strong few.
Do you not comprehend certain circumstances can BREAK patterns? That one senator survived pistol round to the brain...does this mean pistol rounds to the brain aren't generally lethal? no, it means she was an exception.. Do you understand this idea?
LAWS and STEREOTYPES are different...the laws of physics say that water, when not pressurized or diluted, freeze solid at 32 degrees. Stereotypes show patterns which are statistically true, when not accounting for the immense multitude of other information (which often cannot be looked at)
Again, its a matter of making the best decision possible off limited information, which is why they exist, because generally the stereotype is accurate more often than its INAUCURATE. If women were more likely to be stronger than men, the stereotype would be reversed
QuoteIn Rimworld, female raiders hit as hard as males and it is fine. End of story.
This...ALMOST sounds like you want to censor people. Why should it be end of story exactly???
QuoteIf you REALLY can't sleep at night knowing a female pawn beat up your male pawn, make a mod.
This sound like projection of anger, and hostility. Nobody has said they cannot sleep at night, or made a big deal, they are simply bringing up points and arguments. You are the one escalating things by insinuating people cannot sleep at night, or implying this discussion shouldn't be happening, and making veiled insults like this.
QuoteLike other controversial subjects, unless statistical sexism can be shown to be absolutely necessary for the game to fulfill its basic vision, it is best left out of the official version.
Why exactly? And again, absolutely necessary for what? Why are boom rats necessary?
Quote from: sadpickle on December 24, 2016, 07:37:02 PM
making women less capable than men adds nothing but definitely devalues female colonists.
You are assuming men would be a straight upgrade, except they aren't. women have better fine motor control, eat less, can bare children, ect... men aren't better in all aspects.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 07:56:24 PM
Quote from: sadpickle on December 24, 2016, 07:37:02 PM
making women less capable than men adds nothing but definitely devalues female colonists.
You are assuming men would be a straight upgrade, except they aren't. women have better fine motor control, eat less, can bare children, ect... men aren't better in all aspects.
Women bearing children, and having fine motor control and eating less (highly subjective evaluations there) is also not modeled, and nothing is gained by doing so, except encouraging sexism in work priorities. I think modelling biological sex differences, in any form, is beyond the scope of the game. A mod perhaps.
As for body types, they are already mechanically meaningful in the game as they depend on a pawn's adult background. A "hulk" body is an indicator that the character is a space marine or a pit fighter, with abilities to match. A "thin" type will be a bookworm, scientist, etc. So there is no further need to mechanize these either.
Quote from: sadpickle on December 24, 2016, 08:08:48 PM
Women bearing children, and having fine motor control and eating less (highly subjective evaluations there) is also not modeled, and nothing is gained by doing so, except encouraging sexism in work priorities. I think modelling biological sex differences, in any form, is beyond the scope of the game. A mod perhaps.
Highly subjective, another layer of depth would be really interesting IMO, and either way, neither of use have PLAYED using these in game, so how can we even say if it would add nothing?
And can you please explain why "sexism in work priorities" would be such an awful, terrible, dreadful thing?
Keep in mind "sexism" means in this circumstance, treating men and women differently...but this exists everywhere in the world.
So why is this bad
Quote from: Zombra on December 24, 2016, 08:09:17 PM
As for body types, they are already mechanically meaningful in the game as they depend on a pawn's adult background. A "hulk" body is an indicator that the character is a space marine or a pit fighter, with abilities to match. A "thin" type will be a bookworm, scientist, etc. So there is no further need to mechanize these either.
Body types are 100% aesthetic though, theres literally 0 difference in body types that isn't explained with "skill" for certain tasks.
For all intents and purposes, body types are currently non existent ingame. Every single colonist is the same body type, short of teenagers, everything else is 100% equal, short of injuries
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 07:56:24 PMSo? should rimworld remove the health effects too? We didn't NEED those, strictly speaking....
Are health effects controversial?
Quoteits unrealistic imo. It doesn't match reality. You are correct we will never emulate the sexes perfectly in a game, but why not try to emulate them better?
Because realism is not a top priority in this game and sexism is controversial.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 07:56:24 PMWhy can you not accept that stereotypes exist, and are true, but individuals can STILL fall outside the stereotype?
Whether stereotypes are true or not is immaterial, since realism is not the top priority for this game.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 07:56:24 PMThis...ALMOST sounds like you want to censor people. Why should it be end of story exactly???
Wow, I almost went for a whole post there without someone guessing about my EVIL INTENTIONS. Next time respond to what I say and leave the psychoanalysis to my doctor.
It's "end of story" because my argument is concise and to the point, and (apparently) inarguable.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 07:56:24 PMThis sound like projection of anger, and hostility. Nobody has said they cannot sleep at night, or made a big deal, they are simply bringing up points and arguments. You are the one escalating things by insinuating people cannot sleep at night, or implying this discussion shouldn't be happening, and making veiled insults like this.
The OP said flat out that he is upset about too many women killing his male pawns. Go back and read it if you don't believe me.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 07:56:24 PMQuote from: Zombra on December 24, 2016, 07:35:54 PMLike other controversial subjects, unless statistical sexism can be shown to be absolutely necessary for the game to fulfill its basic vision, it is best left out of the official version.
Why exactly?
Because there is no sense in inviting controversy without a good reason. Tynan, I assume, doesn't want Rimworld to be "that sexist video game" or "that game about slavery" or ... you get the idea.
Since sexism is not necessary for Rimworld to be a good game,
and because it would cause negative controversy, its inclusion would be dumb.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 07:56:24 PMWhy are boom rats necessary?
They're not - but they're not controversial either, so there is no good reason
not to include them.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 08:18:55 PMQuote from: Zombra on December 24, 2016, 08:09:17 PMAs for body types, they are already mechanically meaningful in the game as they depend on a pawn's adult background. A "hulk" body is an indicator that the character is a space marine or a pit fighter, with abilities to match. A "thin" type will be a bookworm, scientist, etc. So there is no further need to mechanize these either.
Body types are 100% aesthetic though, theres literally 0 difference in body types that isn't explained with "skill" for certain tasks.
For all intents and purposes, body types are currently non existent ingame. Every single colonist is the same body type, short of teenagers, everything else is 100% equal, short of injuries
Wrong. I just explained this. Body types indicate things. That makes them meaningful.
QuoteCONTROVERSY!!!!
Since this explains 50% of your post, I want to say controversy shouldn't be a factor. Its a game, one meant to evoke emotions and feelings. Controversy should not be a factor in redacting small elements. I mean, this isnt as controversial as say, child sacrifice to the gods, so It shouldn't be a big deal. Cannibalism, drugs, and other elements are also controversial, and less so than a woman being weaker on average. This is a moot point.
If controversy was the end all be all of what should be in game, according to you, you, by proxy, ALSO support the removal of drugs, cannibalism, incest, murder, ect... because those are also controversial.
But we both know this is incorrect, the reason isn't controversy alone, its something else. Its most likely discomfort over the idea, I'd wager.
Controversy, while i can cause discomfort, can also attract people. Its not a good enough argument, imo, to just label something with "controversy" and call it good. You need a much deeper argument behind it, like what you think the effects would be, and why.
Quoterealism is not a priority
It is to some, and many. Tynan himself added the health, relationships, and other elements for "realism" among other things... This is a non argument.
Quoteevil intentions
hey, when YOU say "end of story", that REALLY seems as if you want to snuff all other debate about it...its an aggressive term, and coupled with everything else, its not unreasonable to think you might think this.
QuoteOp said he didn't like it
He didnt say he lost sleep, didnt say it was a big deal, he said he NOTICED it. He didn't sound very upset at all, you sound significantly more upset and aggressive, and passive aggressive than him, or others so far.
Quoteboomrats aren't necessary and aren't controversial
I've already established the controversy argument is lame, and you kinda added to my point...nothing is "necessary". And controversy isn't a good enough argument.
At least point out the effects of something, not labels.
Quote from: Zombra on December 24, 2016, 08:24:07 PM
Wrong. I just explained this. Body types indicate things. That makes them meaningful.
Name one, which is irremovable from skills, or the "background" which is really just flavor text, as it has 0 effect on mechanics, short of determining beginning stats
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 08:41:04 PMI want to say controversy shouldn't be a factor.
Too bad. It is.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 08:41:04 PMIf controversy was the end all be all of what should be in game, according to you, you, by proxy, ALSO support the removal of drugs, cannibalism, incest, murder, ect... because those are also controversial.
Cannibalism and violence are necessary to the theme. Drugs are a greyer area but much less politically volatile than sexism.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 08:41:04 PMQuoterealism is not a priority
It is to some, and many. Tynan himself added the health, relationships, and other elements for "realism" among other things... This is a non argument.
Very convenient misquote there. You omitted a very important word. Read the actual quote and try again.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 08:41:04 PMQuoteOp said he didn't like it
He didnt say he lost sleep, didnt say it was a big deal, he said he NOTICED it. He didn't sound very upset at all, you sound significantly more upset and aggressive, and passive aggressive than him, or others so far.
Wow, you are going gangbusters with the misquotes. You misquoted the OP just as much as I did, by the way, and with just as much bias. I freely admit that I exaggerated his viewpoint ... but importantly, I wasn't directing it straight at him, or anyone. Maybe no one actually cares if women are killing their men, which is fine with me - but if not, what the hell are we talking about?
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 08:41:04 PMControversy isn't a good enough argument.
At least point out the effects of something, not labels.
Sure. People will start calling the game sexist, and Tynan and Rimworld will gain negative reputations as "politically incorrect". Now if Tynan's
goal is to stir that up to gain attention, then this would be a good step - and I will happily concede if Tynan says that deliberate political incorrectness is one of his goals. But it is not.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 08:41:04 PMName one, which is irremovable from skills, or the "background" which is really just flavor text, as it has 0 effect on mechanics.
Oookay ... as soon as you explain how the skills aren't part of the mechanics.
Quoteit is
not to myself, tynan, and plenty of customers
Quotecannibalism and violence is necessary
maybe violence is, but I'm sure cannibalism could be removed from a17 and the game wouldn't unravel. It would suck, having a removed feature, but the game wouldn't stop being fun.
Quotemisquote
My comment still applies
Quotemisquote
You said to read the OP, I did. Again, it doesn't address the point.
Also, when you say you aren't directing this at OP, isn't this kind of a lie?
Granted you can argue at what "this" is, but considering its his thread, and you directly mentioned him recently, I find this odd. What did you mean by "this" anyway?
Quotesexist
Ask yourself if the sales lost would really be that significant, the article from RPS probably generated MORE sales... Hell, that game hatred got lots of sales, despite being a mediocre game, because the controversy BOOSTED sales.
Quoteskills are mechanics
Try this.
Take 2 pawns, of different body type... give them max 20 in all skills
And tell me what difference there is in mechanics
Seriously, download prepare carefully RIGHT NOW and make 2 colonists 100% identical in skills, traits, but give them different body types, and tell me what the mechanical difference is.
Quote from: DaemonDeathAngel on December 24, 2016, 06:56:58 PM
You understood what I was intending, I meant that some people use statistics as "51% is this way, that's majority, that means they all are that way"
I want to thank you for not directly getting upset with me, as some may have, and actually taking the time to fully read into what I was saying, rather than pulling pieces and getting upset or angry about it.
Ah, okay, thank you! I appreciate you clarifying. :) On that, I think we agree; as others have said, tremendous variation exists and it's not only necessary, but often critical to account for it, rather than apply ungainly blanket statements. I really appreciate you clarifying; I was quite confused, and it's always really nice to find common ground.
I'd also like to thank YOU for being likewise willing to discuss calmly and fairly both the topic and any clarifications some of the less perceptive (*coughs!* <.< I, Socrates am the least perceptive for I perceive that I perceive nothing?) among us. Like Mumble said, it's one of the things I love about this forum. :) So *hugs!* Thank you! I appreciate both your participation and you humoring me as I try to stumble through and hear what you said, instead of what I imagined. :p
As for you mumble, I'd like to point out that your proposition is something I'd get behind; model all the factors including weight, build, height, musculature, et cetera. Kinda Dwarf Fortress style. In concept, I'd get behind that 100%. Where to put the averages and distributions would be another set of debates (the 75-100 vs 90-115 spread strikes me as a bit too unequal, but frankly just
having a spread would be an excellent start.) However, I'm not sure it'd be worth adding into the game at this point in time; it'd take a major overhaul of the code and pawn structure as well as combat mechanics for a relatively small gain. I'd like to see it, yeah, but I guess what I'm saying is that, given the amount of work it'd take, I can understand why other things with much more pronounced effects may take precedence.
Regarding equality in general, I feel like you may be misunderstanding where folks like Angel and myself are coming from; nobody is asserting
uniformity, but rather equal
worth. The notion of men having a flat bonus to melee and no other changes (as I heard of none proposed in this thread) is effectively saying, "All else being equal, a male colonist is better than a female one." After all, if you have two pawns, one with a +1 melee bonus and one without, everything else identical, it's a no-brainer which to pick.
That is the source of consternation, I think, the notion that there would be a clear, unambiguous, and entirely sex-divided edge. If women had a similar bonus to ranged for fine motor skills, there'd still be debate, but I feel like ultimately the emotions would be settled somewhat, as it's "XY pawns are better at melee, XX pawns are better at guns." None are better full stop, they're just better at different things.
That's part of why I like debating with you, mumble. :) Your proposed solution
would be satisfying, because it would model men and women being better at different things. (The degree, again, would cause some debate, and some would remain over the necessity of such a differentiation, but I feel like it would be much less emotionally charged compared to now.)
I'd also like to point something out. In your hypothetical "happy scenario", you seemed to have defaulted to "women are treated as men". Just as easy would be the converse or, as is the true goal I think, somewhere in the middle. The basic tenant of feminism, as I understand it, is this: "If human, then person." Basically, if you qualify as a homo sapien, you should have all the rights and responsibilities of being a person.
This paragraph is off-topic somewhat, so y'all can feel free to skip. Mumble, I kinda feel like you're trivializing the very real and significant barriers women face; given the same job and same performance, women tend to make ~80% of what men do.
1 THAT is what the problem is. It's not that "all women should be treated like all men" because all men are NOT treated the same. It's more that being a woman shouldn't really enter into the equation. Can she do the job? If so, she should get the same benefits and responsibilities as anyone else. Can she NOT do the job? Well then, she shouldn't have the job. I'm also rather disturbed at your assertion that rape is less damaging to men. I've known a couple guys who're survivors of female-on-male rape, and it's some rough shit no matter who you are. However, that's anecdotal, so here's a source that says something similar.
2 Perhaps I misunderstood you, and if so, feel free to disregard the above and/or explain in more detail; I misunderstand a lot, after all.
Zombra, you make a good point: regardless of meatspace happenings, it is a game. So a question of whether it's relevant for the game does warrant debate. Personally, I like simulations, but that's not for everyone, so that's a different dialogue. :) I believe sadpickle made a similar point. :)
Anyway, Zombra and Mumble, it sounds to me like the argument boils down to the following:
Zombra, it sounds like you're saying that the extremely complicated and nuanced differences between males and females does not need to be modeled in the game, and you believe the game has little to gain from trying. It sounds like you're further asserting that it would be harmful to try, because it would perpetuate misinformation due to its necessarily limited scope, which would reinforce socially damaging effects. Am I misunderstanding or misrepresenting something here? I'd like to understand the thrust of your argument, if I can. :)
Mumble, it sounds like you're asserting that said nuanced differences DO need to be modeled for the game, and their inclusion adds further depth which can generate more and even better dramatic stories from the in-game model. It further sounds like (I think I recall having a similar debate with you in the thread on suicide) you believe art, video games included, should not be limited in their content by what is controversial, but rather should include anything which could further their emotional impact. Do I have the gist of your stance right? If not, would you be willing to clarify? :) I've already misunderstood a half dozen times in this thread, what's a few more as long as I fix 'em? :p
I'm going to arrogantly assume I've more or less gotten the basic ideas from you two's viewpoints. (I'm going to be wrong. I fully expect that, as of the next post, everyone will be like, "... Not even close, dude." and I'll have to leave this up as a testament to my hubris.) Assuming I got miraculously lucky and understood what you both were saying, it seems to me to come down to a difference of opinion. To what extent should an artist be held accountable for how people take their work? Personally, I got no clue, and I feel that any answer is right. But maybe I just railroad everything into coming back to that question because I like it. >.> If so, please let me know so I can be a little less wrong in this universe. :p
References:
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States
2: http://www.malesurvivor.org/fact-4/
I do agree the exact numbers are COMPLETELY open to scrutiny with my idea. This is why i stated exact numbers could change, infact im almost indifferent to exact numbers, so long as it were a thing which had a noticable impact on performance.
I do think females should have boosts to certain tasks, such as tailoring, artistic, and non physically intensive crafting jobs (smithing and machining I expect men to be better at because of this) So no, not a flat buff...just segregating slightly in GENERAL strengths, separate from skills. This doesn't mean a man couldn't do tailoring, or a woman couldn't be a bouncer, but it would just be slightly less likely. I also think women, for SMALLER firearms (anything under a sniper rifle) should get an aim bonus, but perhaps men should get a cool-down bonus for handling the recoil. Women with smaller hands are much more accurate with guns, but recoil can also be a factor.
I agree the exact implementation would cause debate, which is fine..and im very, VERY open on compromising on exact numbers, but its a bit silly to insist women and men are 100% equal on all things...as said before, equality is a silly concept to introduce between 2 radically different things. They can't really be "equal" in all ways if they are different.
The idea of women being paid less is actually a misrepresentation of data. Please hear me out on this. The statistics presented for this idea show data along entire industries WITHOUT accounting for maternity leave, extra hours worked, effort put in, and how much time is put into the career. Quite simply, women want, at some point, to stay at home with kids, which is IMPOSSIBLE to do while working full time. Men however, do not have such issues, and thus work more hours, get more promotions, ect... You simply CANNOT FIND a man making more per hour than a woman for doing the exact same work, because this is extremely illegal in the united states. People can only be paid more if they do more. and many females don't do more, but rather take extra time for kids and family, thus meaning less promotions, thus meaning less women in high positions, thus meaning less TOTAL pay along ALL INDUSTRIES.
But you will never find 1 man, and 1 woman, same job with a pay gap if they work equally.
-----
On the topic of female on male rape, we need to look on what rape is. Rape is any unwanted sexual contact which is protested in some sort, but the protest ignored, OR, otherwise being unable to give consent, not protest. This can range from anything from a slight annoyance, to a life ruiner in how damaging it is the the person raped. This is because sex is EXTREMELY complicated, and emotions can range / change in many ways. One may just not want sleep to be disturbed, and say no because of that, but be ok with sex by itself, and technically this is rape, but its far less damaging than say, a person being assaulted, facing physical injuries, and being not ok with the person and the new relationship formed.
Obviously, men can be hurt by women too, but its less likely due to several factors. First, having ones penis forcibly inserted into a vagina is scarcely traumatic compared to forced entry (unless you mean a woman sodomizing a man, but that is different). Women find sex far more intense and emotional than men, in many ways, and so the effects are far more severe.
Second, men are, generally speaking, stronger, so rape is far more difficult to do in the violent sense..this isn't to say it doesn't happen but is less likely for a man to feel as helpless as a girl does. Much of the time these rape cases are a hesitancy to exercise force on the woman, and it comes down to the guy upset that his wishes weren't respected, but never fighting tooth and nail. This in itself is an interesting element with rape, fighting, because I honestly, I think resistance is important in terms of rape cases... people aren't taken serious in rape cases if they never say no, and they are taken far more serious if there is violence involved, because its much easier to believe rape in the case of violence being a factor.
I myself have been "raped" by a girl, in that I said no, but didn't have the willpower to get violent / physical. In this circumstance, it wasn't really very damaging, and frankly, I COULD of easily beaten the girl to death if I needed to, as again, im a 250 lb man, being "raped" by a 140 lb woman... yes, I said no, and she didnt stop, though I could of stopped it, but didn't. See, rape is complicated because its such a wide term, and asking questions is certainly important. Granted, I might of been mildly annoyed at the girl at the time, but I would be extremely upset if she were jailed... and this is because there was not enough damage to warrant jailing her. And in the end, I DIDNT force her off, despite having 100% ability to do so.
I'm not one to say how much resistance makes WHAT rape case valid, or invalid, I'm not saying I have the authority or knowledge for that, and it really should be judged on a case by case basis, but resistance, verbally and physically, is certainly a factor, especially when you consider the amount of people whom do "pseudo rape" as a role-play element in otherwise consensual play. We must ask ourselves not "was it rape, by definitions" but, "what was the damage inflicted", compared to what was done, what was intended, ect. And in my case, damage was about onpar with someones car alarm going off at 3 am... This might be different for others, and other scenarios, but its something to consider, again, I cannot say what is or is not valid, but I don't think considering these things is a bad idea, understanding is only gained by pondering things.
I'm not saying any one man, or womans experience of rape is invalid...im simply saying this info should be considered.
The important thing to consider is not "is it rape" but, what are the effects of it, and why certain things would be a certain way... rape (again, sex which is not wanted in the moment) in a marraige which is otherwise happy is pretty damn common, but simply not reported, because both parties understand a small disagreement which boils down to one wanting to play while one wants to sleep, is not worth all the drama that comes with reporting it, because theres often not enough damage to warrant it. if 2 people love each other, feel comfortable and safe with each other, but one night theres a disagreement about sex, which doesn't become violent, I dont see the sense in such massive punishments over it.
--------
Your summary of my stance is very good, I wish I could +rep you for it =o I am aware many of my views are triggering or offensive, but I think that catering to such things is more harmful than allowing people to grow accustomed to them.
I myself would much rather have the most grim truth, than the most pleasant lies.
Why are we not allowed to put people on ignore on here? I'm trying to read about RimWorld and instead I get MRA propaganda. This shit is way off-topic.
Quote from: Hierophant on December 24, 2016, 10:57:44 PM
Why are we not allowed to put people on ignore on here? I'm trying to read about RimWorld and instead I get MRA propaganda. This shit is way off-topic.
You are a prime example of why a discussion that is being completely civil, turns 180 into a non-evade-able spiral towards chaos and hatred. If anyone should be ignored in this entire discussion, it should be you.
Also, in response to your "MRA" and off-topic statement, it isn't really off-topic at all. This is in "General Discussion" which is defined in the forums as "Talk about Ludeon and RimWorld.".
Technically speaking, we are doing just that. We are discussing the pros and cons of the aforementioned idea of difference between men and women, and explaining reasoning behind why one believes one way or another. Then we are clarifying portions of our posts, attempting to understand anothers standpoint. Then responding in an orderly manor.
I have a knack for using cliche statements, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" because your MRA statement is derogatory and unneeded, and is being used as an attempt to "stir shit".
I find this entire discussion rather interesting, if not a bit too dragged. I mean, it's quite clear that both sides of the arguments have quite solid positions, with tons of evidence and support behind them, and no matter the case, there will still be a big number of people who feel Rimworld is unrealistic in whatever verdict is decided(not talking about people here, though. More like just all those thousands or however many of people will play rimworld).
I don't have much to bring to the table in terms of the whole real-life discussion, but something I find odd nobody has suggested, would be to actually make the damage from melee be tied somehow to the melee skill(since I believe a swordfighter expert would be much better at chopping arms in one strike than a complete amateur). That would then open the possibility to make it so that women and men have different chances for coming with different skills, without having as many new complex and hidden calculations for this system.
This solution would both be much more subtle than a flat increase in capacity, actually tie in well with the skill system and avoid another PR chaos like that with the RPS writer.
Frankly, I'd much rather women and men stayed as is with equal capacities, as any difference would be so minimal it would not be worth the effort to make(as I'm quite sure nobody here is suggesting men that can easily take down 2 women each with the same skill set), but I think that this works much better than simply saying "yeah, men do more damage every time", as well as making melee fighters much less reliant only on weapon quality.
(also, could make it so that how buff a person is is related to their melee skills? this sounds kinda weird, though)
Before we do or do not do this how about we actually make melee combat balanced? I mean it's not going to matter if a big or small person does different damage if they can't parry at all. Also, if we go this detailed for body types, we're going to have to add weights and encumbrance. That means adding weight to every item in the game. You're probably also going to have to add strength requirements to every weapon, and then from there we get attributes in general and before you know it every pawn is a character straight of a pnp rpg! Right now, I don't think rimworld is anywhere near ready to add that kind of detail to each pawn. Especially when other aspects such as melee combat, social roles, and water usage are either shallow or non-existent.
LordMunchkin posted in the meantime. My post goes after Kastro ;)
That is nicely said and considers the "cheapness" of features. The main reason why I said no to "gender mechanics" was the cost/benefit. That's an important question in Tynans development process and I think it wouldn't pay off.
Between this and the suggestion to add rape, I'm starting to think there is a group of redpillers around here gaming the subforums to spread their message.
Hey look at this cool new idea I had for the game that just so happens to intersect with the rape discussion I wanted to have with all of you in Suggestions.
I don't care if you want to discuss these things and the Male Rights Movement has some legitimate points but it's a pretty dishonest tactic, in my opinion. Their behavior reminds me a lot of the alt-right's mastery of such redpilling techniques.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 10:34:12 PM
I do agree the exact numbers are COMPLETELY open to scrutiny with my idea. This is why i stated exact numbers could change, infact im almost indifferent to exact numbers, so long as it were a thing which had a noticable impact on performance.
I do think females should have boosts to certain tasks, such as tailoring, artistic, and non physically intensive crafting jobs (smithing and machining I expect men to be better at because of this) So no, not a flat buff...just segregating slightly in GENERAL strengths, separate from skills. This doesn't mean a man couldn't do tailoring, or a woman couldn't be a bouncer, but it would just be slightly less likely. I also think women, for SMALLER firearms (anything under a sniper rifle) should get an aim bonus, but perhaps men should get a cool-down bonus for handling the recoil. Women with smaller hands are much more accurate with guns, but recoil can also be a factor.
Even if this
were accurate (a lot of it is off-base as far as I'm concerned) and even if it
was sensible to reflect this in the game, the variance in skill level which corresponds to differences in backgrounds already takes this into account. Yes, perhaps if you averaged all the women and all the men in the Rimworld universe, they would reflect the same statistical findings on 21st century Earth. But colonists are characters, not blank slates. If a colonist has a high or a low skill in something, that's because of the way their character background is set up.
QuoteI agree the exact implementation would cause debate, which is fine..and im very, VERY open on compromising on exact numbers, but its a bit silly to insist women and men are 100% equal on all things...as said before, equality is a silly concept to introduce between 2 radically different things. They can't really be "equal" in all ways if they are different.
Rimworld characters aren't supposed to reflect a reality or a plausible reality where yes, in fact, women and men are very likely not even close to being equal. This game isn't Census Bureau Population Interaction Simulator 2016. There is significant variance between individuals, even across gender lines. The skill system which is dependent on character background already accounts for this.
QuoteThe idea of women being paid less is actually a misrepresentation of data. Please hear me out on this. The statistics presented for this idea show data along entire industries WITHOUT accounting for maternity leave, extra hours worked, effort put in, and how much time is put into the career. Quite simply, women want, at some point, to stay at home with kids, which is IMPOSSIBLE to do while working full time. Men however, do not have such issues, and thus work more hours, get more promotions, ect... You simply CANNOT FIND a man making more per hour than a woman for doing the exact same work, because this is extremely illegal in the united states. People can only be paid more if they do more. and many females don't do more, but rather take extra time for kids and family, thus meaning less promotions, thus meaning less women in high positions, thus meaning less TOTAL pay along ALL INDUSTRIES.
But you will never find 1 man, and 1 woman, same job with a pay gap if they work equally.
-----
On the topic of female on male rape, we need to look on what rape is. Rape is any unwanted sexual contact which is protested in some sort, but the protest ignored, OR, otherwise being unable to give consent, not protest. This can range from anything from a slight annoyance, to a life ruiner in how damaging it is the the person raped. This is because sex is EXTREMELY complicated, and emotions can range / change in many ways. One may just not want sleep to be disturbed, and say no because of that, but be ok with sex by itself, and technically this is rape, but its far less damaging than say, a person being assaulted, facing physical injuries, and being not ok with the person and the new relationship formed.
Obviously, men can be hurt by women too, but its less likely due to several factors. First, having ones penis forcibly inserted into a vagina is scarcely traumatic compared to forced entry (unless you mean a woman sodomizing a man, but that is different). Women find sex far more intense and emotional than men, in many ways, and so the effects are far more severe.
Second, men are, generally speaking, stronger, so rape is far more difficult to do in the violent sense..this isn't to say it doesn't happen but is less likely for a man to feel as helpless as a girl does. Much of the time these rape cases are a hesitancy to exercise force on the woman, and it comes down to the guy upset that his wishes weren't respected, but never fighting tooth and nail. This in itself is an interesting element with rape, fighting, because I honestly, I think resistance is important in terms of rape cases... people aren't taken serious in rape cases if they never say no, and they are taken far more serious if there is violence involved, because its much easier to believe rape in the case of violence being a factor.
I myself have been "raped" by a girl, in that I said no, but didn't have the willpower to get violent / physical. In this circumstance, it wasn't really very damaging, and frankly, I COULD of easily beaten the girl to death if I needed to, as again, im a 250 lb man, being "raped" by a 140 lb woman... yes, I said no, and she didnt stop, though I could of stopped it, but didn't. See, rape is complicated because its such a wide term, and asking questions is certainly important. Granted, I might of been mildly annoyed at the girl at the time, but I would be extremely upset if she were jailed... and this is because there was not enough damage to warrant jailing her. And in the end, I DIDNT force her off, despite having 100% ability to do so.
I'm not one to say how much resistance makes WHAT rape case valid, or invalid, I'm not saying I have the authority or knowledge for that, and it really should be judged on a case by case basis, but resistance, verbally and physically, is certainly a factor, especially when you consider the amount of people whom do "pseudo rape" as a role-play element in otherwise consensual play. We must ask ourselves not "was it rape, by definitions" but, "what was the damage inflicted", compared to what was done, what was intended, ect. And in my case, damage was about onpar with someones car alarm going off at 3 am... This might be different for others, and other scenarios, but its something to consider, again, I cannot say what is or is not valid, but I don't think considering these things is a bad idea, understanding is only gained by pondering things.
I'm not saying any one man, or womans experience of rape is invalid...im simply saying this info should be considered.
The important thing to consider is not "is it rape" but, what are the effects of it, and why certain things would be a certain way... rape (again, sex which is not wanted in the moment) in a marraige which is otherwise happy is pretty damn common, but simply not reported, because both parties understand a small disagreement which boils down to one wanting to play while one wants to sleep, is not worth all the drama that comes with reporting it, because theres often not enough damage to warrant it. if 2 people love each other, feel comfortable and safe with each other, but one night theres a disagreement about sex, which doesn't become violent, I dont see the sense in such massive punishments over it.
--------
Your summary of my stance is very good, I wish I could +rep you for it =o I am aware many of my views are triggering or offensive, but I think that catering to such things is more harmful than allowing people to grow accustomed to them.
I myself would much rather have the most grim truth, than the most pleasant lies.
Not relevant to the discussion..
interesting proposition, but melee combat isn't as simple as technique.
Ever see games like fallout, or lord of the rings? Those big green guys with massive strength, but little brains... super mutants, orcs, ect they are immensely strong but really dumb.
Granted, they are far from samurai in terms of skill, but the immense strength more then makes up for it.
To reitterate earlier posts, larger body scale, ability to wield heavier weapons, and longer reach are ALL advantages, and while its not 100% insurmountable with skill, it takes 1 : a fighter who is NOT very skilled at all, but very strong..and 2 : a fighter who is very, VERY skilled and swift to turn the tides.
So this isn't impossible, but I would say strength is more important than raw skill. Even if you dont have any combat training, a fit, strong body is more adept at combat than a trained to kill 10 year old body... Because despite all the technique, pressure point learning, ect, if theres not strength to back it up, it wont work.
And even in the comparison you state, of an expert versus a novice, if the novice is in fighting form, and the expert is old and frail, the novice will get better results in the end, because a primal, untrained swing from a bear of a man will hit harder than an expert punch from a twig of a man.
Granted, the expert training the novice would be the BEST outcome, but nobody wanted to entertain that.
as for the PR bs, I cannot speak for tynan, but I doubt the RPS debacle hurt sales in reality, it was more an annoyance of people being idiots.
Also, assuming its 1 men, 2 women, all equal skill, I would bet on the 2 women assuming they worked out any. Men and women strength differential generally applies best 1 on 1, though if women are clueless on fighting, or very weak (like some are) I've seen a man fend off a couple angry women while laughing.
But this is mostly because women were just angry, and got violent without knowing a lick about combat.
Quote from: LordMunchkin on December 25, 2016, 02:50:21 AM
Before we do or do not do this how about we actually make melee combat balanced? I mean it's not going to matter if a big or small person does different damage if they can't parry at all. Also, if we go this detailed for body types, we're going to have to add weights and encumbrance. That means adding weight to every item in the game. You're probably also going to have to add strength requirements to every weapon, and then from there we get attributes in general and before you know it every pawn is a character straight of a pnp rpg! Right now, I don't think rimworld is anywhere near ready to add that kind of detail to each pawn. Especially when other aspects such as melee combat, social roles, and water usage are either shallow or non-existent.
I agree these would me amazing effects for combat.
One of my favorite mods (for doom) uses a weight system which slows down the player, multiplies stamina usage, and many other effects to scale with weight carried, which can make for VERY interesting effects, but I fear it might be too meta for most. I love it ingame as you can do stuff like hit a switch with just a pistol and kevlar, run back and grab a stashed minigun, and go to town.
Strength requirements normally are a pain (system shock, fallout, ect) But in a colony sim, It could be an interesting effect. You might have a keen assasin girl whos amazing with an m16, but cannot really use the minigun or rockets well, so your settler who has a bit more muscle would be the one to use that.
Quote from: Thyme on December 25, 2016, 02:52:18 AM
LordMunchkin posted in the meantime. My post goes after Kastro ;)
That is nicely said and considers the "cheapness" of features. The main reason why I said no to "gender mechanics" was the cost/benefit. That's an important question in Tynans development process and I think it wouldn't pay off.
.... You are the first person to actually make a damn good argument against this feature... ...props.
I can completely see where your coming from, tynan is VERY big on min / maxing updates for minimum time / effort (not being a jerk, just being honest) maximum fun. And you are very correct, this would add relatively little, compared to the health update, drugs update, ect...
So on that context, I completely see what you mean, but maybe in the future when the game is more "full" this could be a thing.
@PF
Backgrounds still dont mean they are equal... a male and female marine still wont be the same.
Also you saying rim-world doesn't need to reflect reality is, respectfully, your opinion...others may disagree.
Quote from: SterilizeAllTrolls on December 25, 2016, 02:56:36 AM
Between this and the suggestion to add rape, I'm starting to think there is a group of redpillers around here gaming the subforums to spread their message.
Hey look at this cool new idea I had for the game that just so happens to intersect with the rape discussion I wanted to have with all of you in Suggestions.
I don't care if you want to discuss these things and the Male Rights Movement has some legitimate points but it's a pretty dishonest tactic, in my opinion. Their behavior reminds me a lot of the alt-right's mastery of such redpilling techniques.
Did you seriously just make an account JUST to complain and label people as "redpilled" and "MRA's? Nobody even mentioned MRA's in either thread before you, you are the one throwing these buzzwords about, and throwing out such baseless accusations.
Try making a post with something backing it up, or at least stop using hostile conjecture.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 25, 2016, 03:17:28 AM
interesting proposition, but melee combat isn't as simple as technique.
Ever see games like fallout, or lord of the rings? Those big green guys with massive strength, but little brains... super mutants, orcs, ect they are immensely strong but really dumb.
Granted, they are far from samurai in terms of skill, but the immense strength more then makes up for it.
To reitterate earlier posts, larger body scale, ability to wield heavier weapons, and longer reach are ALL advantages, and while its not 100% insurmountable with skill, it takes 1 : a fighter who is NOT very skilled at all, but very strong..and 2 : a fighter who is very, VERY skilled and swift to turn the tides.
So this isn't impossible, but I would say strength is more important than raw skill. Even if you dont have any combat training, a fit, strong body is more adept at combat than a trained to kill 10 year old body... Because despite all the technique, pressure point learning, ect, if theres not strength to back it up, it wont work.
And even in the comparison you state, of an expert versus a novice, if the novice is in fighting form, and the expert is old and frail, the novice will get better results in the end, because a primal, untrained swing from a bear of a man will hit harder than an expert punch from a twig of a man.
Granted, the expert training the novice would be the BEST outcome, but nobody wanted to entertain that.
as for the PR bs, I cannot speak for tynan, but I doubt the RPS debacle hurt sales in reality, it was more an annoyance of people being idiots.
Also, assuming its 1 men, 2 women, all equal skill, I would bet on the 2 women assuming they worked out any. Men and women strength differential generally applies best 1 on 1, though if women are clueless on fighting, or very weak (like some are) I've seen a man fend off a couple angry women while laughing.
But this is mostly because women were just angry, and got violent without knowing a lick about combat.
You seem to have conveniently bypassed several posts expressing the idea that body frame and mass are covered under the "melee" skill. As the body & face models are randomly selected upon character generation they are not necessarily representative of that character's actual size. There exist large women and short men, women with large frames and men with narrow frames. Etc.
Quote@PF
Backgrounds still dont mean they are equal... a male and female marine still wont be the same.
Also you saying rim-world doesn't need to reflect reality is, respectfully, your opinion...others may disagree.
You're right, they won't be the same. Now compare a female marine, 5'11, to a male amateur kickboxer at 5'4.
You saying rim-world needs to reflect reality is also your opinion, and not only do I disagree with your opinion I disagree with the premise that it even makes sense to implement in Rimworld considering the basis of character generation in this game. Note that it is character
generation, not
creation. If it were character creation, I could support having different skill caps for male and female colonists.
melee skill alone is an awful measure of "strength" alone. Mining is also strength base, but quite simply strength effects a multitude of skills... This is less a theory, and more a way to dismiss this idea, IMO.
not sure what you mean about the comparison for the kickboxers, they are so different its not worth bringing up...I bring up male and female marines, because theres few other factors BESIDES gender
As for creation / generation, isn't making hard caps on CREATION FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more sexist?
I mean consider this...scenario A, most males and females are subtly different, but you occasionally find a very strong female, or weak female...its noticable, but mostly subtle, and you dont generate them manually, so its not a big deal, you chalk it up to randomness.
Scenario B, you create a female charecter, and try to put 9 points in strength in a fallout esqe stat setup, and the game says NOPE!!! YOU CANNOT MAKE A WOMAN OVER 7 STRENGTH CAUSE SHES A WOMAN!!!
first scenario just suggests a pattern.... the second says strong women simply do not, and cannot exist. One I would consider conforming to reality and minimally offensive, the other I would consider highly obtuse and HIGHLY offensive.
I find it hilarious you find that better ;D
Just a post to say keep the discussions ontopic, if you have a particular issue with the subject matter, ignore the thread and stay out of it, in this instance YOU are the one being offtopic. Thanks.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 09:17:36 PM
QuoteControversy is a factor.
not to myself, tynan, and plenty of customers
Really? Tynan has gone on record saying he doesn't care about public opinion? I'm going to need a link to that.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 09:17:36 PMQuotecannibalism and violence is necessary
maybe violence is, but I'm sure cannibalism could be removed from a17 and the game wouldn't unravel. It would suck, having a removed feature, but the game wouldn't stop being fun.
"Being fun" and "being necessary to the core of the game" are two different things. Cannibalism is a strong theme in survival stories; therefore it makes sense to include in a survival game, even if some find it distasteful. COULD it be removed? Of course, but so what?
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 09:17:36 PMAlso, when you say you aren't directing this at OP, isn't this kind of a lie?
No.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 09:17:36 PMQuotesexist
Ask yourself if the sales lost would really be that significant, the article from RPS probably generated MORE sales... Hell, that game hatred got lots of sales, despite being a mediocre game, because the controversy BOOSTED sales.
Again:
if Tynan wants to gain negative attention as a shock jockey,
then this strategy would make sense. From what I've read, this is
not what he wants to do so it does
not make sense.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 09:17:36 PMQuoteskills are mechanics
Try this.
Take 2 pawns, of different body type... give them max 20 in all skills
And tell me what difference there is in mechanics
Seriously, download prepare carefully RIGHT NOW and make 2 colonists 100% identical in skills, traits, but give them different body types, and tell me what the mechanical difference is.
lol. So in order to disprove that a mechanic functions in vanilla, I have to install a mod that specifically disables it? Sorry man, you just lost the argument. The mechanic is meaningful in the vanilla game.
Quote from: brcruchairman on December 24, 2016, 09:43:13 PMZombra, it sounds like you're saying that the extremely complicated and nuanced differences between males and females does not need to be modeled in the game, and you believe the game has little to gain from trying.
Correct. It is not in the scope of the game. I wouldn't object to it, except:
Quote from: brcruchairman on December 24, 2016, 09:43:13 PMIt sounds like you're further asserting that it would be harmful to try, because it would perpetuate misinformation due to its necessarily limited scope, which would reinforce socially damaging effects. Am I misunderstanding or misrepresenting something here? I'd like to understand the thrust of your argument, if I can. :)
You're misunderstanding this part. My objection is
not that it might be limited or "not realistic enough". (I find it really weird how prevalent the assumption is that "more realistic" is always the goal in gaming!) My point is that adding controversial material to the game will bring it a negative reputation, and should only be done if the material is necessary to fulfill the game's core vision (e.g. cannibalism is distasteful but important to the survival theme). Since the game's core vision has nothing to do with sexism, nothing is lost by leaving it out, but damage would be done by adding it.
Just to clear something up body TYPE (Hulk, thin etc) is purely cosmetic, Body SIZE however does have a function in numerous areas. Im not sure which one you guys are referring to or if you are both talking about different ones, but there it is.
Quote from: brcruchairman on December 24, 2016, 09:43:13 PM
Zombra, it sounds like you're saying that the extremely complicated and nuanced differences between males and females does not need to be modeled in the game, and you believe the game has little to gain from trying. It sounds like you're further asserting that it would be harmful to try, because it would perpetuate misinformation due to its necessarily limited scope, which would reinforce socially damaging effects. Am I misunderstanding or misrepresenting something here? I'd like to understand the thrust of your argument, if I can. :)
Mumble, it sounds like you're asserting that said nuanced differences DO need to be modeled for the game, and their inclusion adds further depth which can generate more and even better dramatic stories from the in-game model. It further sounds like (I think I recall having a similar debate with you in the thread on suicide) you believe art, video games included, should not be limited in their content by what is controversial, but rather should include anything which could further their emotional impact. Do I have the gist of your stance right? If not, would you be willing to clarify? :) I've already misunderstood a half dozen times in this thread, what's a few more as long as I fix 'em? :p
This is a nice summary for anyone who skipped the majority of the posts. I know I did haha...I can totally get behind Mumble's stance. Also, why do you guys make it seem so controversial? Mount and Blade did it and nobody bats an eye. Male protagonists in that game have +1 Str and +1 agility and Female protagonists have +1 Intelligence and +1 Charisma. The game actually makes sure the player understands how much more difficult it is for females to become a liege lord through conversations with the various lords. (which to be honest, is pretty realistic in a medieval setting). In Fallout New Vegas, the Legion looks down on you if you are female and will not allow you to fight in the arena. From my point of view, it actually adds a lot to the game when the game acknowledges your gender instead of just turning a blind eye.
PS: I don't know why some of you brought up the gender gap or the rape issue (again, too long did not read =D ) But seriously please stay on topic and please make your posts more concise and to the point lol...
Quotetynan doesn't care about public opinion
Tynan has mentioned something along the lines of he doesn't want discussions, ideas, or game experience to be limited by those who do not want certain things...he got backlash with this with gay people, drugs, and other things... but still did them.
and public opinion isn't always right.
Quotecannibalism is part of survival
Don't starve, dayz, minecraft, dust, hurtworld.. ...these are all survival games to some extent, none of them have cannibalism IIRC. and this is a very small list too.
I would argue cannibalism isn't strictly necessary for survival...its part of it, just like rape is part of a simulation of humanity, but is not absolutely essential...but I agree, its a nice part to make it feel complete.
Quoteno
I would like an explanation on what you meant by "this" then, in the post I was referencing then...Because im legit confused now on what you mean, and I really don't want to misinterpret people if I can help it. ???
Quoteshock jockey
First off, one can add that and not intend to be a shock jockey, and second, this is kind of a dismissal of the debate. I'm sure tynan didn't add drugs, overdosing, or cannibalism for shock value, so why would it apply to rape?...oh right, because rape is "more controversial". I forgot, sorry... Seriously, I would like to not resort to bringing that up, but...thats been a majority of your argument behind it. Its hard to not bring that up, when its literally been your argument.
Quotemod disables it
It doesn't disable it. It proves my point that body type ALONE is 100% aesthetic, JUST as skullywag mentioned. The difference between a hunk of a man, a plank, a chubby dude, is absolutely nothing mechanically. They all function 100% the same. Absolutely nothing, from walk speed, hitbox size in combat, health issues, or task efficiency is effected AT ALL by body type alone.
If body type WAS a functioning mechanic, then 2 pawns, 100% identical BESIDES one being chubby, and one being a beefcake, the 2 would not perform identically. This is my point, because the mod is a way to scientifically test it, removing all other variables.
Quote(e.g. cannibalism is distasteful but important to the survival theme). Since the game's core vision has nothing to do with sexism, nothing is lost by leaving it out, but damage would be done by adding it.
cannibalism wasn't "important" to the game till it was added fyi...this is a very important factor with "in development games", because everyone has their own "vision" of the end product.
Your vision is not mine, mine is not vampiresoaps, vampiresoaps is not tynans, ect...
We must be aware of this, otherwise we can get stuck in THIS kind of argument, where you say "THIS ISNT RIMWORLD!" which might be the case now, but who knows, it could be added...I didnt expect drugs would be added, but low and behold, they were. Rather than say rimworld "isnt xyz" off your own "vision" of rimworld a25 for instance (or b5?) consider what it would add, and what it would take away.
Food for thought, but thyme made a FAR better argument against this than you have in terms of objective ideas. Yes, these ideas ARE a small proportion of work put in / cool stuff gotten out, and hes very valid in that...but he didn't simply say "it doesn't fit rimworld, a game which is not complete, and I don''t know the future of". Thyme made an actual argument for why it might not be added in the foreseeable future...you provided tons of conjecture for much of this. You didn't even list off a forseeable chain of events which would be negative, you simply titled it as "sexist" and "controversial".
And vampire makes a good point, other series have added this and NOT been crucified as you seem to fear. Its borderline fear mongering, because games that do this don't face such immense hate that you think, nor does it destroy sales how you predict it will.
I love rimworld as much as you, but you insisting the game would get banned is practically fear-mongering, a word I normally despise using, or hearing.
And yeah, sorry for off topic stuff...its just...difficult for people to bring up various things which are untrue, and not want to take a minute to explain why they are wrong. :-\
Ill try working on it, though.
By the way, isn't body size the same for all adult humans? I know teens have lower stats, but for those over 18(?) its all the same isn't it?
I haven't read everything in this thread but it seems to be boiling down to wether or not to ad percieved 'controversial' matter.
To which my opinion is, if it enhances and or deepens the game, sure.
It's important in my eyes to reduce hardcoded numbers, meaning someone with a higher melee skill shouldn't always win.
Bring in other factors, wounds, overall health status, body type,...
A good middle ground to me seems to ad body types:
Brute, lean, skinny, ...
Both men and women can have these body types, but men have a higher chance getting the stronger more brute types, while women the frailer, lean types. Both would have their (dis)advantages.
On the broader almost off-topic discussion about controversy and some nature/nurture stuff I read here and there.
I think today in general both social and politics are being tormented by PC-culture, it's disassembling the cornerstones of western liberal values. One of the most if not THE mostimportant interaction is the discussion.
We're too scared to delve into any topic that might even SCRATCH the surface of the politically incorrect, I've seen a post in this thread asking why this thread even exists, it only brings controversy and flamewars, not? WRONG!
By boycotting any attempt of discussing controversial topics, which most of the time aren't even THAT controversial, instead of the two sides finding even ground and understanding each other we're becoming more and more isolated.
The way the regressive left deems any critisism of BLM racist, creates true racists
The way the regressive left deems any critisism of uncontrolled migration into Europe fascist, creates true fascists.
The way here, we deem someone sexist, should he explore the topic of sexual dimorphism will create true sexism.
Let us have true discussions with mutual respect and not fear diving into the dark when it comes to controversial topics. Those who scream triggered and retreat to attacking the speaker instead of forming a counter argument will in the end, make themselfs look stupid.
I hate to even engage in what I fear is a 'clickbait' response trying to lure "SJW's" like me into flame war.
I'll try to just make my point, without getting all "political."
I studied genetics in University ten years ago, and while it's not my field, and I'm no genetic scentist, there is some data from emperyical studies into genetic diversity between men and women which is relevant.
Arguement: Tynan is correct (scentifically) for making males and females essentially equal in combat.
Defense: The idea that men are stronger than women is largely cultural. While it may be true that on average a man is more likely to be "stronger" than a woman, it says nothing about whether "this" man is stronger than "that" woman.
Our cultural practices, such as how boys and girls are educated at a young age, and wht activities they are encouraged or allowed to participate in, affect their future "strength" and "skill."
There are glitterworlds, tribals planets, colonies of alk types. Who is to say that some planets haven't switched gender roles through the millenia? My piint is that it is not an accurate to believe that men are stronger than women. Any evidence towards such a conclusion is either about culture and nurture, and not genesand nature. Remember, 22 out of 23 pairs of chromosomes all contain copies of the same alleles, regarless of you gender. The genes which are coded on the X and Y chromosomes are much less relevant to potential diversity among men and women tham the genes we alk have in common.
Bottom line, the effect of "gender" (which isn't as black and white as many believe it is - there are many people for a test for gender woyld be inconclusive) would be so negligible, and nearly impossible to accurately, or acceptably, model, that it is in no way worth the effort.
Hi! I'm probably a SJW (I did make a mod to include bisexual and asexual people in the game), and am pretty sold on constructivism for a lot of things- heaven knows I've seen terrible sexism in my old workplace (and read enough papers on the topic) that makes it difficult for me to believe that we're anything other than measurably biased against women in most well paid and respected sectors, but...
Quote from: iota_x on December 25, 2016, 09:26:13 AM
The idea that men are stronger than women is largely cultural. While it may be true that on average a man is more likely to be "stronger" than a woman, it says nothing about whether "this" man is stronger than "that" woman.
here I disagree. This woman may indeed be stronger than that man, but in a random draw from each pool it will happen (say, for upper body strength) 2 times in 100. Putting aside socialisation, I'd be surprised if we discovered it got past 1 time in 10. Sexual dimorphism, though small in humans, likely has a larger effect than you credit. Cognitive differences are, in contrast, HUGELY overblown, and I think that can make us wary of these sorts of arguments.
However, I don't think the game should be changed to reflect this, because :
A) Women do somewhat better at agility tests, so how would we implement the change? Men get higher damage with clubs, women get higher damage with shivs and shortswords? Or lower chance to be hit? That's unnecessarily complicated. Just leave 'em equal.
B) What about other survival issues? Why are we starting with "Men hit hard, women do that (currently rather unimportant) social stuff"? Women generally have better muscular endurance, higher resistances to pathogens and starvation and, of course, are less likely to be affected by X chromosomal genetic diseases. I personally don't want these differences introducing either as I see no good coming from making either male pawns or female pawns clearly favourable for a given colony setup.
C) There're a lot of abstractions away from realism that are far more striking in RimWorld, with far less chance to upset, and I don't see why we'd not address those first.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 25, 2016, 03:17:28 AM
Did you seriously just make an account JUST to complain and label people as "redpilled" and "MRA's? Nobody even mentioned MRA's in either thread before you, you are the one throwing these buzzwords about, and throwing out such baseless accusations.
Try making a post with something backing it up, or at least stop using hostile conjecture.
No, I made an account and then learned that Tynan was allowing redpillers to game the forums and someone DID remark about how they're tired of getting MRA propaganda instead of Rimworld discussions. Typical redpiller, can't stand on the truth so has to misrepresent it to support their stance, "Nooo, nobody here is speaking out against this, you're crazy! Quit being so hostile, everyone loves it!" If you don't want to be labeled like them, quit using their dishonest, manipulative techniques.
If you don't like it, take your threads to Off-Topic instead of using this dishonest tactic where all your ideas for the game just so conveniently happen to coincide with redpill propaganda topics. My posts in this and the other thread describe very clearly what you're doing and comparing that to your posts backs it up plenty.
I don't know what you're so hurt by, my conjecture was quite tame. I'm certain that it isn't about you needing a safe space where nobody can provide dissent. Just take it to off-topic. I don't know why you feel so entitled to having the discussions in every subforum you can hamfist it into.
Quote from: Zombra on December 25, 2016, 05:04:00 AM
Quote from: brcruchairman on December 24, 2016, 09:43:13 PMZombra, it sounds like you're saying that the extremely complicated and nuanced differences between males and females does not need to be modeled in the game, and you believe the game has little to gain from trying.
Correct. It is not in the scope of the game. I wouldn't object to it, except:
Quote from: brcruchairman on December 24, 2016, 09:43:13 PMIt sounds like you're further asserting that it would be harmful to try, because it would perpetuate misinformation due to its necessarily limited scope, which would reinforce socially damaging effects. Am I misunderstanding or misrepresenting something here? I'd like to understand the thrust of your argument, if I can. :)
You're misunderstanding this part. My objection is not that it might be limited or "not realistic enough". (I find it really weird how prevalent the assumption is that "more realistic" is always the goal in gaming!) My point is that adding controversial material to the game will bring it a negative reputation, and should only be done if the material is necessary to fulfill the game's core vision (e.g. cannibalism is distasteful but important to the survival theme). Since the game's core vision has nothing to do with sexism, nothing is lost by leaving it out, but damage would be done by adding it.
Ah, okay, thank you for explaining! So what I'm hearing is that your argument is this: The subtle and nuanced complexities regarding the differences between men and women does not need to be molded in the game, because A) You believe it has nothing to gain in trying, and B) You acknowledge the controversy around such an attempt, and believe that from a developer standpoint it is better to avoid controversy when possible, and include it only when it is necessary to the game's core vision. (It also sounds like point B stems from the belief that controversy tends to hurt both sales and game quality.) Am I understanding you better now? Is there something I missed, or got wrong? I like to understand people's stances, particularly when they present them so eloquently. :)
Contrast this with Mumble's belief that A) adding such nuances would add depth to the game, enabling better stories, (and the corollary that a primitive simulation is better than no simulation) and B) the further assertion that an artist should create regardless of reception. (e.g., make their complete vision without tempering it based on how people will respond)
Point A for both sounds to me like a perfectly valid difference of opinion; some people like realism, others feel it's unnecessary and bogs down the game. Point B on both sounds like there could be a discussion about it, but that too would be off-topic and perhaps better suited to its own thread. (E.g., "Does controversial content hurt the game?") A new thread would actually be pretty nifty, as I recall a great debate on the topic of the inclusion of drugs which would fit in nicely.
To Iota and Puffins, I feel like you may be talking past each other. Iota, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're claiming that culture alone can account for the physiological differences between men and women. (Incidentally, this is the stance I usually take, but that's neither here nor there.) Puffins, it sounds like you disagree, but prefer to make the point that it's not worth implementing the differences anyway due to their complexity and the amount of work involved. And now we come to the part where I ask where I messed up and misunderstood. :P Please correct me when (not if) I err and misrepresent your opinion. ^ ^
To me, it sounds like the arguments in this thread boil down to a largely valid difference in opinion, namely whether or not enough is added by modeling the nuances of the differences to be worth the coding effort. Of course, I'm also probably projecting my own view on you all; if anyone disagrees and feels there's something that doesn't boil down to the above, please let me know. :)
I'd also like to thank those in this thread for being calm, civil, and compassionate (and on-topic despite some of my off-topic bits. <.< My baaaaad.) It's folks like you that make me love this forum. :)
Honestly, I'm shocked at the number of people who think genetics plays no role in combat capability. Such things can be seen in so many other mammals. Is it odd that humans would be the same?
Average vs Average men have far greater upper body strength, higher percentage of lean body mass, better spatial awareness and even higher adrenaline production under stress. Ill leave you to google any real military report on male vs female performance for the result.
This isn't to say women would fare worse in a survival situation. In scenarios without combat they would often more be likely to make it - but that wasn't the topic.
The topic was about body and gender having an effect on combat in the game so, to me, this is a discussion of realism vs fun.
Body type: This one is simple; visual representation of statistics is a good thing. The bruiser model should represent someone who can throw a punch. The fat model should be slow and the thin model weak. Beyond that, attractive characters should have shapes fitting the archetypes for men and women. Ugly characters could be plain or misshapen; facial scarring could be visible. Should an NPC change, their model should as well.
Separating gender is a different matter as it would make the game more complex as opposed to simpler visually. In addition, I don't think the game has enough depth and character interaction yet to represent genders in game and do it well. Many of the areas in which women shine would require social nuances that the game lacks.
So many games pretend that gender doesn't exist, I think I would find a dose of realism to be a welcome change of pace. Few games have the right elements to pull it off. Rimworld is close but not quite there yet.
Quote from: iota_x on December 25, 2016, 09:26:13 AM
Our cultural practices, such as how boys and girls are educated at a young age, and what activities they are encouraged or allowed to participate in, affect their future "strength" and "skill."
So the average guys' childhood upbringings cause them to have more muscles than average women in the future? Good to know! Such an easy way to manipulate genetics. Why do we even have gene labs at all? Just teach our kids manners and shit all day and they'll grow up freaking strong...for some reason...cuz "gender theory" wishful thinking magic...
Anomaly, the thing is, weight only has a real effect on combat, if the person knows how to control their weight. As well, pure amount of muscle does not equal strength. Body builders that use steriods have massive muscle volume, but they are still weaker than a normal Joe Schmoe that has worked bailing hay or working construction their entire life. That is due to the type of muscle they have.
I am 175lbs, but have worked constructions most my entire life, I have found very few people, unless they have done the same, that can throw a punch or kick as hard as I can.
It's not about size.
Quote from: vampiresoap on December 25, 2016, 04:29:30 PM
So the average guys' childhood upbringings cause them to have more muscles than average women in the future? Good to know! Such an easy way to manipulate genetics. Why do we even have gene labs at all? Just teach our kids manners and shit all day and they'll grow up freaking strong...for some reason...cuz "gender theory" wishful thinking magic...
I think you may have misunderstood the point there, Vamp. :) While what you just said is as ridiculous as you intended it to sound, Iota's original point does have merit. In particular, right now boys are implicitly told to rough house, play tag, et cetera, and as they grow older, participate in physical sports. Those build both musculature as they develop, and habits to continue it into their adult life, to say nothing of the sort of coordination that is necessary to do such things and not fall flat on one's face.
Contrast this with girls who, while they start with similar pressures in early childhood, are quickly pushed by both implicit and explicit social mores towards a more social end of the spectrum. When a girl roughhousing is viewed as abnormal (regardless of whether the view is positive or negative) and playing sports is an alternative and not the norm, it's no wonder that there's a resultant lack of coordination or strength among the significant population that was discouraged from such physical pursuits.
An excellent example of this is reality TV shows, especially ones taking place in a high school setting. It's worth paying attention and seeing how many of the male characters behave in a physical manner (e.g., physical confrontation, participating in contests of strength, speed, or skill, and so on) versus how many female characters do the same. However, I'm going to admit here that what I'm offering is anecdote; your experience may differ extremely from mine, and that's okay. That would just mean that rather than Iota having a solid point, instead it's an ambiguous difference of opinion. Either way, though, I'm pretty sure you understand that what your post said and what Iota meant aren't the same thing; you seem like a smart fella, and I can't imagine you making a leap like that in anything but satire. :)
SterilizeAllTrolls, I have a question. I admit, I'm not sure what you mean by Redpiller. >.> I think my internet education has been lacking, 'cause the way you talk, it sounds like something that should be common knowledge like Men's Rights Activists. But I don't recognize it personally, so would you be willing to elaborate on what you mean?
Incidentally, while I can see how one would come to the conclusion that this thread contains MRA points of view, I think that, based off the notion I'm hearing here of "Men and women are different qualitatively, not different in worth" that they don't actually stem from the same misogyny and hate that MRA does. I don't agree with the way those differences should me molded, and I certainly don't agree with the extent that some are claiming genetic or sex-linked affect it, but ultimately that's a difference of opinion, and one which can be talked about without dismissing each other's points of view out of hand as bigotry. Does that make sense? I feel like I may be rambling here. The tl;dr is that there are at least some in this thread who are arguing a point which MRA members also make, but doing it for very different reasons, so I feel it's unfair to paint everyone with a brush because of surface similarities. (See also, Christianity and Westboro Baptist Church; similar arguments on the surface, but coming from very different places about it, which can lead to a dramatically different outcome.)
ANYWAY! Going back on-topic, I'd be interested to hear what people think about the inclusion of (completely aside from gender) musculature and build having a mechanical effect in-game. Since that seems to be what a lot of this boils down to, I think that's a good thing to discuss. Anomaly made an interesting proposal, that including build in the game not as having its own mechanical effect, but rather as a
result of mechanical differences is an interesting one. Like he said, it'd make it easier to visually determine, at a glance, a pawn's traits and roles. I think that'd be a pretty nifty inclusion. :)
Regarding the more complex simulation of musculature et cetera, my personal opinion is that while it would add some depth and variability, it'd take a lot of work on the coding end for relatively minor gains in terms of fun. What do the rest of y'all think? Setting aside gender for now, do you think individual pawn variation is worth modeling and including in the game?
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 25, 2016, 04:10:42 AM
melee skill alone is an awful measure of "strength" alone. Mining is also strength base, but quite simply strength effects a multitude of skills... This is less a theory, and more a way to dismiss this idea, IMO.
not sure what you mean about the comparison for the kickboxers, they are so different its not worth bringing up...I bring up male and female marines, because theres few other factors BESIDES gender
As for creation / generation, isn't making hard caps on CREATION FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more sexist?
I mean consider this...scenario A, most males and females are subtly different, but you occasionally find a very strong female, or weak female...its noticable, but mostly subtle, and you dont generate them manually, so its not a big deal, you chalk it up to randomness.
Scenario B, you create a female charecter, and try to put 9 points in strength in a fallout esqe stat setup, and the game says NOPE!!! YOU CANNOT MAKE A WOMAN OVER 7 STRENGTH CAUSE SHES A WOMAN!!!
first scenario just suggests a pattern.... the second says strong women simply do not, and cannot exist. One I would consider conforming to reality and minimally offensive, the other I would consider highly obtuse and HIGHLY offensive.
I find it hilarious you find that better ;D
I bring up the comparison for the male kickboxer vs. the female marine because your argument seems to be of the all-else-equal variety, well in a game like Rimworld where there's huge variances in character backgrounds I feel that situations where not all else is equal would be more common.
Hard caps on creation of characters do what you wanted - model male and female biological differences. That would only be on initial creation of a character, of course the level caps for training a skill would be the same for both men and women. However, it would also necessitate that all characters are created at age 18-21.
Your "scenario A" seems to be
what we already have in Rimworld, so what changes to the game are you arguing for exactly?
@Troll : Ill keep this brief
-if you have problems with people, use the report function
-if you think someone is breaking the rules, use the report function
-if you want to convince others, make a logical argument
-nobody was "hurt" by your words, we just want to encourage diolog / discussion, and help you say you opinion.
-The only one severely off topic ATM is you.
@Iota : the reason why "this" and "that" arguments are invalid, is because they fall under the anecdotal evidence.
I can make an argument where THIS 9mm pistol didn't kill THAT senators brain with a headshot, but that does not mean MOST 9mm headshots are lethal.
If you want to make arguments, you must do a large scale, NOT cherry picking.
and as said before, cultures don't change bones.
@ puffins : I agree women should have strengths, but they should reflect reality.... any people who have problems with this...seem to have problems with reality itself, it seems.
Women should have better agility and dexterity, but it should scale with high strength tasks. Children are more agile than adults, but children are bad mechanics, because they lack the strength.
@deathangel : I would dare to say, maybe this is just better cognative ability? You know, like, you know how to effectively punch / kick, while body builders just flail limbs around like morons? I've seen this, where MASSIVE dudes do not understand how to throw jabs, or lack muscle in the places necessary for a good punch.
I would dare say, with a few hours of combat training, a top of the line body builder could whoop your ass...no offense buddy =P Sure your strong, and adept, but that sounds like one of the cases of being big, but really dumb.
But also it depends how intense of a body builder, some get so roided they are walls of flesh, but can barely move because they are so muscular. These guys, despite being intimidating, aren't that hard to fight assuming you can avoid punches, because their muscle actually IS a detriment to agility, so with high agility, you can get them on the ground, choke hold, and well...yeah.
So, what do you mean by body builder? MMA heavyweight? Rock dwayne johnson? Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime?
@BR : This is true, but this is boys / girls being told to play up their strengths rather than weaknesses.
We can tell a girl to be a body builder and a hardass, but at the end of the day, even if she dedicated 110% of time to it, she will still be underneath "average" males, unless she got a DAMM good dice roll genetically.
We can tell boys to be pretty, sensitive, ect, and delicate, but they won't be as good as that, won't be happier.
also, it will make both less desirable as mates in general, so really, conforming to gender norms helps life happiness, as well as ensuring they will go for what they are best at.
@PFHOREREST : comparing random people isn't scientific though. Your comparison of 2 people means absolutely nothing scientifically, and is borderline offtopic. What is gained by comparing the 2, scientifically?
Hard caps on creation of charecters is NOT what I wanted, because rimworld doesn't even have that, it has generation.
Scenario A is actually very different because male / female is not a factor in abilities at all, JUST like I said about body types.
If we scientifically test the following :
-gender
-body shape
-skin color
where all other variables are the same...we get the results that gender, body shape, and skin color hold 0 effects mechanically.
This is why I said the kickboxer / marine comparison was bad, because it purposely includes other variables. Thats unscientific... Lets watch the variables.. ...for SCIENCE!~ :D
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 25, 2016, 06:37:30 PM
@PFHOREREST : comparing random people isn't scientific though. Your comparison of 2 people means absolutely nothing scientifically, and is borderline offtopic. What is gained by comparing the 2, scientifically?
Hard caps on creation of charecters is NOT what I wanted, because rimworld doesn't even have that, it has generation.
Scenario A is actually very different because male / female is not a factor in abilities at all, JUST like I said about body types.
If we scientifically test the following :
-gender
-body shape
-skin color
where all other variables are the same...we get the results that gender, body shape, and skin color hold 0 effects mechanically.
This is why I said the kickboxer / marine comparison was bad, because it purposely includes other variables. Thats unscientific... Lets watch the variables.. ...for SCIENCE!~ :D
It's not necessarily as unscientific as you think, the "scientific" approach, according to you, would be to use averages and/or medians of populations in aggregate. In doing so, you take away the influence of other variables. You still haven't addressed the issue of the variance between individuals. Even on 21st century Earth you can see this variance due to environmental factors and genetics. Average male and female height varies significantly according to race and country of origin. Improper nutrition and genetic factors might make men from a certain region be short with a small frame and lower bone density. While it is true that women from this region will be, on average, proportionally shorter and weaker than the men from that region, it doesn't mean that women from another region can't be physically larger and more capable in every single way than the men in the impoverished region of different genetic characteristics. I like to think that Rimworld character generation, although it doesn't hint at these regional (perhaps even planetary - think gravity, availability of food & water, environmental factors like atmosphere) differences, implicitly takes this into account.
@mumble:
To give you a further example, if Rimworld character generation allowed you, say, to select different planets or occupations (the marine example) to filter the rolls you get, then I could support a case where the trends of any given planet or occupation tended towards women having lower strength-based skills, etc.
Daemon - Remember that I am referring to the NPC body types in the game rather than real people here so I'm not speaking of realism, gender etc just how to visually represent character stats using the simple models seen in Rimworld.
To use you as an example - we cant see your hard earned carpenter's arms or that they are better than a bodybuilder's. The NPCs don't even have arms :) I want some way to represent you can throw a punch though, so you get that V shape body in game.
Me? I do lawn work so I'm trim but not anything special in strength. Id get the 0 shape. Though its wintertime so Maybe a I need a little o over the stomach to show I'm getting out of shape.
It could be cool to see some more base models in the game. Even with simple shapes you can show if a person is short or tall and if they are fat, lean, strong or flabby versions of each.
Come to think of it, there isn't anything to show if a person can shoot. Time for some Eastwood style gunslinger eyes perhaps?
Pfhorrest, you are correct that comparing 2 marines male and females doesn't allow other variables, and this is why its SCIENTIFIC.
See, science is done through tests which eliminate all variables EXCEPT for the one being tested. If you apply a male kickboxer, and female marine, how are you to know WHY differences are there? maybe its the gender? Maybe its the career?
This is why is bad to compare vastly different things which more variables than necessary come into play, because then things are less conclusive. If you truly want to say WHAT the effects of gender are, you eliminate ALL other variables and test. Granted, this isn't always possible, but you do your best, and account for variables you cannot change. But you refusing to account for, and remove the career difference just tells me you do not care about the scientific method, or getting accurate data.
Basically, to get better science, find 1 thing, and base testing around examining that one thing, and eliminate other variables as much as humanly possible to test it...
If you want to test the difference between males and females, this is 1 test
Differences between marines and kickboxers is another test.
Differences between, and comparisons of performance, for males and females in kickboxing / marines is another several tests.
I also do not understand why planets would have differences...humans on other planets are the same more or less, it says it in the lore even.
On a side note, why would anyone think MRA's are hateful?.. really confused, I've seen feminists, and other groups advocate for GENOCIDE, commit violence, do death threats, and all kinds of other stuff, but frankly I've not seen such vile actions from MRA's before.. Someone want to educate me on something I'm missing?
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 26, 2016, 11:30:47 PMI also do not understand why planets would have differences...humans on other planets are the same more or less, it says it in the lore even.
On a side note, why would anyone think MRA's are hateful?.. really confused, I've seen feminists, and other groups advocate for GENOCIDE, commit violence, do death threats, and all kinds of other stuff, but frankly I've not seen such vile actions from MRA's before.. Someone want to educate me on something I'm missing?
a) "Genetic drift (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_24)". According to Tynan, FTL travel doesn't exist in the Rimworld universe. Other worlds will, then, be separated by generations of objective time to get to the nearest stars, possibly
many of them, for more distant destinations. It doesn't take very long for humanity to start exhibiting very distinct variation, indeed, even if NOT overly isolated (
see also pygmies, Dinka, etc.)
b) A LOT of people noticed the vitriol coming from "MRAs" in and around "GamerGate", as one recent example. Most people don't like listening to a privileged group whining about how they're not privileged
enough, to be completely frank.
See also "white rights", "white lives matter". Such individuals are annoyances to be removed from the universe with extreme prejudice.
And that's coming from a white male =) .
I understand the idea of genetic drift, HOWEVER, doesn't this fall under "evolutionary pressure"? Seems to me the lore says this isn't happening... Granted, I might be misinterpreting, but evolutionary pressures seems to also involve "genetic drifting" that would happen with different environments. In short, evolution or variation has not happened in any scale larger than a normal population. Keep in mind, current dynamics would remain the same generally, and pressures to evolve long term would not apply.
As for the "vitrol". You are comparing people whining about things that, in your opinion, they have no right to complain about, to people who advocate for genocide, commit violence, and use death threats. Myself, and most people care more about the actions, and measurable EFFECTS from stuff.. to which, I'm not seeing why you say they are evil. And I've seen 0 evidence showing race / gender ALONE provides an immense privilege.
Even if you think white males are the end all be all of evil, and literally Satan-hitlers offspring, you gotta admit the actions aren't scaled properly
But this is off topic...I encourage you to make an off topic thread about how precisely white males are privileged, I gaurentee I will take interest. If not, I will make one myself and invite you
Read the article I linked; genetic drift is considered a completely separate source of variation in a given gene pool.
Quote from: Boston on December 24, 2016, 08:45:17 AM
Like with literally everything else in reality, skill is the most important aspect of an activity. Especially when it comes to fighting.
A guy that is big and strong, yet not very good at fighting, will get their ass beaten by a 80lbs-soaking-wet girl who knows martial arts.
Stop reinforcing negative stereotypes.
This is generally false. Don't mix politics with biological facts.
Top tier female athletes still get beat by male athletes that are not the highest ranked in their league.
It is not a negative stereotype. It doesn't make those women worth less than those men. Just different. There are advantages to being weaker -- you can be more precise, you are more trusted, and people are inclined to protect you. But the main advantage is that you don't need to eat as much. Muscles burn a lot of fuel. Survival situations favor efficiency over power sometimes.
In game I think it would be fair for 'average' women to consume less food than men, even while being a little weaker in melee. However there could be a exceptions in some of the backstories, like a female vat grown soldier... might be closer to male strength. Maybe a trait that reflects genetic engineering.
Someone else brought up social skills. There are studies showing men and women develop neurological differences that effect risk behaviors and social behaviors. It makes sense because creating social bonds is crucial for small groups surviving. In fact one of the starting scenarios is tribal. So having some social buffs be common for females fits the game setting IMO.
And none of this matters in the least. The simulation simply is fine-grained enough, without making changes guaranteed to generate controversy of the most obnoxious sort. I don't think any of those trolls need feeding.
yeah I kind of agree. I don't mind the way it is. But a change like the one OP suggests isn't unrealistic. Guess that's for the modders.
Bozo, this is 1 part of a much, MUCH larger interaction called evolution.
Yes, genetic drift occurs, but if this is THEN passed on is what matters.
assume for instance, a colonist was born with a 3rd arm in his back... This, POSSIBLY, could end up being an amazing development, except you must ask 1 very important question : Will they reproduce?
Generally speaking, attraction, ability to fit into the world, and function good are the important parts of reproduction. The game already has an attraction debuff for mutilated / grotesqe looking people, and so you must ask, where would the PRESSURE to mate with a guy with an arm in his back come from? It would have to be passed down for GENERATIONS before humans would have 3 arms, and in the mean time, the 3rd arm would be completely useless, disgusting, and in the way.
So you must ask, if there was genetic variation, what would promote such a large change? No amount of insane genetic drifting means jack if natural / sexual selection throws it out. Because genetic drift is 1 part, of a bigger mechanic. Ever notice how blind, expert tier surgeons fuck up in rimworld WAAAAAAY more than mediocre surgeons who can see?
Same conecpt...yes, genetic drift is important, but unless you have an evolutionary pressure to pair with it, not much will happen.
Also, I still don't believe it would cause such a massive controversy, or any impact on sales. Most of this stuff is people getting mad for a few weeks then moving onto the next "big evil".
You are confusing mutation with genetic drift. Genetic drift can occur with zero mutation, in fact, and is also separate from natural selection. It basically involves changes in frequency in genes due to the "sample error" inherent in the process.
I specifically referred to genetic drift, because it's usually the strongest source of variation in small and/or unusually non-variant populations, such as those of parthenogenic lizards or inhabitants of backwards rimworlds =) .
The skinny of it is that while genetic drift won't produce, for example, extra limbs — unless those genes are already present in the gene pool — mutation possibly can. Genetic drift does not produce new genes, it stirs the frequency of the expression of current genes.
Edit -> Another excellent article (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html).
. . .Genetic mutation, and genetic drift are the same thing, pretty sure, only difference is "mutation" is a much more severe WORD for it, just like "cut" and "gash" are the same, but gash is much worse. They both cause differences in the body from the parents, and are caused by very small changes / "mutations" in the DNA.
And again, this does not dismiss the argument that LARGE SCALE CHANGES to an entire population would need a PRESSURE of sorts, which, I might remind you, is explicitly absent in the past of "standard" humans in rimworld
I think this conversation has gotten a little bit off topic. in response to the original suggestion...
I can agree, there are inherent differences between men and women, and not an insignificant one. Yes, this gap can be overcome (a highly skilled female can easily overpower a low skilled male), but if all skills are considered equal, the male will roughly 90% of the time overcome the female. even if the male is close in skill, but not quite equal, the male will still generally overcome the female in combat.
I could definitely see a translation of this in rimworld terms, as a straight +3 melee skill bonus for males, and a corresponding +3 skill in shooting for women. It seems about realistic, that a woman with 15 skill in brawling should be able to wipe the floor with any male below a 12 skill, but any male with 13 or higher skill should have a slight advantage over the woman, in terms of combat prowess.
This, of course, could be directly nullified by certain childhood or adult backstories. Maybe "vat grown soldier" or other military professional backstories could come with "gender based combat modifiers nullified", since professional military training before crash landing would more than make up for any gender based deficiencies.
Quote from: Bozobub on December 26, 2016, 11:41:53 PM
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 26, 2016, 11:30:47 PMI also do not understand why planets would have differences...humans on other planets are the same more or less, it says it in the lore even.
On a side note, why would anyone think MRA's are hateful?.. really confused, I've seen feminists, and other groups advocate for GENOCIDE, commit violence, do death threats, and all kinds of other stuff, but frankly I've not seen such vile actions from MRA's before.. Someone want to educate me on something I'm missing?
a) "Genetic drift (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_24)". According to Tynan, FTL travel doesn't exist in the Rimworld universe. Other worlds will, then, be separated by generations of objective time to get to the nearest stars, possibly many of them, for more distant destinations. It doesn't take very long for humanity to start exhibiting very distinct variation, indeed, even if NOT overly isolated (see also pygmies, Dinka, etc.)
b) A LOT of people noticed the vitriol coming from "MRAs" in and around "GamerGate", as one recent example. Most people don't like listening to a privileged group whining about how they're not privileged enough, to be completely frank. See also "white rights", "white lives matter". Such individuals are annoyances to be removed from the universe with extreme prejudice.
And that's coming from a white male =) .
While your remark about humans living isolated on different planet would produce genetic difference and lead to new evolutionary pathways (just here on earth climate has influenced evolution, black people from mainly Africa, white people from northern/colder regions). The game's lore has stated that humans have NOT changed too much from each other due to evolutionary pressures from other planets, we've transcended beyond that, we don't change, we change the planet.
As for the MRA's/feminists discussion, both groups contain absolute trash, IMO feminism has been infected worse than MRA's.
Where as the stand points of MRA's are sometimes understandable (male suicide rate, male workplace death rate, male prison rape rate, male draft,...), feminism has progressed beyond rationallity, it started crossing the bording in the 1970's once most dissadvantages for women were removed. I'll regain faith in feminism once they end their unholy alliance with fat-acceptance and unconditional support of minority groups for the sake of diversity. The day feminism starts helping oppressed women in islamic countries instead of bitching about catwoman showing her but and Batman not, I'll change my mind.
And for both groups, stop whining about privilige, seriously this mentality within these groups has to be eradicated.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 26, 2016, 11:30:47 PM
Pfhorrest, you are correct that comparing 2 marines male and females doesn't allow other variables, and this is why its SCIENTIFIC.
See, science is done through tests which eliminate all variables EXCEPT for the one being tested. If you apply a male kickboxer, and female marine, how are you to know WHY differences are there? maybe its the gender? Maybe its the career?
This is why is bad to compare vastly different things which more variables than necessary come into play, because then things are less conclusive. If you truly want to say WHAT the effects of gender are, you eliminate ALL other variables and test. Granted, this isn't always possible, but you do your best, and account for variables you cannot change. But you refusing to account for, and remove the career difference just tells me you do not care about the scientific method, or getting accurate data.
Basically, to get better science, find 1 thing, and base testing around examining that one thing, and eliminate other variables as much as humanly possible to test it...
If you want to test the difference between males and females, this is 1 test
Differences between marines and kickboxers is another test.
Differences between, and comparisons of performance, for males and females in kickboxing / marines is another several tests.
I also do not understand why planets would have differences...humans on other planets are the same more or less, it says it in the lore even.
On a side note, why would anyone think MRA's are hateful?.. really confused, I've seen feminists, and other groups advocate for GENOCIDE, commit violence, do death threats, and all kinds of other stuff, but frankly I've not seen such vile actions from MRA's before.. Someone want to educate me on something I'm missing?
I'm aware that this is the scientific method. Now express where the testing for gender differences as you described applies in a game whose character generation is the polar opposite of controlling for variables. Show why this elimination of variables and proving of gender differences is relevant.
I think you don't understand how much I'm with you on this issue; that's why I said if Rimworld character generation
did control for variables such as occupation, background, region of origin, age, body size, it would make sense to either have caps in place for initial starting conditions (with no upper level cap, and assuming colonists start age 18-21), or to have the character rolls subtly reflect realistic differences across gender lines.
But this is not the case, nor is it fitting with the style of the game.
I THINK I grasp what you mean...do you mean to say, men having stats boosted in a concrete way all the time would mess with balance, or that, in some sense, women would be 100% capped with certain skills?
This isn't how I interpret it, really.
I interpret perhaps another health stat, strength, being added, and men TENDING to generate in a higher range than women. Strength would have a multiplier effect on certain tasks (melee, mining, ect) and would make it slightly more effective, even with same skill.
Something along the lines of mining having its speed multiplied by 1.15 strength, then apply the skill multiplier. So a skilled female miner might be better, but a stronger miner, if available, would be better.
I imagine certain skills would be more applicable than others, perhaps mining and plant cutting having a much higher multiplier, melee dependent on the weapon, and other tasks either very minorly effected, or ignored.
I also figure strength could have a minor multiplier on health on generation, for extremities, torso, and a few other things.
....by the way, for those saying this is extremely sexist...you realize melee brawlers and miners get the shittier treatment right? melee fighters are the pointmen, and get injured THE MOST, and are used as bait...miners are always pissed off from being dirty, in the dark, and have a significantly higher risk of raids / infestation deaths.
So just like in real life, this would make men more endangered. But this is sexist against women I guess.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 27, 2016, 09:20:52 AM
I THINK I grasp what you mean...do you mean to say, men having stats boosted in a concrete way all the time would mess with balance, or that, in some sense, women would be 100% capped with certain skills?
This isn't how I interpret it, really.
I interpret perhaps another health stat, strength, being added, and men TENDING to generate in a higher range than women. Strength would have a multiplier effect on certain tasks (melee, mining, ect) and would make it slightly more effective, even with same skill.
Something along the lines of mining having its speed multiplied by 1.15 strength, then apply the skill multiplier. So a skilled female miner might be better, but a stronger miner, if available, would be better.
I imagine certain skills would be more applicable than others, perhaps mining and plant cutting having a much higher multiplier, melee dependent on the weapon, and other tasks either very minorly effected, or ignored.
I also figure strength could have a minor multiplier on health on generation, for extremities, torso, and a few other things.
....by the way, for those saying this is extremely sexist...you realize melee brawlers and miners get the shittier treatment right? melee fighters are the pointmen, and get injured THE MOST, and are used as bait...miners are always pissed off from being dirty, in the dark, and have a significantly higher risk of raids / infestation deaths.
So just like in real life, this would make men more endangered. But this is sexist against women I guess.
The addition of a 'Strength' multiplier/modifier is an interesting idea and I think you should make your own forum thread about it as it seems like a more specific topic than the one for which this thread was made.
However, what continues to bug me is that the Rimworld characters are not only generated, but there is a limited number of possible characters to generate. I probably should have been clearer about this earlier in the discussion, but this fact means there's the lack of assurance that the characters are representative/should be representative of population averages and trends. I.E. if character generation in Rimworld involved the truly random selection of background, resulting in a unique character on every roll, then it makes much more sense to tend towards larger men and smaller women. But as it is, characters in Rimworld have preset backgrounds complete with preset names, so to modify the trends of statistics for these pre existing characters would be a touchy issue given that you have much less basis to do so.
Quote from: Boston on December 24, 2016, 08:45:17 AM
Like with literally everything else in reality, skill is the most important aspect of an activity. Especially when it comes to fighting.
A guy that is big and strong, yet not very good at fighting, will get their ass beaten by a 80lbs-soaking-wet girl who knows martial arts.
Stop reinforcing negative stereotypes.
Except that this has never happened
Training matters, but not more than a 100 pound weight disadvantage
Quote from: shigimoru on December 27, 2016, 09:53:41 AMExcept that this has never happened
Training matters, but not more than a 100 pound weight disadvantage
Except I've
watched this happen. The girl also happened to be on crutches at the time! But they were the old-school wooden type, and she beat the
piss out of the guy; she didn't use a crutch, mind you, but her arms were RIPPED from using 'em for months.
That person was my mother (I was 6, she was 24). At the time, she weighed no more than 110 lbs. Her opponent was at least 250 lbs, if not 300. She was, however:
- Very strong, both from using crutches for months (knee surgery) and being a cabinetmaker. I watched her and another lady from her work easily pick up and haul off 300-400 lb. stacks of laminate together, for example, just before her surgery.
- Trained in martial arts (no idea at all what rank, but not terribly high).
Sorry, but overgeneralized BS assertion is the main problem with this silly discussion. Insistence simply does not generate existence, no matter how fervent or recursive.
Also I'm sorry if it offends your equivocating "meninist" sensibilities but the reason men have more capacity for muscle building is that not too long ago in history they were literally disposable. For much of humanity's evolutionary history, up until the agricultural revolution even, women were more valuable than men for their ability to give birth and thus prolong a community's existence. This meant that the communities which survived were those which prioritized women's safety over men's. Men on the whole gained a slight propensity for better muscle building and survivability from this but keep in mind, this was evolution over the course of tens of thousands of years, not hundreds of thousands. In general, human evolution hasn't left us with much sexual dimorphism, and in today's world where human communities tend to need women for their brains and bodies than their uterus and men's safety is valued equally to women's by rational people and competent systems, the current evolutionary trend for earthbound humans is towards less noticeable sexual dimorphism. Maybe its scary to think that in the future your precious "physical strength" argument will will be even less relevant than it is now (I mean even now the effort a person puts into fitness has more of an effect on their strength and endurance than gender ever would, look at a woman who does cross-fit vs a man who works a desk job etc.) but that's the way evolution is moving, like it or not. Regardless, 2000 years makes little difference in an evolutionary scale, so what's more relevant to a conversation about Rimworld is the fact that effort and experience are more relevant to strength and combat prowess than gender, and while height and weight are relevant factors, one can assume that a woman in Rimworld with a exceedingly high melee skill, say 14 (strong master) or 15 (planet-class master) would be in the 90th percentile of people who have good height and body composition for melee combat. If she didn't have those things she just wouldn't have gotten that far. All this to say, the current system might as well include realistic sexual dimorphism for all the difference it would make. To add rules that explicitly enforce sexual dimorphism would be either irrelevant to play or explicitly sexist depending on how they were implemented.
Um... Yeah.
If you absolutely must rant, learn what paragraphs are. My EYES :o!
I'm not saying you have nothing to say. Rather, I'm saying my eyes won't let me find out what it is; have mercy!
The sexism card is overplayed.
Nature made men and women different. It is modern cynicism that assumes that different = less valuable. Sexual dimorphism is strongly present throughout much of the natural world, serving social purposes as well as physical, so shrugging it away as if we've suddenly transcended it, when we don't even understand it is silly.
However the cynical sensitivity people have about it is probably why most games ignore it. Stronger =/= better, so males being stronger isn't a value statement.
But in the context of game mechanics, it is. Whether or not you find it more interesting to have characters with limitations and deficiencies, a higher melee skill in the context of Rimworld's rules makes a character more valuable.
The game even explicitly tells you how valuable a pawn is in the context of its rules in the form of the monetary value on the extra information sheet. A pawn with higher skills and work speeds is more valuable to the game, if not necessarily to the player.
Thus, while to say that men are in general stronger than women in real life is not necessarily sexist (though that argument has been frequently used to justify sexism irl), it is sexist to elevate the average value of male pawns over that of female pawns by adding rules which, on average, generate male pawns with greater in game value than female pawns.
I've seen some people in this thread suggest giving female pawns buffs to other skills, which might not be an entirely bad way of making the proposed sexual dimorphism mechanic work. I will point out though that one of Tynan's most convincing arguments against that misguided rock paper shotgun article was that men and women are not mechanically or practically different from each other in the game. This change would make that argument void, with the only benefit being that characters now conform slightly better to players expectations for what men and women are good at, founded or not.
I might not be against this sort of thing if Tynan were the one to plan it. He has already dynamically adapted many aspects of the real world experience of living in a human community into a fun and thought-provoking simulation, so I don't doubt that if he were to implement some form of sexual dimorphism, he would do it in a tasteful and realistic way. I take issue with the monolithic, heavy handed, and quite honestly unrealistic systems suggested in this thread, and the subtly sexist assumptions which they arise from.
EDIT: PS: It is sillier to attempt to directly model a system which you do not fully understand than to leave it to the player's imagination.
Exactly. There's simply no reason to go there, unless you want to mod it in.
Quote from: psionicmushroom on December 27, 2016, 06:35:08 PM
I've seen some people in this thread suggest giving female pawns buffs to other skills, which might not be an entirely bad way of making the proposed sexual dimorphism mechanic work. I will point out though that one of Tynan's most convincing arguments against that misguided rock paper shotgun article was that men and women are not mechanically or practically different from each other in the game.
Agreed on giving females buffs or some other sort of advantage that aligns with natural dimorphism. It's worth noting that one of the main features of that dimorphism is the ability to create a child, which doesn't exist in game. But there are other ways to represent the value of a female in a survival situation.
I hadn't heard of the rock-paper-shotgun article, so I looked it up along with Tynan's response. I was reminded why I don't read games journalism. I don't think Tynan needs a convincing argument against that, because it's ideologically driven by crazy and crazy can't be reasoned with. I do understand not wanting to provoke that craziness into making the game -about- itself. But the article represents a nightmare that people will have to fight to wake up from at some point in their life, wherever that battleground ends up being. A fun game isn't too concerned with making political statements but it shouldn't be afraid of how cynical idealogues will paint it, either.
No, but I can see this might be a mod for those who care about this.
Well everyone started talking about stereotypes and other garbage like that...
I will stick to the game itself to give an opinion, and I say... No.
Generalizing the fact that add complexity actually improve the game is NOT always true.
Sometimes add too much complexity will make the game only more tedious and unpleasant, whit unpleasant I mean something like a man who come back home at 9 p.m. after a full day of work and he wants to relax a bit having both fun while stimulating his mind (Strategy game do that to me, ye.)
and I think what rimworld accomplish where other game fails is THIS.
I mean, I can play dwarf fortress, but I don't, because yes there's a lot of strategy but its insane complexity make it less a game and more a task gave to me by my boss! (Im talking about my personal feel OFC!! ).
So what I thank Tynan for is this wonderful balance between complexity and fun.
My last answer to that addition, accordingly to what I said above is: No, I don't think is a nice/necessary addition.
^^
I was more into this discussion for the political side of it, rather than the actuall feature which I'm not THAT interested in.
I only decided to jump in once I read several posts trying to shut it down in the name of "Muh bad stereotypes no like", threads such as this one shouldn't cause such uproar.
OP is requesting simple sexual dimorphism, not ISIS beheadings and reducing women to tradeable objects.
You're drastically oversimplifying.
The REAL reason this is a terrible idea is that it proposes an unnecessary change (yes, it IS unnecessary; the game works fine without it) to satisfy "realism", but without any consideration of the likely downsides.
- There's no guarantee this will alter gameplay in any positive way.
- It would require significant coding, as well as debugging and its own set of emergent issues.
- It's a sociopolitical bomb, waiting to explode, after that has already happened in a rather unpleasant manner. I really doubt Tynan enjoyed the "Rock, Paper, Shotgun" mess all that much, although it likely increased sales in the end from the exposure. The reaction you are seeing here is NOT going to somehow magically vanish.
- The game only needs to be (and can be) so fine-grained a simulation. There will ALWAYS be aspects of reality it does not model. Get over it.
Ditch the bullshit "MRA"/"SJW" idiocy and start thinking about it from the viewpoint of the developer, people. This change would be a
guaranteed no-win situation for Tynan.
To be fair, asking what the dev wants is...kinda a dumb point...I mean, at the end of the day, no matter what, we CANNOT FORCE tynan to do anything, so why not voice what WE want.
Frankly, what tynan wants as far as development is kinda unimportant to me, and others, for 3 reasons. 1: I am not involved with development. I am not coding, not making features, ect. The most I do is test, and this is just bringing up issues. I make 0 decisions which effect anything
2: Tynan will do what HE wants, even if I kick / scream like an absolute child, or anything else (which im not doing anyway) So frankly voicing my opinion is irrelivant if he disagrees, its wasted time at worst, and healthy dialog in reality
3: Tynan is a big boy. He wont be hurt, or coerced by my "manipulative, redpill posts", and he won't lose sleep if I disagree with him, even if it was much worse than this. And this is assuming he disagrees at all, but we dont know.
And you saying tynan would insist these are never added : 1: is unwarrented - you don't know how he feels on this particular feature, nor if he would ever change his mind. 2: You insist its a no win, because if someone is upset, its obviously not worth it
I'm guessing you forgot the hate threads that were added with the drug update...there was several, many bad reviews, and a few refunds IIRC, but tynan never pulled the update, did he?
You're simply placing words in my mouth. Quote, please, where I said Tynan would "insist" on anything at all, as an easy example, or where I used the words "manipulative" or "redpill" at all; we both know you won't be able to. It IS quite revealing, however ::) .
And Tynan added the drug system on his own, I'll note, not from somebody whining about it. Nor is the lack of notable sexual dimorphism somehow a huge negative to the game.
This thread went way past simply asking for a minor game alteration (which is perfectly legit) a long time ago. And you just pretty much admitted to being a troll, by the by, although I'm sure you weren't aware of it.
The only reason why I haven't unsub'd from this thread yet is because I want to know how long this discussion will go on. I think it's meaningless, I mean Tynan got backlash* for some lines of code regarding gender mechanics that had way less impact ingame most replies/suggestions in this thread. I don't think he will feed that troll** and implement more of it. And cost/benefit of course.
*I don't care if it's questionable journalism or Tynans improper solution of implementing pawns behavior
**used as figure of speech. Don't feed the troll
PS: The article (https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/11/02/rimworld-code-analysis/) I refer to
^^
Incase you're wondering how long this thread will last past this point, I predict very short.
I say 3-5 more posts, place your bets!
Regarding several backlashes from the past, I'm very pleased to see Tynan staying rigid and believing in his own vision.
Quote from: vampiresoap on December 24, 2016, 04:50:41 PM
liberal brainwashing
Just want to point out that this is why this topic will never be a good "discussion". Normally i would have never have even commented on this thread, and I don't care about gender politics. I understand SJW are annoying, but Idiocy transcends political ideology. People on both sides cannot talk about gender without it becoming political.
That's why i would never support it in game. If people cannot discuss it without it turning into a flamewar, then why would it be a good idea to implement into a game you're trying to sell?
@Bozo : your post made it pretty evident as you declared it a "lose lose". for me, that would make someone insist on not doing it. its implied
As for "redpilled manipulative", I was refering to the user "sterilizealltrolls", whom said this... who I honestly suspect is an alt account, whos it is, I honestly can't say.
@thyme : tynan did, yes... however this was not reasonable backlash, it was mass misrepresentation of the code. Theres already differences in men and women anyway which conforms to differences in reality, so I don't see the big deal. If there was another "pr nightmare", it would literally be posting pretty much the same article again.
@xol : You may be correct that no ideology is immune to idiots, but this is also assuming all ideologies have EQUAL amount of idiots, which is unrealistic.
And frankly, many of the issues where people deny reality DO stem from exactly what vamp said. Nobody has to be sat down and TOLD men and women are different growing up, they are sat down and told, REPEATEDLY the opposite, that that thinking otherwise is sexist and evil.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 28, 2016, 07:56:27 PM
@Bozo : your post made it pretty evident as you declared it a "lose lose". for me, that would make someone insist on not doing it. its implied
As for "redpilled manipulative", I was refering to the user "sterilizealltrolls", whom said this... who I honestly suspect is an alt account, whos it is, I honestly can't say.
@thyme : tynan did, yes... however this was not reasonable backlash, it was mass misrepresentation of the code. Theres already differences in men and women anyway which conforms to differences in reality, so I don't see the big deal. If there was another "pr nightmare", it would literally be posting pretty much the same article again.
@xol : You may be corfrect that no ideology is immune to idiots, but this is also assuming all idiologies have EQUAL amount of idiots, which is unrealistic.
And frankly, many of the issues where people deny reality DO stem from exactly what vamp said. Nobody has to be sat down and TOLD men and women are different growing up, they are sat down and told, REPEATEDLY the opposite, that that thinking otherwise is sexist and evil.
I think what people mean when they accuse you of having an agenda in these posts is that you let your own personal biases and perception of wrongdoing or inadequacy in others in their failure to earnestly discuss differences between genders inform your opinion that games should fulfill that role of discussing differences between genders.
I feel like the reaction against this idea has less to do with disagreement with your views themselves, and the reality that your views represent, and more to do with the feeling that the particular game of Rimworld is not suitable for changes that reflect your views.
To answer the original question: No, body types and gender should have no effect on game mechanics beyond cosmetic.
This is why the pawns are, as stated in the first three words of their description, "a baseline human". An average of body types, gender and most other factors not included in backgrounds and traits. Anything beyond that (putting numbers to genders) is just asking for trouble and, as this thread has already shown, just bringing it up causes a storm that very few games even TRY to mess with for that very reason.
I agree with Meridias. I cannot see how implementing this will make the game 'more fun'. I doesn't add to complexity as there is no exercise or weight gain mechanic. So the point is mute as it is something that the player cannot control directly or indirectly. It is (initially) totally reliant upon the RNG gods. And I don't think the game should move closer to RNG.
How will this mechanic make the game more "fun"? Realism or reality isn't fun all the time and there are practical/coding limits ofc.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 28, 2016, 07:56:27 PM[...] @thyme : tynan did, yes... however this was not reasonable backlash [...]
a backlash is never reasonable, else it would be called constructive criticism
@Headshotkill: my post is the 6th after yours. this discussion will go on forever (unless a mod stops it), hence we're trapped in here
@Pfhorrest : I don't necessarily think a refusal to speak about the differences in sexes means it MUST be added, I just think if people refuse to acknowlege that which is tested, retested, and retested by everyone in reality, they shouldn't be taken serious in a serious discussion. Everyone can have an opinion, but they can't be immune to being told its a stupid opinion.
@Meridias : I think you are reading way to deep into the description. saying "baseline" just mean its not genetically engineered, not mutated, and not anything super "unique". Differences in pawns still exist, just differences which are normal for the group.
For an example, andre the giant was a "human", but he was FAR from baseline. if he existed, he would be like a bear sized human, able to haul double, double melee damage, double health, and could drink like a fish and not get hurt.
But anything else from sexual dimorphism, varying heights, skin color, ect, could be included under "baseline", because a baseline for humans is actually a pretty wide line.
Also, what is an "average" in gender? theres male and female theres no real "average" between them.
And again... ..I fail to see the shitstorm people speak of. If someone could link me why this is so atrocious, I'd appreciate it. It wasn't the RPS article, because that was like...a week or 2 long bruhaha, which is now just a sour memory.
@Deslona : you bring up an interesting point, with working out, and that would be an interesting mechanic! I don't see any reason why this couldn't be included. Also, I doubt the RNG, even without would cause such catastrophic effects. Its not like starting with 3 girls would doom your colony, it might make things slower, but I doubt it would be severe.
Another point I feel I need to bring up : we are talking about a hypothetical feature, so saying "it would work this way, and this would not work, therefor this wont work" is kinda flawwed, because we dont KNOW how it would work, as its hypothetical. It could be added and be COMPLETELY different than we think, but we dont know.
And so saying it wont work because YOU think it would work one way, isn't the best...instead you should say, you think 1 thing might be a concern, and propose / ask for things to address the concern
@Thyme : I wouldn't say that, if someone came up and tried to pick my pocket, me getting aggressive and calling the cops would be a VERY reasonable backlash...
I also don't see the issue with a thread, stuff is still being said (like delsonas RNG concern) So I don't think the thread should be locked QUITE yet...
Talking on a modding perspective here: is it possible to add modifications to pawns based on their sex and their body type? I can give it a shot.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 29, 2016, 02:22:44 AM
Also, I doubt the RNG, even without would cause such catastrophic effects. Its not like starting with 3 girls would doom your colony, it might make things slower, but I doubt it would be severe.
Man, yes, exactly what we need; for min-maxing to be directly associated with not wanting women in the game. Can't see how that could create a negative psychological schema.
Quote from: Asrahn on December 29, 2016, 02:27:25 PM
Man, yes, exactly what we need; for min-maxing to be directly associated with not wanting women in the game. Can't see how that could create a negative psychological schema.
Thing is, would not having women in the game from the start really be a min/max? I mean, assuming the ideas of each gender getting a select limited number of trait bonuses (like men for mining and melee {blunt force labor}, and women for cooking and shooting {agility based labor}) wouldn't the optimal min/max starting group consist of a specific mix of men versus women? I mean, setting a group of all women would mean that hunting starts faster, but mining out the mountain takes longer, and all men means that the food isn't cooked as fast, and the hunting is a little bit messier.
Personally, I think adding gender traits could add a lot of depth to the game, it just needs to be balanced correctly, which, based on the game so far, Tynan seems like an expert at.
Quote from: tocsin1990 on December 29, 2016, 10:17:52 PM
Quote from: Asrahn on December 29, 2016, 02:27:25 PM
Man, yes, exactly what we need; for min-maxing to be directly associated with not wanting women in the game. Can't see how that could create a negative psychological schema.
Thing is, would not having women in the game from the start really be a min/max? I mean, assuming the ideas of each gender getting a select limited number of trait bonuses (like men for mining and melee {blunt force labor}, and women for cooking and shooting {agility based labor}) wouldn't the optimal min/max starting group consist of a specific mix of men versus women? I mean, setting a group of all women would mean that hunting starts faster, but mining out the mountain takes longer, and all men means that the food isn't cooked as fast, and the hunting is a little bit messier.
Personally, I think adding gender traits could add a lot of depth to the game, it just needs to be balanced correctly, which, based on the game so far, Tynan seems like an expert at.
Crafting and cooking are important enough to the survival of a colony that if such a thing were implemented into the game as it stands today, it might be reasonably balanced. Food poisoning can easily cause a colonist death in the event of a raid, manhunter pack or mass animal insanity. Having high quality weapons and armor are just as important, if not more important, than high shooting skill for the outcomes of raids.
SO, all men would mean "their food isn't cooked as fast"..?
Utter bullshit claptrap, sorry, although quite revealing. There is NO female "role" for cooking, that makes them somehow magically better at the task.
Quote from: Bozobub on December 29, 2016, 11:02:26 PM
SO, all men would mean "their food isn't cooked as fast"..?
Utter bullshit claptrap, sorry, although quite revealing. There is NO female "role" for cooking, that makes them somehow magically better at the task.
I was using it as an example, but, in this case, yeah. I mean, assuming you aren't rolling for a higher skill in cooking. Not all colonists roll equally, and a good cooking roll FAR overshadows a base +3 cooking skill (a male with cooking skill 14 and passion will cook significantly faster than a woman with cooking skill 7, even with the trait.) plus, if the skill caps out at 20, then a 20 cooking skill male and a 20 cooking skill female will cook at the same rate of speed. Yes, a 17 skill female and a 20 skill male will also cook at the same speed, due to the gender trait, but at that point, are we really looking at a huge difference?+
However, even though the conversation tracked away from it, I think body type should play a HUGE roll in abilities. a morbidly obese 80 year old should not be able to run even half as fast as a 20 year old fit person. If there is one trait that should be minimized in a min/max environment, its weight and age. maybe make heavier people yield more leather and meat, at the expense of being dead weight while alive.
Once again, NO. There is no particular genetic trait that makes women somehow better than cooking than men, on average; they've just been been assigned that role by tradition. In fact, it's an excellent example of how insistence in this thread on some kind of more overt dimorphism than already present in the game is based on extremely shaky assumptions.
Now, you can argue that women commonly are assigned that role, and you're fine. But again, there's nothing innate to being female that somehow makes you a better cook, beyond simple individual ability and experience.
Furthermore, assigning women better cooking skills than men, overall, is a guaranteed way to piss off many, if not most women. Not smart at all, for a product you want to appeal to more than a tiny subset of the population.
There's nothing wrong with body type variation, to some degree, but even that is a very slippery slope.
Remember, it's not about "morality" or somesuch, it's about how people will react to the game if you make these changes. Tynan probably doesn't want to kiss off a large percentage of his potential userbase, simply to add more "realism", especially of such dubious provenance.
Quote from: Asrahn on December 29, 2016, 02:27:25 PM
Man, yes, exactly what we need; for min-maxing to be directly associated with not wanting women in the game. Can't see how that could create a negative psychological schema.
Or if I want to run a tailoring sweat shop, insist on all girls.
Things go both ways buddy. Its like you dont understand the idea of different things being better in different ways.
Everyone has pros and cons, and DIVERSIFYING is what makes you a good team. I've been playing the old xcom recently, want to know why I don't just roll everyone to be high strength and aim? Because sometimes I need a good reactions person, sometimes I need a courageous leader, sometimes I need a swift runner... if I had all the same thing, my squad would suck.
This applies to the 2 sexes too, yes men have an advantage, but BOTH men and women, together, make it better.
Its almost like you are in the mentality of "war of the sexes". Why can't we talk about differences between men and women, without you thinking we hate all women?
Quote from: Bozobub on December 30, 2016, 04:52:32 AM
Once again, NO. There is no particular genetic trait that makes women somehow better than cooking than men, on average; they've just been been assigned that role by tradition. In fact, it's an excellent example of how insistence in this thread on some kind of more overt dimorphism than already present in the game is based on extremely shaky assumptions.
Its a multi part spectrum in reality : yes, women are not born better at cooking, but certain strengths are better for OTHER stuff
as an example : joggers.
In rimworld, would you apply, given the choice, a jogger to hauling / melee chasing down someone, or sitting on his ass crafting?
my guess is the first 2, not because hes INHERENTLY good at hauling or melee, but because he has traits which are GOOD for those tasks.
Apply this to men and women. Men have higher reactions, strength, size, while women have better dexterity, smaller size, and better detail perception. Now YES. some girls might be better at melee than most, and men might have better perception of fine details, but the general differences in sex remains the same.
Now keep in mind a few things : getting to know each and every person is very hard in reality, and we make assumptions to save time. So, we assume that men might be better with physical labor, and women might be better at gathering fine supplies, ect... And, by segregating work, we reinforce the differences. This means later, its VERY OBVIOUS that men and women are better choices, as they have been doing it.
And this is why its kind of a moot point. Because they might not inheriently have the skills or training or knowlege, but LITERALLY NOBODY DOES. But along someones life, people are trained, given opportunities, ect, and these GENERALLY, especially in mideval, urbworld, and other societies, conforms to gender stereotypes, because the gender stereotypes are more successful when you dont have any time to look at other info.
The tradition, and training COMES because physical traits men and women have COMPLIMENT the jobs they are applied to. That and, its better to not waste a big beefy man in the kitchen when he could be a potent warrior, and vice versa, to get a waif of a girl killed when she could sew clothing.
its the natural order, and is more efficient than the reverse on a large scale.
As for how people react, do you know how many threads I've seen where people say "fuck this update, this features shit, im done with rimworld!!!"? I've seen it a lot... That isn't new.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 29, 2016, 02:22:44 AM[...]to pick my pocket, me getting aggressive and calling the cops would be a VERY reasonable backlash...
I also don't see the issue with a thread, stuff is still being said (like delsonas RNG concern) So I don't think the thread should be locked QUITE yet...
@mumble²: I wouldn't call that a backlash ;)
I can't stand most of the discussion*, I'm skipping big chunks of it. Why can't we just imagine a RimWorld where all genders** are equal. When assigning tasks, I don't look at the gender (because it has no effect on gameplay) and I'm happy with that!
*the reason is either my general disdain for gender related discussion or my feeling that this thread is moving in circles**male, female and apache
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 30, 2016, 09:17:15 AMQuote from: Bozobub on December 30, 2016, 04:52:32 AM
Once again, NO. There is no particular genetic trait that makes women somehow better than cooking than men, on average; they've just been been assigned that role by tradition. In fact, it's an excellent example of how insistence in this thread on some kind of more overt dimorphism than already present in the game is based on extremely shaky assumptions.
Its a multi part spectrum in reality : yes, women are not born better at cooking, but certain strengths are better for OTHER stuff
as an example : joggers.
And again, NO. Arguing that women are somehow
innately better at cooking, on average, has nothing to do with traits that are fully randomly assigned to all pawns. Your argument is nothing more than failed deflection, continued at tedious length.
Once again, you illustrate quite clearly why this change would be a
terrible idea for the base game. As a mod, however? No problems at all. Personally, I prefer Rimworld to attract the widest audience possible, and I'm reasonably sure Tynan would agree.
Edit -> By the by, "jogger" is an
excellent trait for your cooks to have in Rimworld.
@ thyme : not sure why you wouldn't call it backlash, but ok...either way its very similar. I think someone getting their ass beat by multiple people for hitting an old lady is also a reasonable backlash. Backlash is a reaction of people to something, and to say nobody can react in a reasonable manner...eh.
I can't imagine a rimworld where genders are all equal, because its unbelievable...which actually brings up an interesting point, in "beleivability" vs "realism". Quite simply I can suppress my disbelief, but it scales WITH the game, and how everything else is portrayed. You cannot have for instance, a super realistic stuff, and then have something do something completely rediculous and expect it to be believable. For instance, fallout 3, vegas, and 4 having kids you cannot kill...its NEVER believable, because, even if radiation being cured and not leaving damage, even if gunshots can be healed by eating..They are mostly believable, with the scale of things. But then you have an arbitrary change which is outside the scale by a signifcant amount, and its harder to believe.
And this is why I don't beleive it, because rimworld simulates health, simulates so much else, has bigger sprites for men than women, yet SOMEHOW, women are equally as strong...and it kinda breaks the pattern rimworld has going for emulating realism in abstract ways...thus, its unbelievable, by me and others.
@Bozo : If a man, or woman, has a physical difference which makes them better at a task (physical strength for men, attention to fine, abstract detail for women) Doesn't this make them inherently BETTER at tasks involed with it? Im speaking separate from "skill". A man is better at swinging a pick ax (or real ax) due to the bigger body, and a woman is better at using a needle due to smaller fingers. This doesn't mean skill levels cannot tip the favor to the other sex, but these strengths alone give the sexes certain advantages in certain tasks.
Think of it this way, if you wanted to have an apprentice logger, and you know a big part of it is needing to be physically strong, would you choose a man or woman, KNOWING the woman would be disadvantaged by her size?
You say I "proved it shouldn't be added", then you say jogger is "excellent for x job". Doesn't this PROVE my point? Wouldn't a man, with bigger bones, arms, and stronger impact with his strength be objectively BETTER at some tasks due to the body differences, while women are better than others?
Sure, a woman could learn and perfect every single part of logging to the point she eats breaths and sleeps logging stuff, but at the end of the day, shes still SMALLER than a novice logger, and has to exert more effort into swinging an ax. And since strength is a MASSIVE part, a woman who takes decades to teach herself logging might STILL be worse than a man whos been in it for half a decade.
I'm no native english speaker and thus might use some words in strange ways. I looked it up, it seems my interpretation is a bit off. I always thought it comes from "social" media, where the reactions often scales unreasonable to the action.
I'm sick of gender issues, debates, gender pay gaps and all that tedious crap. Why don't we just spend all the time used for promoting/debating gender equality in living it instead? - forgot the source. As RimWorld is a game, I can choose which parts of reality I want it to incorporate (where Tynan leaves that choice to us players), so I choose not to include gender inequalities. Or rather, I wouldn't like them to be implemented. Of course, I cannot argue with my opinion in a discussion, that's why I have to come up with cost/benefit or imminent backlash if some of those features meantioned here are implemented, because some feminazi will always see gender misrepresentation.
...and round and round the merry go round goes...
Exactly. It's glaringly obvious that this subject is a hot-button issue, and probably isn't the best PR for the game.
Quote from: Bozobub on December 31, 2016, 03:31:37 PM
Exactly. It's glaringly obvious that this subject is a hot-button issue, and probably isn't the best PR for the game.
Would it really be? There is more than one famous person who has said "Any PR is good PR", and that statement does have a substantial basis in fact. Although, yes I do agree, adding this would create a backlash and generate articles about sexism or inequality, is that necessarily a bad thing? For example, the whole "homosexuality being added" topic did generate a fair amount of "Backlash", but at the end of the day, it actually increased sales, substantially. Sometimes, even if something generates hate, and can potentially turn away people who may have been "Triggered" by the topic (I'm not going to argue if triggering is acceptable in society, people have the right to be offended by whatever they please), the amount of people turned away will be far outweighed by the amount of people who will see articles posted about the game, on sites that would not have normally featured the game, and be drawn via curiosity to trying the game out, and getting hooked.
I mean, think about it. We already have "Forced Cannibalism", "Killing puppies and kittens to make hats", "homosexual relationships", "prisoner torture and mutilation", and "extensive drug use, addiction, and promoting beneficial drug use", all in the vanilla game. We aren't "trigger" friendly. Tell me, is "Women and men are different" really going to generate more backlash than ANY of these other things?
Quote from: Boston on December 24, 2016, 08:45:17 AM
Like with literally everything else in reality, skill is the most important aspect of an activity. Especially when it comes to fighting.
A guy that is big and strong, yet not very good at fighting, will get their ass beaten by a 80lbs-soaking-wet girl who knows martial arts.
Stop reinforcing negative stereotypes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf6SGfLs9cY
Not really. This is the worlds best female fighter. She fights these guys. She wins fairly easily but they are all smaller than her or at least not bigger than her, she certainly weighs more than any of them.
They do suprisingly well for a bunch of non combatant dudes.
If one of the guys was built (as in strong) he could probably just man handle her into submission despite having low skill.
https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm/story/0,,543962,00.html
Sarina and Venus Williams (At the time No.1+2 approx female tennis player) once claimed they would woop any dude outside the top 200 ranked male players. No. 203 accepted the challenged. Played them one after the other and beat Sarina 6-1 and beat Venus 6-2.
Differences is what makes life interesting. My life for example, my wife is super smart medical specialist. Way smarter than me, earns 3x as much as I do. Be damned if she can swing a spanner or open a stubborn jar of jalapenos though ;).
There is nothing wrong with people having differences. The fact is woman aren't as capable physically as men (strength and agility wise), and that's ok. I don't see a problem with representing it in the game but it's not something I have thought of my self.
Who says the people in the game are even human? Perhaps they are a race in which there is no difference between men and woman.
@duckling : This is a very interesting point, especially since theres rumors they were actually transgender, but thats another can of worms for another day.
But its still a good point : theres 3 elements involved with this difference of men and women.
1: Body type. Generally unchangeable, and limited by ones skeletal frame. Men tend to have larger bones, which supports bigger muscles, which supports more strength. So men, generally speaking, have an advantage.
2: Hormones. Hormones promote continued growth and altering the body. Testosterone in particular hightens aggression, confidence, applicable physical strength, and other things. Men, naturally, generate more though the testicles than a woman.
3: Skill. Skill is a learned, practiced thing. It takes time, and anyone can get it.
So with these 3 things, women can get only 1 of them with any ease, unless they will take hormones... And because of this, meeting a man with similar, or LESS skill, a man might actually win out, because body type and T provide a pretty hefty advantage. Thus, MOST men, will be stronger than MOST women, at strength oriented tasks.
Also, I agree tocsin... This isn't even the full extent of what you can do. You can mutilate, burn alive gays or transgenders, you can force someone into drug addiction addled servitude, you can use a downed person as a test dummy for weapons... and rim-world wasn't pulled yet.
And really, people should realize that people who get outraged over differences in men and women being highlighted are a very, VERY vocal minority.
Back in A15, I reported a bug that male goats are visibly larger and have more menacing horns, but they both deal the same damage in melee. I called it - jokingly - "political correctness gone too far".
Tynan responded "There's no sexual dimorphism in Rimworld (yet)."
This indicates that Tynan is not really making a political / worldview statement with identical sexes. Rather, it's not high priority for him. Remember, until recently (A15 I believe) Rimworld didn't even have different appearances and names for animals of different sex. If you're trying to justify current situation, you're shooting a barn and then painting a bullseye around the largest cluster of hits (a.k.a. Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy). Don't read into it too much.
When programming a game, you often have to delay a feature if you want to do it right. You need to wait until a certain new system is in place, so you can add the new feature properly instead of spaghetti code and a collection of special cases. Somewhat surprisingly, adding caravans and travel in A16 meant many structural changes according to Tynan. But it's an optional, high-level feature that doesn't impact anything until late game. Sexual dimorphism sounds more complicated, it would always be there, it would apply to most pawns (colonists, animals). And differences other than physical exist, we barely scratched the surface of them, and if you start implementing them you don't know where to stop.
As for "women having more sensitive hands", this is a myth too. They have the same amount of nerve endings in hands as men, spread over a smaller surface. So, higher nerve density. When scientists compared women with small men, they found no difference. And then there's the myth that comes from most men in USA being circumcised by default, but I won't go into that.
So, I think the majority is in agreement that "its something that should happen, eventually, but doesn't need to happen yet." at least on gender dimorphism.
Now, for the bigger part, at least that I see of this conversation, should be having body types and age be a larger factor in abilities. There is zero way that an 80 year old woman with a bad back and unarmed, should be able to even land a hit on a 25 year old woman with a melee skill training, of any level. this breaks immersion hugely for me. I think that each level of overweight, or tier of old age, should have an across the board debuff on efficiencies. Like, 70 year olds get 70% manipulation and moving, and 90 year olds get 40%. Same with body weight. overweight people should have 80% moving, and morbidly obese should go down to 50%.
I think it would be interesting to model things like height, weight, muscle mass, etc. Just basic physical characteristics. It affects characterization (a really tall person is different than a really short person in various ways, even including things like how easy they are to shoot, how fast they can run, how much meat they yield).
It's just that adding all those numbers is a significant change and it just hasn't been the highest priority thing so far. I worry about attaching too many numbers to characters, it risks drowning the player in statistics and obscuring the emotional, storyful parts of the characterization.
If we did model things like height and muscle mass it would make most sense to have them be sex-dimorphic, I think. But like I say, these numbers don't exist atm.
I don't want to "skip over the mechanism" and just start modeling the assumed outcomes of these with skill offsets. Skills are skills, they represent how much practice a pawn has, not a general measure of ability (those are found in the info card with stats like, "Butchering efficiency" etc).
(forgive me if I missed something, I haven't read the whole discussion).
Well, I guess that settles that...
Quote from: Tynan on January 04, 2017, 12:06:29 AM
I think it would be interesting to model things like height, weight, muscle mass, etc. Just basic physical characteristics. It affects characterization (a really tall person is different than a really short person in various ways, even including things like how easy they are to shoot, how fast they can run, how much meat they yield).
It's just that adding all those numbers is a significant change and it just hasn't been the highest priority thing so far. I worry about attaching too many numbers to characters, it risks drowning the player in statistics and obscuring the emotional, storyful parts of the characterization.
If we did model things like height and muscle mass it would make most sense to have them be sex-dimorphic, I think. But like I say, these numbers don't exist atm.
I don't want to "skip over the mechanism" and just start modeling the assumed outcomes of these with skill offsets. Skills are skills, they represent how much practice a pawn has, not a general measure of ability (those are found in the info card with stats like, "Butchering efficiency" etc).
(forgive me if I missed something, I haven't read the whole discussion).
Except we've been through these arguments before.
A hulking male with a VAT grown soldier background hits as hard as a thin woman with an accounting background. They also take the same amount of damage before being killed/downed.
It does not help in your quest of attaining drama material when you use human averages for such outliers. A 10% bonus penalty stat would be a huge step towards acknowledging that. You wont be lost in stats if you know the core basics of human biology and bodysize dimorphism.
But of course you can also keep trying to appease the crowd which so much wants sex equality then bashes you by lying on your background code. Its your game after all.
Excuse me, Razzoriel? You badly need to reread what Tynan just wrote.
Quote from: Razzoriel on January 04, 2017, 09:17:35 AM
Except we've been through these arguments before.
A hulking male with a VAT grown soldier background hits as hard as a thin woman with an accounting background. They also take the same amount of damage before being killed/downed
Currently this is true...but people are suggesting this CHANGE, and tynan just said its interesting BUT, would provide too many numbers...something which someone else suggested, which makes sense.
its not so much that its needed right now, it was mostly that people were demanding it be never added.
yes, it DOES exist how you say currently, and myself, op, tynan, and others, are suggesting it would be INTERESTING to change this. However, it makes sense what he says..its a lot of numbers, lots of stats, and as much as I like the idea, I know its not a huge change compared to a16
Honestly, I'm just happy he said the idea is interesting by itself...
QuoteIt does not help in your quest of attaining drama material when you use human averages for such outliers. A 10% bonus penalty stat would be a huge step towards acknowledging that. You wont be lost in stats if you know the core basics of human biology and body size dimorphism.
I agree it would be fun (as tynan said) but I also understand its not worth it at the moment. Again, he approved it, potentially silencing the people who insist it would be awful for it, which is all that matters to me.
Quote
But of course you can also keep trying to appease the crowd which so much wants sex equality then bashes you by lying on your background code. Its your game after all.
He just said he is interested in the idea.....basically implying he won't censor such tiny things for such people.
Quote from: Tynan on January 04, 2017, 12:06:29 AM
-snip-
I still think making pawns functionally different on the basis of their gender is the wrong way to go. Leave it to modders. RimWorld does not need to strive for "realism" of all degrees in it's mechanics. We have skills and the passion system, which makes some pawns good at certain things and just average at others, with some things being completely outside their skillset or capability. This is plenty of granularity and provides a simplified (aggressively so) model of what we might call "Skills" and "Talents".
I'm totally fine with some pawns being stronger than others, or being faster or requiring less food. I don't think these should correlate to sex, at all. Not only because it does nothing for the "focus" of the game (the story-generating aspect), but because the political atmosphere of the world right now is an absolute minefield when it comes to gender. We've already seen how people with an axe to grind can misrepresent the code in RimWorld. I don't see actually differentiating the sexes in the code going over any better. And this atmosphere is only going to intensify with time. Identity politics is here to stay, I think (sadly).
Besides, this is the future. Who is to say women cannot receive glitterworld treatments that make their muscle and bone density on par with men's. Female bodybuilders bust ass to get to where they are, but they still have to take hormones to get there. In the future there would undoubtedly be ways to do this more effectively, and persistently. Gene drives as an example; technology that already exists but refined over the thousands of years that have elapsed between now and the RimWorld scenario.
Acknowledging differences in the sexes, IN REALITY, is a good thing. Bad to be blind to reality.
Doing it in the game gets a big
NO from me. Adds nothing but fragility and makes the game a target for people with an agenda.
I agree op. It is funny to see some getting somehow offended by this topic. Gotta love the modern pointless pc crowd with no self control.
excuse me but wouldn't it just be politically correct to its own sort of gender politics (pulling from its own canon of facticity) to institute top-down gender differences? the issue here is not gender's relevance to fighting skill, but that the game doesn't have an RPG-like stats system that describes bodies thru variables such as vitality, strength and constitution. i'm very sorry that people need to use gender as a short-circuit in their reasoning about human phenotype.
Quote from: rina_m on January 04, 2017, 08:24:08 PM
excuse me but wouldn't it just be politically correct to its own sort of gender politics (pulling from its own canon of facticity) to institute top-down gender differences? the issue here is not gender's relevance to fighting skill, but that the game doesn't have an RPG-like stats system that describes bodies thru variables such as vitality, strength and constitution. i'm very sorry that people need to use gender as a short-circuit in their reasoning about human phenotype.
I think they're using the "Poisoning The Well" tactic, which is essentially a preemptive personal attack. Another example is "Chris is fascist so don't listen to him." In the example, Chris is associated with something that triggers a knee-jerk reaction in modern society. Criticizing women or suggesting women are not completely equal in all aspects is taboo, so it's an useful label to attach to shut down all possible future discussion. Intimidation by shaming.
Quote from: mumblemumble on December 24, 2016, 08:58:14 AM
Quote from: ZestyLemons on December 24, 2016, 08:21:24 AM
No. This is an idea that only enforces stereotypes.
Whats so bad about that? I mean, the stereotype that men are stronger is true. Also, Skill is PART of it. You might be an amazing swordsman, but if someone has twice your strength, its an uphill battle, even if they aren't the most skilled.
Dark souls is a good example, where many monsters aren't per-say skilled, but are strong enough they can shit all over you unless you have immense skill.
As much as i love dark souls, from a martial standpoint chosen undead, ashen one, etc (regardless of how good the player is) is not a good fighter infact they are actually a bad one. Furthermore a major point in dark souls is age, gender, etc have no effect on combat.
@Sadpickle.
Rimworld only doesn't NEED it, if you qualify what the need is for. If the need is for deeper mechanics, damn right rimworld "needs" it. More importantly, why do you suggest it need to NOT have it?
The focus of the game is a colony simulator, and having an accurate simulation could DAMN WELL fall under the "focus" of being a good simulator. More importantly, very, very few games get banned, or damaged, and usually for pretty egregious reasons, like "rapelay" in japan. And many "banned" games were simply because of the times : carmageddon iirc was banned for a time, but now such insane violence is commonplace. Doom faced ban pressure after the columbine massacre, but people understood it was because of 2 deranged kids whom could not fit in, with many OTHER issues, with doom being merely a thing they enjoyed which fit their tastes. It was not the primary cause in the slightest of it. Point is, now adays, you need a incredibly fucked up game to get banned. Go check out postal 2 for a bit on steam, and keep in mind, this not only isn't banned, but got GREENLIT on steam a few years ago. In that you can piss in peoples faces, use cats as silencers, burn people alive and piss on them, smoke meth, ect, and its STILL out there... rimworld won't be banned ok? The most that will happen is whiny feminists will write an article and they will all groan about patriarchy. And no, actually, people are very, VERY sick of identity politics now in general. If I had to take a guess at the population from america, europe, and the first world countries (because it only EXISTS there) I would honestly say maybe 30% think sjw stuff (I'm including 3rd wave feminism, BLM, pronoun bs, and all that silliness) is utter BS, another 30% don't like it, but stay out of it entirely not wanting the severe annoyance of being yellled at, another 20% support it JUST so they wont be ostrasized, and another 20% support it and fully believe the things they say, regardless of if the logic is challenged. I could very well be wrong on the numbers but the point is this : Not everyone agree, and for every person who whines and screams and pounds the floor and cries about sexism, another person will shake their head, and be glad these people aren't being given their way just because they demand it. You can actually see this is the case with how sales jumped after the article from RPS. People saw it, and even though before they saw rimworld and said "thats neat, but not worth the money", They bought it then just to SPITE the woman who wrote the article...and I suspect such a thing will continue.
Whos to say a woman doesn't get treatment? The lore...lore says no modifications on normal humans unless stated otherwise, and no evolutionary pressure. This is inconsistent with the lore. It can exist for select women in the FUTURE updates, like a woman is enhanced for that, im fine with this, but saying "all women were engineered to be equal to men" goes against the current lore / setup.
Quotefragility
.. ....wait what :o??? I really cannot help to think of "white" or "male" fragility, when you say this, and I really, really hope you aren't starting with that. You have a right to disagree, don't get me wrong, nobody will ban you for it here, and I, as much as I disagree, would never want to block someone I disagree with. This says, I would like you to explain THAT comment, because it confuses / worries me.
@b0r : Got a good point. This is what I've seen all too much in this thread, op and others suggest women aren't the same and then people get upset, asking if we are saying women are subhuman. If I wanted to say a woman was subhuman, I was say shes subhuman. But I DONT think they are subhuman, so I don't call them that. In serious discussion, assuming things should be kept to a minimal.
@marc : I was speaking more along the lines of say, the giant ass bolrog, dragon, the 2 bosses with the giant sword / hammer, ect... they are strong enough too kill you effortlessly, and the only way you have any hope to win is IMMENSE skill and agility, as a straight up fight is impossible. Also helps the enemies are slow as hell, but still.
My point was not to say dark souls has gender differences (they dont) but that a man, with a larger frame (compared to say, the dark souls big nasties), would have an advantage against a (the player) woman, but not necessarily ENOUGH of an agility advantage to make combat equal against a man. This isn't to say its impossible for a girl, but its very hard.... ...like dark souls.
Also, contrary to popular belief, men are not much slower than women. Men IIRC have very slightly higher top speed (taller) higher reaction time (agility) and of course strength... Plus mechanical inclination. Where as women are much more detail oriented, social and emotionally oriented.
This isn't to say men are better at everything, because men are WORSE at those last 3 things generally speaking. And those 3 things are very useful for a society.
Quote from: mumblemumble on January 04, 2017, 10:29:22 PM
@b0r : Got a good point. This is what I've seen all too much in this thread, op and others suggest women aren't the same and then people get upset, asking if we are saying women are subhuman. If I wanted to say a woman was subhuman, I was say shes subhuman. But I DONT think they are subhuman, so I don't call them that. In serious discussion, assuming things should be kept to a minimal.
For future reference - that's a Strawman argument. Misrepresenting the actual point the person made as something superficially similar, but easier to refute. Then, someone proclaims they have won the argument.
Before we go into gender, what gameplay impact could variation in bodies have ? Tall men like me could deal more melee damage and perhaps withstand more punishment (i'm not letting anyone try!). On the other hand, when bullets start flying, I bet I would wish to be a 150cm woman. I also have a hard time buying shoes (this could replace "death man's clothing").
If we go with the idea that women have better social skills, that's not much of an advantage in Rimworld. I currently have a 5 people colony, only two of them have Social enabled and it was at 0. I'm in my first summer, no social fights so far, a few wooing attempts were rejected and that's it. I have a bloody hard time recruiting a good pirate. Really, Social is one of the worst skills in Rimworld, it seems to affect so little, and even for getting new colonists there are many other ways. Pawns actually don't socialize much - there are parties and "relaxing socially" which works when alone in a room!! They never explicitly seek one another just to be in company of a person they like. They mostly ignore each other.
It's undeniable that women's physical attractiveness burns out much quicker with age, in part because they have softer skin. Women who spend their youth partying may find themselves ignored when they're in their mid 30's.
@mumble²: Those political correctness kind of people might be a minority, but they have quite a say (dunno if correct phrasing, another try: they shape our society by forcing their ridiculous views upon us). As a student, I get those weird student newspapers written by other students. Once there was an article about people with learning disability (Personen mit Lernschwäche), it covered 4 pages. Took me about half the article to get that this is about mentally disabled (geistig Behinderte) students, thanks to darn euphemisms. I see such people (the authors) as the initial nucleus of every shit storm that happens (no matter if left or right or any other orientation). Sheepish people then amplify their voice. Often untill they're loud enough that they appear as a majority/important. The greatest effect I see in normal people are lazy jokes about forbidden words, but the magnitude is big enough to influence politics. Three years ago, Austrias Ministry of Defense gave out instructions on how "drill sergeants" should speak to our servicemen. Certain phrases were "forbidden" and replaced with gender neutral ones. Words such as Mannschaft have been forbidden (that's how we call the lowest ranks of soldiers, NATO OR-1 -> OR-4), because it contains the word men (Mann). The rank Hauptmann (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_of_the_Austrian_Bundesheer), however, was not changed (NATO OF-2). NASA is already way ahead of us. See #14. (https://dict.leo.org/forum/viewWrongentry.php?idThread=1279409&idForum=3&lang=de&lp=ende)
tl;dr
I ackknowledge that feminazis are a minority, but never underestimate their impact.
I know what a straw man is...hey, perhaps men could be slightly more likely to insult people directly, I know men are GENERALLY more aggressive on average, and fight a bit more.
as for the social stat, more things could be included for this, trading is sparsely used, and recruiting is too.
This is true about womens looks, and really sad since, frankly, many girls have REPULSIVE personalities and are proud of it...it will make extremely bitter old women when older. =<
@ thyme : This is true, but goes both ways. Sheep follow whoever convinces them, and staying silent is what makes them powerful. They dont have actual good arguments for many things (manspreading, mansplaining...but i guess im just mansplaining here) but if unchallenged, sheep and idiots will believe as they are told.
I understand they have a foothold, and if I'm entirely, brutally honest, people who kick and scream to have their way without a good reason, and have a childish campaign which uses disruptive, shaming, or other pressure tactics against civilians, need to be told to get fucked, and if they get violent, disruptive, or otherwise hostile, using dishonest, underhanded, or scare / intimidation campaigns / threats of violence, and especially actual violence (as many do) I believe they need a harsh, legally sanctioned ass beating, because THAT technically falls under one of the definitions of terrorism : To use criminal violence to push a political agenda.
Don't get me wrong, I find that definition slightly silly, since it means if you legalize it, you stop terrorism, but its still something to consider. An open marketplace of ideas means everyone gets to choose, and everyone gets to SHARE ideas, and people who stifle this are against freedom, and have 0 respect for me.
To be clear : I'm not saying everyone who has an idea against me need to be told to get fucked, or needs an ass whooping, but people who are incredibly rude, disrupt events, cause shit, get into peoples lives because they dont agree need to be told to fuck off, and people who stop traffic, riot, threaten or intimidate people, and use other practically guerilla tactics to enforce their political ideology need their ass handed to them. I don't mind them sharing ideas, I dont mind them convincing others, but it should be in a setup where them, and myself have equal opportunity, and neither is underhanded, or forcing someone. Be if physically, violently, or other means.
Whats interesting is, this is actually becoming a thing in parts of Europe from what I hear, where one country put a law on the books where if you are a criminal who goes heavily against the law (rape, assault, ect) and don't attempt to somewhat adapt to social norms, you are exempt from police assistance. This means if you are a jerk, doing illegal things, breaking the law, ect...the police have full right to ignore you if people beat the fuck out of you. Granted, its at everyone's discretion, and I have faith in both citizens, and polices judgement on this, but I think its not a bad idea..police are a good thing, but police cannot always get there for every thing...so putting some power into the hands of the common man is a good idea.
Granted, such a law will be messy at first, but it might help in the long run.
I think this is getting itself off topic again. lets look at the base issue. if gender dimorphism were to be added into the game, which abilities would be best to affect this?
Personally, after thinking on it for a while, I'm actually leaning more towards it being an increase in a health stat, rather than a skill or trait. like, adding a +10% manipulation for females, and a 10% moving for males. Manipulation affects a large percentage of the "detail oriented" skills, like crafting, cooking, shooting, farming, and research, while moving is a much larger benefit for "strength oriented" skills, like melee, hauling, and construction. 10% is a small enough benefit that it can be easily outpaced by skill or drugs, yet a large enough benefit that, at least when trying to get the most efficiency out of your base in the beginning, gender would be something to consider in planning.
Well on the idea of differences between sexes...
-first, men and women would have a range for all these effects... a bellcurve.
-health, and pain tolerances would be slightly higher for men
-men live slightly shorter than women on average, for natural cause of death
-men have higher strength, which effect melee, hauling, and certain tasks. Strength would be a requirement for CERTAIN tasks, things like hauling rocks require a STRONG, young man to do, or at very least, have an "absolute minimum" and "ideal" limit for strength on tasks. Absolute minimum means someone can attempt, and takes severe penalties, but CAN do it. Ideal means someone can do it at normal speed. Strength is different for different people, and men are generally stronger of course. Perhaps make strength a "use it or lose it" stat, slowly going away if you dont train it occasionally, and make the cap a multiple of someones default strength (little old ladies can never become as strong as Arnold Swartzineiger in his prime EVER, even with daily weight lifting and a diet of meat eggs and milk). Strength is of course, also effected by injuries or sickness, perhaps even having frail / bad back reworked a little bit.
-Men have slightly higher chance to social fight with men, slightly less to social fight with women.
-Add in sexual organ hitbox...ouch.. someone getting their dick shot off could lead to depression for a while. A woman getting shot could lead to infertility. Either way, injuries disable lovin COMPLETELY till they heal up...scars make lovin very difficult to do.
-Men and women when can flirt, which either repulses, does nothing, or distracts. Repulsion causes a small mood hit, and social hit. nothing does, of course, nothing. Distraction causes a small mood buff, a temporary (half hour) hit to consciousness by a small amount, and a social buff. pawns are more likely to take repulsion worse from the sex they ARENT attracted to (straight men get more repulsed by gay men flirting, lesbian women get more repulsed by straight men flirting, ect). Repulsion rate is also slightly higher for these. Repulsion can also end with social fighting, and is effected by dislikes / hates gender, as well as sexual preference. Violent reactions to flirting are possible, and are effected by the relationship level.
-Men are more likely to be destructive with mental breaks, berserks, breaking things, as well as drug use...women are more likely to wander in a daze, hide in rooms, and more passive, shutdown things.
These are just a few fun ideas
Quote from: brcruchairman on December 24, 2016, 11:08:25 AM
I believe something that is being largely ignored is the nurture side of things. Let us disregard, for a moment, the question of whether or not there is a biological predisposition for strength or social skills or what have you for males and females. Let us examine, then, the more relevant question of whether nurture, societal norms in particular, can impact physical bearing.
The obvious example to bring up is the Chambri People.1 In their culture, the traditional roles (socially and occupationally) are reversed from what we're used to in the west, and indeed most of the world. This seems to be strong evidence for the notion that, regardless of any biological predisposition, nurture, or the societal norms, can overpower it. So biological predisposition is, by my reckoning, overshadowed by the dominant factor of societal function.
Assuming I'm not mistaken in the above, the next response is, "Okay, cool, but there's still a biological predisposition." I would argue that there is not. One of the studies most commonly cited is this one, which asserts half to two-thirds strength in women compared to men.2 Although one could argue this study is invalidated by the tiny sample size (n=16) alone, let's disregard that for a moment and focus on the core fallacy; this does not describe a biological predisposition. This describes eight typical specimens of each gender in the current social climate. That means that women already have a strong tenancy to be weaker physically than men because that's how society tells them to be; just look up pictures of "beautiful woman" and "beautiful man". The first will tend to show waifish figures, possibly a full bust and healthy rump, but generally minimal visible musculature. Contrast this with the beautiful man, which tends to be corded and well-defined muscle. If anyone would like to argue this point, I'd be happy to find some studies that confirm this difference in beauty standards. In short, current society tells women that their ideal shape is willowy and lean, while men should aim for a bulky and sculpted look. Since many aim to bring their body in line with the physical ideal, the consequence of men developing through effort stronger musculature seems forgone.
Let's assume (however unlikely it may be) that you've agreed with me so far. The next logical argument is, "Well, then, men still put on muscle easier, so they tend to be stronger naturally." This is another oft-repeated argument, and one which holds little weight. Firstly, let us examine the muscle fibers themselves: there is no discernible difference between male and female muscle fibers.3 The chief difference is rather the quantity of muscle fibers, as one would expect. The argument has been made that males put on muscle faster. This is also false; it appears that, given identical exercise regiments, females put on muscle at a very similar rate to males over a 16 week span.4
In conclusion, I believe significant evidence for the equality of the genders, all else being equal (age, occupation, societal pressure, etc.) in melee combat or any other arena. Of course, one could argue that this culture or that culture will demand different things between men and women, but then it becomes a question of specific case and Rimworld lore, not real-world simulation.
Regarding stereotypes, regardless of whether it's "positive" or "negative", they can be quite damaging. For instance, the stereotype of "men are strong" can quickly turn into a liability for any who are not physically strong. Rather than it being a minor personal deficiency, it instead shifts to "they must be a failure as a man". Similar to the "statistically proven" assertion regarding women and social skills. (Incidentally, science and statistics can never prove anything. All it can do is provide evidence, and leave valid theories to explain them. One of the biggest tenants is that we don't truly "know" anything, we just have highly likely possibilities.)
Regarding body type, I can see a strong argument for its inclusion; the way a beanpole fights will be vastly different from the way someone built like a brick house would fight. The lean build would very conceivably have a bonus on cool down, possibly movement speed on account of the less momentum. However, against blunt force trauma (and, to a much lesser extent, slashing trauma) there would be increased vulnerability; an impact would be far more likely to hit something functional, e.g. directly impact muscle or transmit a shock through to an organ. The larger fighter in turn would have the opposite; the large frame and fat deposits would increase momentum making for a slower fighter (all else, including musculature and muscular cross-section) but conversely those fat deposits would distribute any blunt trauma over a wider area, mitigating its effect, and slashing weapons would have to cut deeper to achieve the same level of physiological disruption. (E.g., severed muscle fibers, lacerated blood vessels, cut organs, etc.)
I also agree that the bonus from body type should be small; there are plenty of accounts of people large but fast, and I'm pretty sure we all know someone skinny but slow; personal traits (e.g., lazy vs fast walker, brawler, etc.) should dominate, but the addition of a small bonus or penalty for colonist body type would not, in my opinion, be a bad thing. I'm not sure how much work it would be mechanically to differentiate between them, particularly since something like fat deposits is unlikely to change survival outcomes for a gunshot would, but the concept, at least, appears sound.
References:
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambri_people
2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683
3: http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/musclephys.txt
4: https://books.google.com/books?id=rk3SX8G5Qp0C&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=national+strength+and+conditioning+association+women+strength+gain&source=bl&ots=o6lCqfDgUP&sig=05WMzI3kuKJhRm671sNoLGPA9cE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit27yVl43RAhVMRiYKHYFCBfMQ6AEINDAF#v=onepage&q=national%20strength%20and%20conditioning%20association%20women%20strength%20gain&f=false p.152
From what planet did you come from?
In my whole life (since I was 12 or 13) I have never personally met a female that looked like a possible physical treat to me or to any other healthy athletic male. Women are much smaller and weaker than men, anyone that lives on planet Earth should know that. And nurture over nature?? What the flying fuck are you fantasizing about, have you ever heard about testosterone and other anabolic hormones that men produce a lot more than women? They are so important that there are studies showing taking steroids while doing nothing induces more muscle growth than exercising naturally. And that's just one of the many physical biological advantages men have over women.
I started Muay Thai when I was a teen and about 2 months in they asked me to spar this girl that was a state champion. I was told to go easy on her, even tho I was still kind of a clueless noobie and just a little bit heavier than her, and I really had to during the fight, as she was really slow and weak, it felt like she had almost no explosion.
Even the professional female fighters on loads of male hormones that look more manly than most men don't seem impressive at all.
On topic, I don't think there should be physical diff between sexes in RW, the game isn't supposed to be realistic in the slightest anyway, I'm alright with movie trope womyn warriors being a thing.
Presumably rimworld people have been through so many generations of genetic modification that they're only nominally still human anyway.
I tend to agree this would make the game too complex but if it must be done, the interesting way to do it would be to give men a bonus to manipulation and women a bonus to sight and consciousness, and maybe pain tolerance.
Note that that would make women better soldiers overall. What matters for rimworld soldiers is shooting accuracy more than anything else, and eight contributes to that.
There's actually some studies that show women are better at target shooting than men are, too, so that's not an unrealistic result.
Quote from: Hieronymous Alloy on January 05, 2017, 02:57:35 PM
Presumably rimworld people have been through so many generations of genetic modification that they're only nominally still human anyway.
Lore explicitly says humans have not been evolutionary changed. they have not been changed be evolutionary pressure, nor been modified.
Quote from: mumblemumble on January 05, 2017, 04:40:36 PM
Quote from: Hieronymous Alloy on January 05, 2017, 02:57:35 PM
Presumably rimworld people have been through so many generations of genetic modification that they're only nominally still human anyway.
Lore explicitly says humans have not been evolutionary changed. they have not been changed be evolutionary pressure, nor been modified.
Some of the character backstories explicitly contradict that, though?
e.g.,
Quote
Glitterworld kid The son/daughter of a genetically-engineered perfect mate on a glitterworld, NAME was much more shy, withdrawn and nervous than his/her parents. He/She kept mostly to him/herself, studying science and medicine and taking on gardening as a hobby.
In his/her teens, he/she ran away from home, seeking a quieter life.
So if a character has a glitterworld kid background, they've been engineered. I mean sure maybe nobody is half-dolphin or anything but it doesn't seem outside the lore to have the female equivalent of Captain America in your colony.
this is less of invalidating the idea, and more just inconsistent flavor text.
I'd rather say the RimWorld equivalent of Cpt. Murica is fully bionic. His stunts are a blatant disregard of High School physics.
Quote from: Thyme on January 06, 2017, 01:55:29 AM
I'd rather say the RimWorld equivalent of Cpt. Murica is fully bionic. His stunts are a blatant disregard of High School physics.
Well, yeah. Theoretically though he's supposed to be, like, right at the very top upper limit of the theoretical best possible human performance -- if you look him up on Marvelpedia, it says "Rogers is as intelligent, strong, fast, agile, and durable as possible for a human being to be without being considered superhuman."
Still human, but idealized and perfected.
Point being, it's not all that far outside the lore for a female "vat grown assassin" " bio-engineered by scientists, and trained as a killer" to be, effectively, the Black Widow of RimWorld. Or even for half your colony to be Black Widow equivalents -- those vat grown assassins seem pretty common.
Quote from: Boston on December 24, 2016, 08:45:17 AM
Like with literally everything else in reality, skill is the most important aspect of an activity. Especially when it comes to fighting.
A guy that is big and strong, yet not very good at fighting, will get their ass beaten by a 80lbs-soaking-wet girl who knows martial arts.
Stop reinforcing negative stereotypes.
Are you insane? I'm a purple belt in BJJ and i've seen loads of athletic strong men come in and overpower blue-blackbelt females.
Martial arts aren't arcane magic. Yes they give you an advantage but a 100lb differential in humans is extremely hard to overcome unless you are a legitimate master.
Some office worker la-la land description of the world doesn't belong.
Quote from: ActuallyTrain on January 06, 2017, 10:53:01 AM
Quote from: Boston on December 24, 2016, 08:45:17 AM
Like with literally everything else in reality, skill is the most important aspect of an activity. Especially when it comes to fighting.
A guy that is big and strong, yet not very good at fighting, will get their ass beaten by a 80lbs-soaking-wet girl who knows martial arts.
Stop reinforcing negative stereotypes.
Are you insane? I'm a purple belt in BJJ and i've seen loads of athletic strong men come in and overpower blue-blackbelt females.
Martial arts aren't arcane magic. Yes they give you an advantage but a 100lb differential in humans is extremely hard to overcome unless you are a legitimate master.
Some office worker la-la land description of the world doesn't belong.
The only ones against the sex dimorphism are those who have absolutely no clue what they're talking about.
Way to generalize everyone who disagrees with you as dumb.
This thread is two brick walls endlessly arguing with each other. I think what we have is fine and isn't really as jarring as people here make it out to be. I mean that's how its always been in other games. And they work out alright.
What's suggested is also fine but I believe melee combat should be fleshed out more before adding in extra complexities otherwise we're just going to end up with some kind of rock paper scissors kind of deal. Potentially screwing over players who's unlucky enough to only get older colonists or women, combat wise.
So till then, dont fix what's not broken.
Edit: Actually, what he have is also sort of broken with 0 skill pawns beating up 20 skill masters. But the idea remains and whats suggested won't really fix that and may potentially make it worse.
Physical attributes aside, the sexes approach relationships differently. Men have a natural tendency to be polygamous, women - monohypergamous. Men are happy to have many (sexual) partners, while women "trade up" men in relationships, and are even happy to share a man with other women as long as they feel they got a genuine alpha male. Women view a man with multiple partners as successful and valuable, at least until they try to claim him. Non-alpha men are still good to pay the bills, and support someone else's children. And women initiate vast majority of divorces, must be a coincidence and not alimony money.
It would be fairly easy to represent in Rimworld. Men would be less picky about women (but they definitely prefer young women), and more spread out. Women would chase the men with highest social status, most alpha etc, and would rather share one or fight over an alpha man instead of settling for someone beneath their dignity.
As for hard-as-brick stance vs relaxed stance - Bruce Lee made a few comments praising a more relaxed stance of Kung Fu in contrast to the more tense of Karate. Bruce Lee is dead*. We'll never know how much of his success should be attributed to his unique approach, and how much to his inherent abilities he was born with.
The extreme example of relaxed stance is Wing Chun technique, which Bruce Lee trained for just a year. There's a good documentary about it called "Wing Chun", and a movie "Prodigal Son" with Biao Yuen (one of most acrobatic actors ever, starred with Jackie Chan movies etc). The stance is more like a triangle, with feet pretty close and perpendicular to the opponent instead of one foot closer. Hands lowered more less at breast height. The technique was supposedly invented by a woman, for women, and optimized for close range combat. Supposedly it works because you control the center line, use both hands at the same time, and can push away incoming punches to a side. Supposedly, because I found no evidence that it actually works! Search youtube for sparring videos between Wing Chun fighters vs any other style, and check out how Wing Chun fighters do in MMA. No one fights that way and has success against skilled opponents ! The movies "Ip Man" are all hype. I would be genuinely happy if you could link some grrreat Wing Chun sparring / fight videos to disprove my claim.
Feminists like to point out there are more men who have problems with law, more men are in jail, there more mentally retarded men, and so on. Yet they insist that average intelligence of man and woman is the same. Well you can't have it both ways. If there are more retarded men than women, there must be someone else who makes up for that and raises the average. This makes sense from biology point of view - women have two XX chromosomes, so they have a backup, there are fewer genetic mutations among women and "they're playing it safe". Men have a X and a Y chromosome, no backup, so there are more retards and more geniuses among men. It evens up.
It's not a perfect comparison, but the average of a 20-sided die is 10.5 points. When you throw 3 6-sided die, the average is also 10.5 points, but the distribution is different. You can compare 1d20 and 3d6 here: http://anydice.com/
The reason there are so many female assassins and agile fighters in fiction is not because they are *more* agile or whatever, but because it's the only way they can compete physically. Female archers are a dumb idea though. Longbowmen were picked among the tallest and strongest men. A longbow is the brute force weapon compared to the more sophisticated crossbow, and guess what - we still use crossbows today - rifles a crossbow trigger, crossbow grip and so on (I don't know the proper name). A crossbow/rifle grip even works great for a camera (very stable), except people are very nervous when they see someone "pointing a rifle" at them. Out of question for warzone reporters and areas with jumpy police. Okay, but back for making up. I don't see why women should have a disadvantage with guns. They are smaller targets, and physical strength hardly matters when firing. Men can carry a bit larger guns and might suffer less knockback, but I'm not convinced it matters.
* Bruce Lee died because he used together medicine that should never be used together. They interacted. The medicine he used was known to have potentially lethal side effects.
I thought he died because he was shot by accident or am I wrong?
That was Bruce's son, Brandon Lee. He died during the filming of The Crow, he was shot by an accident (although I have no idea why would anyone have live ammunition on stage).
Here's a proposal:
1, (reserved for future use - children etc) - -
2, small woman, -
3, average woman, small man
4, big woman, average man
5 -, big man
Women would be body sizes 2-4, men - 3-5.
Small body size:
+ bonus to hand dexterity, crafting, art, lower gun warmup(before shooting), slightly better shooting accuracy
+ smaller target
+ eats less
- lower strength, carrying capacity etc
- more trouble walking through deep snow, water, tall grass
- worse in melee
Big body size:
+ bonus to strength, carrying capacity, lower gun cooldown(after shooting), especially heavy guns, lower speed penalty for walking with heavy guns
+ less trouble going through snow, water, tall grass
+ better in melee
- bigger target
- eats more
- comparatively lower hand dexterity (tailoring, crafting, art).
Problem: Manipulation stat of Rimworld is dexterity and strength lumped together. They would have to be split to accurately represent this. There is anectodal evidence that smaller people have more sensitive hands / better dexterity, but no evidence that gender plays a role (neuroscience couldn't prove it). https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091215173017.htm (People who have smaller fingers have more sensitive hands). It makes sense because they have the same number of nerve endings, but on a smaller skin area.
"Crafting" in Rimworld contains both low dexterity high strength like stonecutting, and the opposite, tailoring which requires hand dexterity but little strength. "Growing" skill influences both high strength activities like tree cutting, and lower strength ones like planting strawberries.
More generally I think skills could be split based on whether they need more dexterity or more strength.
Strength: hauling, mining, tree cutting, stonecutting, smithing, construction (walls, doors, furniture), shooting heavy weapons, melee (swords, maces)
Dexterity: tailoring, medicine (esp. operations), art, construction (electronics, devices, switches, conduits; anything that requires components), billards table, shooting non-heavy weapons, melee (spears, knives, shortswords)
Also, possibly the greatest sniper ever, Simo Hayha from Finland, was a small man. Over 500 documented Soviet soldiers killed. His advice was: "Practice". But he was also smart, for example he would put snow in his mouth so his breath wasn't visible, he didn't use a scope (he'd have to be careful not to breath on it, and the glare could give him away), he often hid in mounds of snow...
Eh, I'm honestly unsure about how you equate gun usage. Sure smaller hands are better at precision with smaller things, but I doubt a little girl could be a better shot with a minigun than Hercules.
I agree with better ability for tailoring, art, maybe even crafting, but anywhere where strength is needed, it would have an impact.
For instance, for crafting, one would need say, at least a body size of 3 to do, bug a body size of 3 gets a bonus to quality while bigger ones get bonus to speed, for certain tasks, like crafting stone blocks.
So you could have a faster, big brawny dude whos less precise, or a smaller person whom can do it much more precisely, with less skill, but take longer.
Shooting is the same, it should scale on the gun. I expect a girl could be a decent shot with a pistol, or rifle, but might struggle with an automatic, or bigger gun. The smaller body does indeed provide more precise movements, but the strength needed to lift, turn, absorb recoil, ect, must be present for effective firing, and without, a bigger, less skilled guy would be better, and this is the important part. And inherently, combat is always "heavy" work, to some extent.
Problem is, EVERY task takes x strength, and y dexterity, and more of either scales how effective you are, by z.
Sure, electrical work and wiring is a dexterity job, but it also takes strength. And melee with a sword takes strength, but benefits from dexterity.
Its all very complex. But im happy people are presenting ideas finally.
Also at alloy, you realize that the backgrounds are specifics, and the lore on "humans", says MOST humans aren't right?
this means that while some might say otherwise, if they do not, they are the same as current humans.
There is actually scientific data showing women are more accurate shooters than men, although men may shoot faster. The theory is it has to do with a lower center of gravity.
https://www.quora.com/Shooting-Are-women-rated-as-better-shooters-than-men
Lower center of gravity I think is less part of it, than smaller hands meaning more precise movements.
See, the bigger you are, the harder it is to make smaller movements. Its easy for someone to be precise in moving something say, 1% of their height with precision, but as you scale up, in size in hands, muscles, ect, this precision grows harder.
I suppose then women would have higher accuracy, but slower aim / recoil speed. But this would not apply to automatics.
Women also have some advantages in eyesight -- better color perception etc. It's a very small difference though that only manifests in a fraction of the population.
Quote from: Hieronymous Alloy on January 09, 2017, 04:32:44 PM
There is actually scientific data showing women are more accurate shooters than men, although men may shoot faster. The theory is it has to do with a lower center of gravity.
https://www.quora.com/Shooting-Are-women-rated-as-better-shooters-than-men
I'm just going to give out this link here for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_shooting
Then I'm going to show you statistics just to disprove this notion you're trying to push (for convenience, just listing the categories which both men and women participate):
Men
50m Rifle (3 Positions)
1642
10m air rifle
836,3
10m air pistol
783,5
Trap
146
Skeet
145
Women
50m Rifle (3 Positions)
691,9
10m air rifle
624,3
10m air pistol
587,1
Trap
99
Skeet
99
Difference:
137,31%
33,95%
33,45%
47,47%
46,46%
Result: We can argue, on the most pro-woman analysis, that women in shooting perform 40% worse than men, and this number may reduce to 33% when using air-propelled firearms.
You're making a statistically invalid argument. Far more men compete than women, so just by probability more of the top shooters will be men and the top men are likely to outperform the top women, because there is a dramatically larger pool of men to select from because more men enter shooting sports.
The relevant question is if you take ten men and ten women randomly off the street how will they perform against each other after training.
Edit: 12 of the past 20 National Teachers of the Year have been women. That's not because women are better teachers, it's because more women enter teaching.
Quote from: mumblemumble on January 05, 2017, 04:40:36 PM
Quote from: Hieronymous Alloy on January 05, 2017, 02:57:35 PM
Presumably rimworld people have been through so many generations of genetic modification that they're only nominally still human anyway.
Lore explicitly says humans have not been evolutionary changed. they have not been changed be evolutionary pressure, nor been modified.
Actually the lore of the game says the complete opposit "Beyond the technological diversity of our species, there is also a broad biological diversity. Some populations have evolved under the selection pressures of pre-industrial life or on a world of great heat or cold, or high or low gravity, or even worlds bathed in the toxic residue of hyper-destructive wars. Though almost all such xenohumans (as they are called) are recognizably descended from the original Earth stock, their morphology is highly variable. Some are giants; other are tiny or squat. Some are dark; others pale as snow. Some are hairy like animals; others perfectly smooth. Diets, dispositions, and chemical and radiological tolerances vary significantly." -https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fUO3KKbAbTxMP1lqphnnodY0NPoOVblCUkDw-54MDUc/pub.
It's the year 5.501 when you crashland. ~3.500 years is far from what evolution needs to unfold.
Quote from: Thyme on January 10, 2017, 03:35:33 PM
It's the year 5.501 when you crashland. ~3.500 years is far from what evolution needs to unfold.
I think the presumption is we aren't talking about natural evolution so much as artificial. Though even short-term abrupt changes in environment can cause dramatic changes in a population (as the classic example of london moths changing from light to dark and back during the smog years demonstrates).
I pity this generation or more accurately the creative restriction era.
Excuse me? YOU aren't the one making the game. Mod it yourself, and then you have something to say about "creative restriction".
Tynan has given his opinion and it has absolutely nothing to do with your silliness.
Quote[...] Some populations have evolved under the selection pressures of pre-industrial life or on a world of great heat or cold, or high or low gravity, or even worlds bathed in the toxic residue of hyper-destructive wars. [...]
MarcTheMerc is talking about natural evolution.