Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - brcruchairman

#1
General Discussion / Rimworld helped me get a PhD
August 04, 2022, 06:12:21 PM
Five-ish years ago, I did a little project on this forum, doing an economic analysis of the Rimworld economy. At the time, I just thought it was fun, and was so happy to see other players help me gather data. Realizing that I apparently like to look at prices for fun, I decided to see if I could get a job doing that, so I applied to graduate school. In the interview process, that project came up, and apparently impressed the professors who were interviewing me. Looking back, I suspect it was more about my enthusiasm rather than technical skill, but either way, it helped!

I got my PhD in economics this year. Though this forum seems much less active than it was back then, I still wanted to post here to thank the community. If y'all hadn't been so keep to help out my random pet project, I don't think I could call myself doctor today! This is one of the best communities I had the pleasure to participate in. Y'all rock!
#2
Quote from: Boston on February 13, 2017, 10:55:11 PM
I, personally, would want them chunky, built-to-last, able to take a licking and keep on ticking, with sounds and effects to match.

Think about it: you are on a frontier world, a rough-and-tumble place at the best of times, you want a weapon that can stand up to that.

I just wanted to say that these designs are something I could 100% get behind. It seems to perfectly encapsulate what CrazyEyes and SpaceDorf were saying, with the clearly non-contemporary look while at the same time looking cobbled together, sturdy, relatively simple, and functional, not high-tech "whee, space lasers!" So bravo, Boston. Bravo.

Quote from: Mikhail Reign on February 14, 2017, 02:45:50 AM
That just an opinion tho. I don't find that current guns sound intrinsically 'scarey'. A .22 sounds just as menacing as a .303 - both can kill the shit out of you. 'Gotta be big boom' seems like an American way of thinking to be honest...

Like me? I loved the shit outa the sci-fi noise that the sentry guns made.

Two notes, here: first is nitpicking (sorry, guys! D: ) that the Aliens Sentry Guns were actually ALSO slug-throwers. According to the wiki1 they're chambered in 10x28 mm Caseless ammo. So those were definitely slug-throwers. ^ ^

Second note is that you're entirely correct that impressive sounds are subjective, and I wanted to thank you for acknowledging this. :) It's really easy for people (like, for instance, myself. <.< ) to consider their opinion and fact to be the same, so it's always refreshing when people like you and B0rsuk make the distinction clear. Thanks, you two! :)

Also, as always, adding my own two cents, there is, to me, a difference between the various calibers in terms of sound. When I fire my dinky little .22 LR, it makes this loud but not deafening "crack" which almost just sounds like breaking wood. When I fire my 12 guage, or a borrowed 9 mm or (oh god why did I even let my friend talk me into firing his) 8 mm Mauser, they all had a very different sound and feel to them. I swear I could feel that 8 mm Mauser even when somebody else was firing it. Much more of a full-throated "BOOM!".

The above said? As you pointed out, the sound doesn't make for a terribly good indicator of lethality. Firing a 5.56 mm almost feels like shooting a toy, with the sound to match (in my experience) but those are designed people-killers. Firing a 12 ga. loaded with birdshot feels powerful, both in recoil and sound, but at more than forty or fifty yards, those lil' pellets barely penetrate plastic; to be frank, I'm not sure they'd even get through a thick leather coat at that distance.

My opinion is that it may be worth discarding realism in favor of the "rule of cool" when it comes to weapon sound effects. Though it sounds like everyone here is firmly agreed that DEWs wouldn't be a good fit for Rimworld, for the sake of example I present this2 sound bite as an example of an utterly unrealistic but still kinda cool- and satisfying-sounding effect. In a similar (and more relevant vein, as I think we all concur that a modern-style slug thrower fits Rimworld best) such sounds could be found or manufactured for the reskins. Personally, I'm content with the sound effects as they are, but I think I'm also a bit less discerning than some of the players here; after all, I'm usually to wrapped up in "HOMG LET'S MAKE MONEH!" to pay much attention to the weapon sprites. >.> Nobody ever said I was cool, okay?! :p

1: http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/UA_571-C_Automated_Sentry_Gun
2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StO9wHYuYPM
#3
Quote from: b0rsuk on February 13, 2017, 06:35:30 PM
You're far too polite and intellectually honest to be on the internet. Begone!

Bwahaha! You're making me blush, good sir. *beams*

Quote
I'm not a gun enthusiast. I know just a couple of the more popular or iconic guns and rifles, like AK47, MG42, Thompson etc. I've seen them in video games and movies, mostly. Note weapons in movies are rarely called by their name. But even bringing up Firefly into this - note the start of the first episode. They're fighting some war and losing. Their equipment looks notably more futuristic than in the rest of the show. You really get an impression military grade weapons are another league. I didn't pay attention to the way guns looked, but they were projectile weapons. My point - rimworlds use older weapons.

I don't want guns that look like plastic toys. They should look rugged and functional. I want guns with oomph, even if they sound very mundane. Futuristic weapons, especially energy weapons have a big problem: no library of sounds to draw from, and no real idea how they should sound like. They tend to sound puny - you know, pew pew. Show me a youtube of a energy weapon I would want to use. I haven't seen one.

I think we can agree on this; if there were to be a weapon reskinning, I'd want it to look as you described, something rough-and-tumble, maybe even cobbled together, rather than sleek and futuristic. If I may ask, would some sort of modern-day looking weapon, but different in profile from modern designs, be agreeable to you? (Not that either of us have the authority to make it happen, but I like to reach a consensus when I can. ^ ^) I imagine something vaguely like the human weapons in Halo in terms of aesthetics; clearly still slug-throwers and looks similar to nowadays, just clearly also NOT a clone of an extant model.

You also make a good point regarding energy weapons; there just aren't many good sound effects for a Directed Energy Weapon out there. Probably because, while firearms make a distinct sound by their firing, DEWs wouldn't do so in the same way. As someone earlier in the thread pointed out, a DEW would likely do a very short, high intensity burst which would just make an explosion. Rather than sounding like a gun firing, it'd just be lotsa explosions. (As an example, here1 is an example of a real-life DEW. Impressive, but not really something we'd see on squad-level combat. What we'd be more likely to see for a handheld weapon system seems more along these2 lines, and the little "click" it gives would really not be satisfying for a player to hear.)

So, in summation, I think we can agree that "high-tech", much less energy weapons, wouldn't fit too well in the setting and would have the problem of lack of extant sounds to deal with. :)

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F85f1FHxMEs
2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3_XCnAlG0U
#4
Quote from: b0rsuk on February 13, 2017, 02:44:33 PM
Okay, so assuming M16, G36 and so on differ mostly in aesthetics, do you... propose to have futuristic looking weapons just because the looks of current weapons bother you ? I mean, that's the main point of having futuristic weapons for you ? Cool aesthetics ? No exploring of new possibilities, no new mechanics ? What a waste !

This is what bothers me - many supporters of this thread want weapons that function the same, are futuristic but differ only in aesthetics. I've seen almost zero proposals for intriguing weapons. I fact, I probably made most of these in this thread. Like, a railgun that hits everything in a line (penetrates targets).

I think I get where you're coming from, that high-tech futuristic sleek looks both wouldn't fit, are unnecessary, and wouldn't fit with the relatively small gains in efficacy, but I feel like you may be misunderstanding the point you're attacking; it's not that we want super high-tech sleek looking guns, just different looking guns. Like Mal's pistol, it looks like it could be at home in the 20th or 21st century, but is clearly not just a clone of one of those very same weapons. THAT'S what, as I understand it, is being advocated.

I'll also note, that what you've described would be interesting. It's not, however, what I think is currently being discussed; those are functional changes, which change how a weapon work, and would require significantly more work on the part of the devs to make it work. A reskin alone to make it look less like carbon-copies of 20th century weapons and more like similar but not identical weapons would be only half the work: sprites only, not sprites AND code.

Quote
It's required for the spaceship, they drop from the "ultimate" enemies in the game, and your map likely has 1-2 veins of it not counting deep drilling. A single tile (75) is what, 15000 HP to dig through ? I wouldn't call it common.

I would; the fact that bulk traders carry hundreds of units of it means that, while it's expensive, at the same time it's not some exotic prototype. Charge rifles and power armor both use the stuff in their production. Therefore, regardless of how we term it in terms of "rare" or "common", it is indisputably present within the tech base.

You did make the good point, however, that plasteel is a relatively infrastructure- and tech-intensive resource within Rimworld; the things that use it all require research. This is a good point; it'd make plasteel specifically less likely to be used in general, mid-level firearms. I still maintain that it's demonstrative of the greater point that materials have advanced, and advances could change the profile of a weapon.

Quote
Again, drop pods require a multi-analyzer, which makes them a tier 3 research item (Simple research bench = Town Hall, High-tech research bench = Keep, Multi-analyzer = Castle). Drop pods require a fairly rare resource - chemfuel, which you can obtain only from drilling and trade. Ground-penetrating scanner requires about the same amount of research as spaceship parts.

My point is that things you mention as common are in fact hard to obtain and near the top of the tech tree. They're rare in this setting.

I think I'd mentioned this above; a good point. A high-tech plasteel rifle might have a different profile, but it'd also be a different production level. I think the gist of my point, though, was more that advances in material sciences lead to corresponding changes in design profiles.

Quote
Like they didn't fit in Firefly, which is the biggest inspiration behind Rimworld ?

There are probably more high tech / glitterworld items coming, including weapons. Current factions are very poorly fleshed out. There are differences between tribals and the rest (but not among tribals themselves - they're an unwashed, shapeless horde). But pirates and outlanders barely differ. I've never been at war with outlanders, but I think they don't use personal shields, mortars or drop pods. I haven't seen one with a charge rifle. That's it. I hope most of 'glitterworld' items are impossible to manufacture. The game is called Rimworld, not Glitterworld. I also very much hope that the new 'glitterworld' items provide new mechanics and not just visuals.

I'd mentioned this above, but it sounds like what you're arguing against is making all the weapons shiny and sleek and futuristic. That's not what I, personally, am advocating; the point (which, again, I'll stress I don't feel strongly about one way or another) I'm trying to clarify is that some feel that weapons that are clones of extant ones feel jarring, and ones of similar tech level which just look different would be less jarring. Like, as you'd mentioned, in Firefly. I know that, personally, when I watched the series, I didn't see any of the weapons and go, "Oh hey, that's an MP5!" or "Wow, they just reused a Sig Saur? Laaame." Instead, despite all those weapons being functionally the same to present ones (in terms of, "Pull the trigger, goes boom") they all looked different.

I'd also like to say that I felt a bit put out by your post; it felt to me that you were putting many words in my mouth. (E.g., "just because the looks of current weapons bother you".) I rather doubt you care enough about me to make the effort to try to get my hackles up, 'cause I'm just some guy on the internet. :p

However, I'd like to point out that, at least to me, the way parts of that post came off was turning me into a straw man, misrepresenting what I was trying to say and then attacking it. I've done my best to avoid making anything personal, where I can. If I've failed in this, please let me know where and how so I can apologize; I don't like being a dick, but that doesn't mean I won't act like one. :p The best I can do is apologize and try to learn from it. Similarly, my hope is that you would similarly try to engage the points brought up (as you so effectively did with your point on plasteel and tech levels) without making the opinions of the other person the issue.

I'd also like to apologize if I HAVE misunderstood you and thus misrepresented your points; lord knows I'm not infallible, so if I've erred in my perception of what you're trying to say, or presented any of my points poorly so they felt like a personal attack, I hope you'll forgive my mistake.

Quote from: CrazyEyes on February 13, 2017, 04:35:58 PM
[snip]
I feel like you've summed up what I was trying to say really nicely! Thanks, CrazyEyes; I appreciate the eloquent sum-up, particularly as it says the same thing much more briefly than anything I write. :p
#5
Quote from: b0rsuk on February 13, 2017, 04:29:31 AM
Plasteel - it is implied it's more resistant to heat because it's a spaceship material, and traditional rockets we have must endure very high temperatures coming from friction against air. Items made out of plasteel in Rimworld are very fire resistant, except power armor and charge rifles for no reason.

Why is a reskin needed ? Why not reskin swords, surely they must look different in year 5500 ?

The way a sword looks stems from
a) physics
b) human anatomy
There are variants, like longswords, rapiers for piercing, sabres which only cut, brittle katanas which require high skill to use because they're made of inferior iron, two-handed swords. But what else could possibly change ?

Similarly, assuming that physics and human anatomy don't change significantly until 5500, how do you infer different shape of a rifle from these ? If rimworlds have roughly the same materials and methods of production available that we have to day, how could they come up with something very different ? Only if there's some kind of discovery that doesn't require very high end factories and high tech production chains.

I assume that weapon design will have aesthetic differences or one very simple reason: they already have aesthetic differences. Compare the M16, G36, AK74, Steyr AUG, and FN FAL. They all have distinct shapes despite the identical physics, human anatomy, and approximate tech levels.

Furthermore, you explicitly assumed no advances in materials and methods. Yet plasteel is a common building product, thanks to the ruins of ancient empires. Similarly, there are other futuristic and pseudofuturistic advancements, such as drop pods. Things have changed, and as such I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the external appearance of some items to change as well.

In summation, it's my belief that, even with relatively minor changes in tech (e.g., new materials), given the variance in rifle appearances today it is not unreasonable to expect that there could be some significant variations in appearance over 3,000 years without modifying the core operating requirements.

As for why a reskin is necessary, that seems to be a matter of opinion. Some people feel that the contemporary weapon looks fits well. Others seem to feel that they're jarring, and don't fit in well with the setting. Personally, I don't have any real preference; I just felt that it bore mentioning that it wasn't unreasonable from a tech standpoint for a different design to surface.

As for advanced sex robots, yup, I fully admit I'm not talking about that. :p Perhaps discussing it has merit, but my interest lays more in the realm of firearm and technical details. What can I say, I'm a nerd. :p
#6
I'd considered contributing to this debate earlier, but after writing a solid three pages, I realized the point that I was arguing wasn't the point being made any longer. It sounds like everyone still here agrees that 1) Kinetic weapons (that is, weapons who do damage by propelling mass to a high velocity and letting momentum damage the target) are more likely to remain relevant in the Rimworld setting. 2) The basic functionality of such kinetic weapons (that is, using chemical accelerants to propel slugs of metal, and the designs to do so) is unlikely to change substantially.

The questions then seem to be, A) Would advances in technology make for any significant design changes, and B) Would a reskin of the current weapons help them fit better within the Rimworld universe? It's worth noting that the two questions do not necessarily have to be related; one could easily suggest that firearms today are likely to be firearms for our rimworlder while ceding that a reskin would make them fit a bit better. Conversely, one could also suggest that the current aesthetics fit better with the setting, even though the functions may change.

Because opinions are like arseholes, I'm going to go ahead and contribute mine. :p To point A I would suggest that advances in technology COULD significantly alter the profile of a firearm design. Things like the Smart-rifle1 could compensate for human error, allowing much longer engagement ranges, thus necessitating a more accurate rifle with corresponding design changes.

Similarly, some sort of futuristic material could conceivably change the way heat is dealt with; a material with a high heat capacity and low conductivity, particularly if brittle but with a high melting point (i.e., wouldn't deform under heat) would make a barrel able to put more rounds through it without deforming and damaging the weapon. Or, as an alternative, perhaps a highly heat conductive metal could conduct the heat away from a hot barrel into extremities on the firearm; as silly as it might look, a gun with heat-radiating frills could, given adequate conduction, allow for a greater volume of continuous fire, and as a result also look quite different from a rifle today.

And yet another factor which is being explored today in the HK G-112 is a floating barrel; simply put, the barrel is free-floating and with its high rate of fire, the user won't feel the recoil from the case until after the last of the three-round burst has left the barrel. This makes recoil much less of a factor. The only reason it wasn't adopted today is because the design, which requires caseless ammunition, couldn't be standardized for NATO.

These are just some examples of possible design improvements. Some would have a minimal aesthetic impact, some would have major. The point here is that the firearms of today tend to be the best we can do today. I don't believe they'll improve by leaps and bounds, as the OP suggested, but I do think there could be enough little tweaks, particularly done in isolation where efficiency and not standardization is the issue, that could make a firearm of the future have a different and distinct profile. Still recognizable as firearms, I'm sure, but as Mikhail had argued, just not completely identical to the ones we have today.

As for part B) I admit I have no real opinion on the issue. The Firefly weapons seemed to have distinct profiles some of the time and familiar ones others. Mal's pistol struck me as distinct from anything I'd seen, while Zoe's rifle seemed to be a standard lever-action one. I don't think a reskin would harm the game at all; whether it's worth it for Tynnan to devote resources to it is another question which I don't feel remotely qualified to answer. :p

1: http://www.tracking-point.com/
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G11
#7
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?
#8
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. :)
#9
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/
#10
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. :)
#11
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.
#12
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
#13
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
#14
I'm going to add my two cents here. Though Tynan has already spoken, and thus the Word of God (tm) is clear, here's an alternate explanation if the WoG isn't enough for you. :p

There are limited seats. Simple as that.

Assuming that they are interstellar traders (or, in other words, if we're ignoring Tynan and thus the source material altogether :p ) then one would expect them to have about as many berths as they have crew. Since there's no FTL travel, they would, as others have suggested, be in Cryo. Cryopods are expensive; without a terribly compelling reason, no point in having more than necessary, particularly as each one requires power to support it.

Could ships have extra berths? Sure. They could each be designed with HUNDREDS of extra berths. Let us suppose a shit has an arbitrary number of berths. Now let's send that same ship on a tour of rimworlds, doing trading. Each settlement they stop at asks for rescue. Further suppose that it's a paid rescue, with an arbitrarily large price tag. Sooner or later, those berths would fill up. And since we're talking some pretty unfathomable distances to the glitterworlds or urbworlds or whathave you in the core, there are hundreds, thousands of stars in the trader's path. To me, the odds seem good that, even with an arbitrarily large number of berths, it would fill up quickly.

Further note that the above is assuming the traders deliberately have many extra berths on their ship. Since they're traders, not Search & Rescue or passenger liners or whathave you, that strikes me as unlikely in the first place. More likely to me is that the traders simply wouldn't have the room; they're not going to kick out one of their own crew for some stranger. And since the distances they have to travel are vast enough to require cryosleep to survive, just hitching a ride out-of-system isn't an option.

A hole in my argument is that the traders have animals. Animals require either food, water, and air, or else some other sort of cryosleep. An argument could be made that, if animals can hitch a ride when we sell or buy them, colonists could, too. If you interpret the traders, despite Tynan's WoG, as interstellar, then the only way this could be is if the traders offload all their livestock before crossing the boundless depths of space.

Of course, all this is just food for thought; Tynan has made it clear that the orbital traders are just that, orbital, and only tour the local system which is pretty much all Rimworld. I agree with Mumble that this raises the question of where the glitterworld goods come from, but it seems that that is, canonically, a different question.
#15
General Discussion / Re: Shotgun missing 1 foot away?
December 01, 2016, 03:04:14 AM
Quote from: Daman453 on November 30, 2016, 11:05:38 PM
Maybe something where if you are low skilled and use a complex weapon, you have a chance of failing. Maybe a cut arm, or you shot your foot. Burns on your hands ect.

This would also be an interesting mechanic. Burns on the hands or shooting the foot strikes me as unlikely, given how difficult it would be to aim a longarm like a sniper rifle at yourself when trying to shoot something presumably some distance from you. However, something less severe and (to me) more interesting would be something like weapon degradation.

The things I'd be concerned about for an untrained shooter would be feed errors (jams and the like) not being managed, general equipment degradation from the total lack of cleaning, and worst of all, a squib load which would destroy the gun and possibly injure the shooter.

Of course, modeling all that would be a lot of work for the programmers. A good compromise, which would double as a fun twist for the game, would be modeling this simply as a change to do damage to the weapon. (This would be a good stand-in for general degradation, squib loads, and the like. Doesn't factor in jams, but I'm trying to minimize changes at first. :p ) This would add further use to lower quality guns; you don't want to give your high power sniper rifle or heaven forbid minigun to an untrained shooter; they'd just wreck it. Instead, things like survival rifles, pistols and the like would be preferred.

I will note, however, that a bolt-action sniper rifle is actually a relatively simple device in terms of operation. The scope is complex, but that would affect accuracy, not the firing of the weapon. However, your point remains valid that a low-skilled shooter may warrant further complications than simply "oops you missed".

I do have a question: how did your level 0 shooter get the sniper rifle? Whenever I draft a pawn, I always have to order them manually which weapon to pick up. Have I just been micromanaging my pawns unnecessarily? >.> Boy would I feel silly.