Should body types and gender actually have an effect on melee and shit?

[Bozobub]

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.

[tocsin1990]

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.

[Bozobub]

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.

[mumblemumble]

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?

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.

[Thyme]

[...]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

[Bozobub]

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.

[mumblemumble]

@ 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.

[Thyme]

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.

[Headshotkill]

...and round and round the merry go round goes...

[Bozobub]

Exactly.  It's glaringly obvious that this subject is a hot-button issue, and probably isn't the best PR for the game.

[tocsin1990]

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?

[uglyduckling81]

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.

[mumblemumble]

@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.

[b0rsuk]

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.

[tocsin1990]

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%.