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

[Zombra]

I want to say controversy shouldn't be a factor.

Too bad.  It is.

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.

Cannibalism and violence are necessary to the theme.  Drugs are a greyer area but much less politically volatile than sexism.

realism 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.

Op 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?

Controversy 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.

Name 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.

[mumblemumble]

it is

not to myself, tynan, and plenty of customers

cannibalism 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.

misquote

My comment still applies

misquote

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?

sexist

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.

skills 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.

[brcruchairman]

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/

[mumblemumble]

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.

[Hierophant]

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.

[DaemonDeathAngel]

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".

[Kastro]

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)

[LordMunchkin]

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.

[Thyme]

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.

[SterilizeAllTrolls]

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.

[pfhorrest]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not relevant to the discussion..

[mumblemumble]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[pfhorrest]

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.

@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.

[mumblemumble]

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 

[skullywag]

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.