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

[Hieronymous Alloy]

There is actually scientific data showing women are more accurate shooters than men, although men may shoot faster. The theory is it has to do with a lower center of gravity.

https://www.quora.com/Shooting-Are-women-rated-as-better-shooters-than-men

[mumblemumble]

Lower center of gravity I think is less part of it, than smaller hands meaning more precise movements.

See, the bigger you are, the harder it is to make smaller movements. Its easy for someone to be precise in moving something say, 1% of their height with precision, but as you scale up, in size in hands, muscles, ect, this precision grows harder.

I suppose then women would have higher accuracy, but slower aim / recoil speed. But this would not apply to automatics.

[Hieronymous Alloy]

Women also have some advantages in eyesight -- better color perception etc. It's a very small difference though that only manifests in a fraction of the population.

[Razzoriel]

There is actually scientific data showing women are more accurate shooters than men, although men may shoot faster. The theory is it has to do with a lower center of gravity.

https://www.quora.com/Shooting-Are-women-rated-as-better-shooters-than-men

I'm just going to give out this link here for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_shooting

Then I'm going to show you statistics just to disprove this notion you're trying to push (for convenience, just listing the categories which both men and women participate):

Men
50m Rifle (3 Positions)   
1642
10m air rifle   
836,3
10m air pistol   
783,5
Trap   
146
Skeet   
145

Women
50m Rifle (3 Positions)   
691,9
10m air rifle   
624,3
10m air pistol   
587,1
Trap   
99
Skeet   
99

Difference:
137,31%
33,95%
33,45%
47,47%
46,46%

Result: We can argue, on the most pro-woman analysis, that women in shooting perform 40% worse than men, and this number may reduce to 33% when using air-propelled firearms.

[Hieronymous Alloy]

You're making a statistically invalid argument. Far more men compete than women, so just by probability more of the top shooters will be men and the top men are likely to outperform the top women, because there is a dramatically larger pool of men to select from because more men enter shooting sports.

The relevant question is if you take ten men and ten women randomly off the street how will they perform against each other after training.

Edit: 12 of the past 20 National Teachers of the Year have been women. That's not because women are better teachers, it's because more women enter teaching.

[MarcTheMerc]

Presumably rimworld people have been through so many generations of genetic modification that they're only nominally still human anyway.

Lore explicitly says humans have not been evolutionary changed. they have not been changed be evolutionary pressure, nor been modified.

Actually the lore of the game says the complete opposit "Beyond the technological diversity of our species, there is also a broad biological diversity. Some populations have evolved under the selection pressures of pre-industrial life or on a world of great heat or cold, or high or low gravity, or even worlds bathed in the toxic residue of hyper-destructive wars. Though almost all such xenohumans (as they are called) are recognizably descended from the original Earth stock, their morphology is highly variable. Some are giants; other are tiny or squat. Some are dark; others pale as snow. Some are hairy like animals; others perfectly smooth. Diets, dispositions, and chemical and radiological tolerances vary significantly." -https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fUO3KKbAbTxMP1lqphnnodY0NPoOVblCUkDw-54MDUc/pub.

[Thyme]

It's the year 5.501 when you crashland. ~3.500 years is far from what evolution needs to unfold.

[Hieronymous Alloy]

It's the year 5.501 when you crashland. ~3.500 years is far from what evolution needs to unfold.

I think the presumption is we aren't talking about natural evolution so much as artificial. Though even short-term abrupt changes in environment can cause dramatic changes in a population (as the classic example of london moths changing from light to dark and back during the smog years demonstrates).

[Whistler]

I pity this generation or more accurately the creative restriction era.

[Bozobub]

Excuse me?  YOU aren't the one making the game.  Mod it yourself, and then you have something to say about "creative restriction".

Tynan has given his opinion and it has absolutely nothing to do with your silliness.

[Thyme]

[...] Some populations have evolved under the selection pressures of pre-industrial life or on a world of great heat or cold, or high or low gravity, or even worlds bathed in the toxic residue of hyper-destructive wars. [...]

MarcTheMerc is talking about natural evolution.