Civilians with female voices

[Atrik]

10 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Reminds me of how a minority of people went absolutely ballistic when I updated the game's default cursor. The entitlement is incredibly unreal. 

What @guerringuerrin said, already better, the gendered civilians could be a good addition, but sharing audio with citizen-soldiers creates a small UX regression. Sound feedback matters. This thread isn't intended to be for a rejection the feature, however could be a highlighting for potential refinement. @guerringuerrin tried to orient the discussion on getting the sounds fixed but that didn't help .

 

[Deicide4u]

7 hours ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

No, the people who actually play the game don’t call them that. Maybe a small group on the forum approaches the issue from a nerdy, overly technical angle and see things with such classifications. But I’m talking about real matches in the lobby, what players actually say in-game, not forum terminology. 

Ah, so the "real players" are only players on the lobby for you? You do know that vast majority of this game's player base is outside of the lobby, do you?

7 hours ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

The “women” unit had its own unique role and abilities. Even her voice alone added a sense of balance to the game. Removing it now feels like an almost anti-women move.

This game cares not for your ideological feelings. Take that somewhere else, please. Now you sound like you're arguing about something that this change tried to correct. If you'd read the release statement, you'd know this.

EDIT: On topic, thanks for the mod @Atrik. We should correct the voices in the next release. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Deicide4u
On topic edit

[Dakara]

9 hours ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

I agree. However, the role of women in that period of history wasn’t exactly prominent. Reflecting that in the game, where women are seen as simple laborers, can understandably feel uncomfortable from a modern perspective. That’s probably why a political approach emerged, like “at least let them be equal to men, even if it means making them just as weak.” 

 

This change felt so unnecessary to me that I’m now finding reasons for it on their behalf. 

And that was the life. Women had their assigned role, men had to die for nothing just to please the powerful, and it’s really not much better.

The advantage of having a single model is to easily recognize whether the unit group is weak or not (in order to kill them).

Btw i feel we copy AOE2 and i hate this feeling, 0AD is much better

[ittihat_ve_terakki]

6 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

@ittihat_ve_terakkiBro you claim to be someone "actually playing the game" as if no one else here does

I absolutely never said such a thing. What you’re doing right now is completely manipulating my words and twisting them in a different direction. What I actually said was this: in the game, people still keep saying “women.” So presenting examples from the forum is meaningless because I was talking about in-game terminology. 

6 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

@ittihat_ve_terakkiHave you not heard about sniping, champcav, booming/turling issues, fanas, and all sorts of other gameplay issues that we discuss.

“Discussing” topics does not mean everyone has to agree or that some sort of pressure should be created. You need to understand that. I expressed a different opinion and people are reacting a lot now. We’re talking about a change that adds nothing to the game, and it’s even been pointed out that it creates confusion regarding the voices. The forum exists precisely to discuss things like this. I kind of get the impression that friends here are coming to defend each other. In my opinion, that makes those people seem a bit needy. I think everyone should just be allowed to speak for themselves.  In the lobby, it’s already the same people playing among themselves, so it’s understandable that you use your own terms within your narrow circle. That kind of bromance solidarity might be sweet among yourselves, but it’s not a good example of defending free expression. I’m concerned that some responses seem aimed at discouraging different viewpoints. Because I’ve seen many attempts that are dripping with irony, attempts to talk down, belittle and invalidate what’s being said. Open discussion and respectful disagreement are essential to maintaining the quality and credibility of this forum.

6 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

@ittihat_ve_terakki

Definitely it seems that theres something extra bothersome to you about this change that you haven't mentioned.

I say exactly what I mean. There’s no need to manipulate my words or search for hidden intentions. Removing the “female” unit adds absolutely no value to the game and, from the looks of it, only serves to satisfy the ego of those proposing it.

-

7 hours ago, guerringuerrin said:

Look, if you felt attacked or ofended in any way, I apologize.

This is also the classic form of a manipulative apology: “I’m sorry if you were offended.” A person either apologizes for their behavior or they don’t. Framing the other side as “offended” is a subtle implication in itself. I doubt you’re even aware of these nuances, especially given that you seem to struggle with the idea of free expression and discussion. When someone simply voices their opinion without attacking anyone, calling it “nonsense” is not cool. Then you portray it as “we’re just discussing.” It’s very clear that’s not what’s happening. Suppressing opinions that differ from yours, creating pressure by liking each other’s posts etc. There’s really no need for all that, just chill. This level of mobilization over an update that adds nothing to the game is excessive.

7 hours ago, guerringuerrin said:

Because, as we were discussing here, the intention were not political. Were historical. 

This game has many unsolvable issues if we’re going to be bothered by historicity and realism. It’s a game and essentially no one plays it for strict historical accuracy. Cleopatra wasn’t alive in 0 AD, yet she’s in the game. She’s also a female unit. Should we remove her too? No, because she actually adds something to the game. These “gendered gender-neutral civic equal civilian villagers,” or whatever you want to call it, add nothing to the game.

-

1 hour ago, Deicide4u said:

Ah, so the "real players" are only players on the lobby for you?

Quotation marks indicate a direct citation, that’s how it works. When something is placed in quotation marks, it means those exact words were used. I never used a term “real players,” yet you present it as if I did. Are you ok? What I said is perfectly clear. Maybe read it a couple more times.

1 hour ago, Deicide4u said:

This game cares not for your ideological feelings. Take that somewhere else, please. 

 

Ok let's go there. Wasn’t it you who suggested adding Slavic factions to the game, seemingly because you’re Slavic yourself? "Could you please add Slavs in the next version of 0 A.D.?" If one of us is bringing ideological motives into this discussion, it’s not me. And apparently historical accuracy wasn’t all that important to you either. Look at what you said: “I realize that this is a game of ancient warfare, but I don't think we should strictly hold onto that period. Age of Empires 2 already broke the historical setting they're in, so why stick to it like ‘pijan plota,’ as we southern Slavs like to say.” And now you’re defending a historical correction, oh wonderful. 

You also previously suggested removing the female unit from the game, which might explain why you’re taking this issue a bit personally right now.

There’s a strange tone of condescension in the way you write. “Who cares how people call them in the lobby?” and who exactly are you to say that? Should people in the lobby care about your opinion instead of their own? I’ll say it again: I don’t know who you think you are, but you’re not that person bud.

-

I had to respond one by one to three people now who are desperately defending an update that adds absolutely nothing to the game just because they were the ones who proposed and supported it.

It literally feels like a 3v1 Mainland unbalanced TG lol

 

[guerringuerrin]

2 hours ago, Atrik said:

What @guerringuerrin said, already better, the gendered civilians could be a good addition, but sharing audio with citizen-soldiers creates a small UX regression. Sound feedback matters. This thread isn't intended to be for a rejection the feature, however could be a highlighting for potential refinement. @guerringuerrin tried to orient the discussion on getting the sounds fixed but that didn't help .

 

I tried but I fail. I have a new challenge now.

It's called find the male or beyond the clutter 

[Atrik]

2 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

It's called find the male or beyond the clutter 

Excellent demonstration that models are not the problem here.

[Deicide4u]

8 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

Quotation marks indicate a direct citation, that’s how it works. When something is placed in quotation marks, it means those exact words were used. I never used a term “real players,” yet you present it as if I did

You said, "the people who actually play the game", as if the only ones playing the game are the people you met in the lobby from your narrow social circle.

I will not discuss anything with you anymore, as you're clearly got something personal against me if you've bothered to read my post history from that far.

[ittihat_ve_terakki]

6 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

You said, "the people who actually play the game", as if the only ones playing the game are the people you met in the lobby from your narrow social circle.

 

I think you might have a serious problem with reading comprehension. It could also be the case for you that English not being your best language is affecting your understanding. If you can't grasp the context, why I gave this example and the flow of the conversation, then it's either your fault or bad intent. What I said is very clear and you’re misquoting me. Please, when you quote me, at least make sure you're quoting what I actually said. Just like I did with you.

6 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

I will not discuss anything with you anymore, as you're clearly got something personal against me if you've bothered to read my post history from that far.

It’s probably better if you don’t. I don’t have a personal issue with you, you're just one of the 3-5 random people who jumped in on my post. Take care.

[Arup]

14 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Wildfire Games sincerely apologizes for any inconvenience R28 may have caused to your life. 

louder please XD

14 hours ago, guerringuerrin said:

I’ve already seen many people adopt the term “Civilian” without any issue

me! and its just been like 2 weeks, give it some time and it will be alright

14 hours ago, guerringuerrin said:

Seriously, is having male models working on farms as civilians really that upsetting? It’s kind of funny

when i woke up, he was ranting about the topic and he is still ranting when im back lol. its really funny seeing him trying to counter the "woke agenda" XDD

[Arup]

5 hours ago, guerringuerrin said:

Tabascos link:

I meant the timestamps, baka

[guerringuerrin]

33 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

This is also the classic form of a manipulative apology: “I’m sorry if you were offended.” A person either apologizes for their behavior or they don’t. Framing the other side as “offended” is a subtle implication in itself.
[..]
When someone simply voices their opinion without attacking anyone, calling it “nonsense” is not cool. 
Suppressing opinions that differ from yours, creating pressure by liking each other’s posts etc. There’s really no need for all that, just chill.

You are right. I should have chosen my words carefully and not be part of unneccesary jokes and comments that only added noise to the discussion. I'm sorry for that. I mean it. That was my fault.
 

33 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

I doubt you’re even aware of these nuances, especially given that you seem to struggle with the idea of free expression and discussion.

I have no problem with free expression. Critiquing an argument is not censorship.
 

33 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

This game has many unsolvable issues if we’re going to be bothered by historicity and realism. It’s a game and essentially no one plays it for strict historical accuracy. Cleopatra wasn’t alive in 0 AD, yet she’s in the game. She’s also a female unit. Should we remove her too? No, because she actually adds something to the game. These “gendered gender-neutral civic equal civilian villagers,” or whatever you want to call it, add nothing to the game.

Here I need to defend my position, because I genuinely think this is an exaggeration.
Does having a few birds flying around really add nothing to the game? Or having three different models for the same unit? By your definition, none of that would add anything, and I disagree with that premise.There will always be a cut-off point somewhere. You can always argue that something is unnecessary. That’s why I don’t think it’s a strong argument, because by that logic, something will always be “missing.”
This project aims to be historically accurate. And I do believe this adds something to the game. It may be meaningless to some people, perhaps even to the majority; we don’t really know. But I think it helps reflect what I mentioned before about families and communities being central to agricultural life.
But you are right, we can disagree.
Have a good day.

 

Edited 3 hours ago by guerringuerrin

[ittihat_ve_terakki]

3 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

You are right. I should have chosen my words carefully and not be part of unneccesary jokes and comments that only added noise to the discussion. I'm sorry for that. I mean it. That was my fault.
 

 

I commend your self-reflection here. Maintaining a certain level of discourse is crucial.

Take a look at your friend's approach for example:

 

8 minutes ago, Arup said:

louder please XD

 

He is reducing the issue to something trivial, invalidating it with irony and mocking it, acting like a high school student. But none of that addresses the core of the matter: what has this change actually added to the game? Is it necessary? While I’ve been focusing on these thoughts, someone else chimes in with, "When I woke up, he was ranting about the topic and he’s still ranting when I’m back lol. It's really funny seeing him trying to counter the 'woke agenda' XDD."

Maybe we're not realizing it but through all the hype, groupthink and attempts to trivialize the issue, the quality of the conversation is genuinely declining.

 

12 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

Does having a few birds flying around really add nothing to the game? Or having three different models for the same unit? 

 

Birds add something to the experience. Even if they don't directly affect gameplay, they serve as "eye candy", those subtle details that enhance the feeling the game gives you. Sometimes you can just look at games as you're gazing at a landscape painting. Or even the variety of tree species, it's valuable and it's richness.

Personally, I don't see the removal of "Women" as a positive development because it doesn’t elevate anything. Replacing "Women" with a mixed-gender unit doesn’t enrich the game. Men were already present, so this doesn’t add diversity.

 

17 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

This project aims to be historically accurate. 

 

Do you think Cleopatra should stay in the game? If so, why?

[guerringuerrin]

22 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

Take a look at your friend's approach for example:

He is not my friend, nor is anyone else who has spoken here. What we all have in common is that we are part of this community. In that sense, we are colleagues. I am not responsible for their opinions, and I am not responsible if members of this community who agree with you choose not to explain to the rest of us why they think it’s a bad change. You did, and that’s valuable.. We simply disagree on what adds something and what doesn’t. End of story.
 

22 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

Maybe we're not realizing it but through all the hype, groupthink and attempts to trivialize the issue, the quality of the conversation is genuinely declining

I agree with you, and I have tried to remain focused on the substance of the issue, despite some unfortunate wording on my part. Yes, it is very annoying to have to respond to many people at the same time. I would feel overwhelmed. I also hate 3v1 unbalanced mainland, by the way

22 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

Do you think Cleopatra should stay in the game? If so, why?

I think we have both made our arguments very clear. I don’t believe there is anything to gain from continuing this discussion just to repeat them.

Edited 2 hours ago by guerringuerrin

[ittihat_ve_terakki]

1 minute ago, guerringuerrin said:

I think we have both made our arguments very clear. I don’t believe there is anything to gain from continuing this discussion just to repeat them.

I’ve really stepped out of debate mode, at least with you, because what you said is valuable and you made it clear you want to focus on the conversation. So my question was sincere. I’m curious about your thoughts on having units in the game that didn’t exist in the time of 0 AD. I don’t want to drag the topic out so I completely understand if you’d rather not go into it.

 

4 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

He is not my friend, nor is anyone else who has spoken here. What we all have in common is that we are part of this community. In that sense, we are colleagues. I am not responsible for their opinions

I usually see you guys playing regularly together so I mentioned friendship but really, you could replace the word “friendship” with anything you like, it doesn’t matter. Yes you’re not responsible for his words, but you are responsible for your contribution to how the general discussion evolved, but you’ve already noticed that. 

[guerringuerrin]

2 minutes ago, ittihat_ve_terakki said:

I’ve really stepped out of debate mode, at least with you, because what you said is valuable and you made it clear you want to focus on the conversation. So my question was sincere. I’m curious about your thoughts on having units in the game that didn’t exist in the time of 0 AD. I don’t want to drag the topic out so I completely understand if you’d rather not go into it.

Yes, the issue is that I cannot answer for the historical inconsistencies of the game or for the decisions made by the development team. I'm not even a member of the team. I'm just a civilian male ( just a joke  )  I did not propose this change. However, I consider it a positive one, and I believe it aims to reflect what I already mentioned regarding agriculture. 

How many people do you think are actively working on this project? Many changes are proposed and driven by one or two individuals and later accepted by the team.

Regarding Cleopatra, correct me if I’m wrong, but her reign was roughly around year 0 (there is no year 0, but you get the point). I’m not familiar enough with the exact temporal scope of the game to speak confidently about that. A quick online search places her reign between 51 and 30 BC. Either way, invoking a separate contradiction doesn’t really move this discussion forward.

If this is an “insignificant change,” then it should not be a major issue either—unless it actually breaks something or has negative side effects (such as the lack of distinct voice lines). Some have argued that it adds clutter. But is that due to the lack of voice lines, or the models themselves? It could simply be a matter of personal preference. At this point, there’s not much more to add. 

What I questioned was the appeal to historical rigor taken to an extreme and that as this is a game "every change should affect gameplay". I believe that has been made quite clear.