Stars! comparison

[SpaceBadger]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Sequential turn with tactical combat vs your buddies can be quite entertaining. The ability to control all your pieces during combat head to head with another human is great

How do you do tactical combat in multiplayer? Is that in a hotseat game?

SpaceBadger

[Cyrien]

Yes. Head to head against another human would be hotseat for combat. Real fun. I remember wooping on my room mate in the original SE4.

And I would have to say that I think SE4 is a better game than Stars. I loved Stars and played it for a year or two but haven't played it since I got SE4 Gold. I think SE4 Gold would have been a competitor for Stars SG if it had ever come out. Sadly it hasn't and probably won't and Stars! by itself really can't compete with SE4G in my opinion.

Stars! has a few features I would like to see in SE4 but SE4 has many many more to make up for it. I'm feeling too tired to get into it point by point right now...

Well... try the demo and if you like that then the real Version is even better (several patches more advanced than current demo I believe).

Just my opinion and thoughts on it.

[ October 18, 2003, 01:20: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

[Erax]

Stars! had better race and planet design. The way Stars! handles planetary conditions may not be ideal (I still don't understand how a planet with too little radiation can be inhospitable to your race), but it's still miles ahead of any other game I've played.

That being said, I think SEIV has the advantage in every other area.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

i think our bodies rely on a certain minimum background radiation.

[Suicide Junkie]

There are studies that show too little radiation can increase the risk of cancer.

The graph of risk vs radiation looks like a rounded checkmark.

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/00...41890000_2.gif
from
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...890000&catID=2

[oleg]

Those graphs show no error bars. It is a no go for a real, serious science. Also, there is no mentions of sampling sizes.

However, if it is indeed statistically significant, I would really like to see the theory behind !
-----

Edit - I checked the original papers and it may reaaly be a case. Hmmm...

Moderate drinking is benefitial to the health. It is a very well established fact now. But how about low-dose smoking ??? Is it possible that one or two sigarets per months can actually make you better off ?

[ October 20, 2003, 22:20: Message edited by: oleg ]

[QuarianRex]

Oleg:
As far as questioning the relevance of the graphs and such, please realize that you are not reading the published article, but merely a sound-bite type of summary.

As far as the soundness of the theory... well it has been known of and used for millenia. ancient herbal remedies often included noxious ingredients that, if used in the right amount, had the opposite effect of what you would otherwise expect. Another great example is the practice of using leeches as a curative. Leeches were not used out of ignorance, they were used because they worked, the barbers at the time just didn't know the actual reason why. Having several wounds, superficial though they may be, throws the immune system into action. To greater action that is required to counter the feeble leech attack. The now aroused immune system would then confront whatever other ailments there were (worms, sniffles, the black plague, etc.). Therefore leeching (and bleeding in general) became a general cure-all because, in some ways, it was.

This type of effect is especially apparent with chemicals. The japanese practice of eating blowfish (one of the most poisonous creatures in the world) is so dangerous not because it is hard to remove the edible part of the fish, that is quite easy, but because it is hard to leave in just the right amount of poison. If the corect amount of neurotoxin is left in then the dish provides a pleasant euphoria. The same goes with strichnine, a small enough amount can get you high. Same with nicotine. It is one of the most deadly poisons we know of (it is often used as rat poison) yet in small enough doses it can be pleasantly addictive (and atually acts as a memory enhancing drug due to its mimicry of the brains own neurotransmitters). In fact, neuologists often advise the victims of certain types of stroke to keep smoking (against their family doctors advice) since it may be the only thing that is allowing them to remember their own name. The possibility of cancer is an acceptible risk in such circumstances and can be dealt with when it comes.

[Renegade 13]

I think aquiring the rights and work already done would be prohibitively expensive for a company of Shrapnel's size to consider.