Stars! comparison

[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.

[Atrocities]

For many years I longed for a game like SE IV and Stars without ever knowning what I wanted was already out. I was in the dark, clueless really about SE and Stars completely until someone turned me onto both games demos at about the same time. I instantly took a liking to both, but fell in love with SE IV. I have never really gotten into stars, but I think I haven't because I want to keep it in reserve.

I had hoped that Stars Supernova Genesis would be completed by now, but that game has langered in oblivion for over three years now.

I still have Stars and really want to play it, but after playing SEIV I find it hard to dedicate the time needed to learn Stars.

What is this Game ruining thing you spoke of?

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

You could check out Stars SG at crisium.com. Sounds cool but there hasn't been any activity or news since the summer of 2002! And Flying Squirrel Sound (does the music for the game) hasn't reordered from my company (duplicates the CD's) since January 2002. Yeah it's dead!

I found there was a little too much micro management involved in Stars. Graphically it wasn't pleasing at all. I played it for a week and went back to MOO2.

[Timstone]

Yup, Stars! Genesis is dead. Unfortunately, coz I wanted to play the game very much. I thought they implemented a lot of cool stuff to seriously give the Stars! game a huge boost in the right direction. Ah well, we'll just continue to wait for SE V.

[gregebowman]

Hmm, never play Stars. I don't even remember seeing it out on the shelves, but that may have been either before I had my PC, or my old PC didn't meet the minimum requirements, so I ignored it. I like the 4x type of games, and will buy most of them if I can. I missed out on Moo1, and didn't buy MOO2 until just before MOO3 came out. Good thing that I did that, from what I've been hearing about MOO3. Lately, I've been having a bLast playing Galactic Civilizations. I kind of alternate between playing GC and SEIVG, when I'm not playing Hearts of Iron. But my playing time will be further condensed once Railrood Tycoon 3 and Civ III: Conquests come out later this month.

[Adastra]

Thanks to those who have played both games and can provide meaningful comparison.

I play Stars during my lunch hour. It is a strategy game so I do not care about the graphics and do not mind the micromanagement.

Stars has a whole list of bugs and features that are simply tolerated, but a couple can destroy a game if they come up. Battles are handled by the battleboard. It does not offer enough control and can occasionally do things that are REALLY stupid. The way it handled reorganizing fleets before the next move also allow a devious person to get away with what I would call cheating.

Does SE4 have these types of issues?

[Cyrien]

If you have strategic combat only on or are playing a sim turn game then the AI can do some really stupid things with your fleets in battle. The difference here between Stars! and SE4 is that SE4 has a much better system for telling your ships and fleets what they should and shouldn't be doing.

What I remember of Stars! combat orders was quite simplistic a list of 4 or 5 things that you could change for targeting lists etc.

In SE4 you can tell it to target only specific things, or things based on what they have and give priorities. IE: Weapons first, then closest, then largest, then fastest and never fire at colony ships etc... You can tell it at what ranges to engage in combat from ramming to point blank to optimal to max range. Tell it to stop firing once the enemy has lost all weapons. What formation the fleet should enter battle in and whether once in battle it should break formation or not and which types of ships should and which shouldn't.

The AI can do stupid things in battle. But in SE4 there is a lot more that you can do about it to make sure it doesn't happen again.

There used to be a few issues with the order of movement when in combat (the person with the lower player number got to go first so the person who joined a game first always had an advantage) that was cleared up in one of the patches and now I would say there isn't anything in the combat that can be viewed as cheating or a bad game bug that can be abused.

I like Stars! a whole lot. On the whole I think if you merged Stars! race design with SE4 race design you would have the perfect race design for a 4x game.

But if I had to choose one to live with and one to not live with it would be SE4G for me and no more Stars!.

[Wardad]

I like the way fleets are created in stars.
Just give a ship or fleet the order to join another distant fleet or ship. When it catches up, it is added to the fleet.

[Cyrien]

I like that as well. In fact I wish you could have orders to catch up and join a fleet in SE4. What I don't like is the simplicity of the battle orders that you give to those fleets.