I took ignorance in the face as soon as I left the place

I have JTwat installed... I know that! <sheesh> Long hours in front of these monitors are age'ing my memory FAST hehe..

Yeah, thats what I meant "Flash" plugin. Most sites today use flash, I've witnessed.

Of course there are sites with java running on webpages! Goosemoose.com started doing it, thats how and why jtwat got created. Now its been expanded and other sites like Campusparty.com and a few others use it. I definately agree that it could be expanded using java and flash, and it shouldn't be too hard either.

Goosemoose
Http://www.goosemoose.com/tradewars/connecttw.htm

Hey all,

My 2 cents are that hell yes I'd like to see tradewars 2002 in a modern version, and in a form true to the original (looking at tradewars.com it seems a little weak). I work in the games industry, and I play a whole lot of them as well, and I still think TW has a couple key concepts that all games are missing:

Completely persistant environment - i.e. you log off you don't "magically fade away"...you, your assets, etc. stay in the game world. Many people would complain that "man, they'll take my stuff" in an EQ world for instance, but hey, thats life. This game you have to be smart about where you bed down at night, where you put your stuff, and who you trust your back to. No game I've played replicates that feeling of "oh crap, if I log off tonight, will I still be there in the morning" or that sinking feeling we've all gotten when we log on to "You were killed by so and so, please come back tommorow".

The second major concept I think has been done in some other games, but especially well here...thats the "community" feel in a game. The rush these days is towards massively multiplayer games of 1-10K people on a server...how would you possibly make enemies/friends/nemises there? With a roster size of < 200, TW has a "small town feel" where people know where they stand, who to avoid, who to trust, who to make deals with, and who to run like hell from

Anyways, JP if you need a hand in a couple months give me a holler

Oh, and a couple technical points:

While I've been straying from ANY j-twat development lately (don't worry, we're in some planning stages for some more stuff...its starting to come back to my interest now, I just needed some time off...been doing it for a year now), I've REALLY strayed from the web/download thing...here's why:

The Web is a lowsy platform to develop for. For one thing you're limited on lots of issues...download size (j-twat 0.95 jar is ~ 500K, a few minutes for some people on modem)...platform. I'm positive you couldn't do jack with flash, so that's out. Java is nice, I like it, but browsers only support 1.1. Like all things, java has gone through several revisions. 1.1 was 3-4 years ago. It sucks. Security limitations also prevent me from writing files, which pretty much puts playing evil out of commision (Goosemoose & I experimented with saving a bust list to the server, but beyond that (CIM/bubbles/options) you're pretty much screwed.) You also can't read user files, so that puts out the idea of any user scripts (that's coming, yes, you heard me). Anyways, that's why I stopped developing for the web page. I think its a neat tool, but very gimmiky. J-TWAT is free. Always will be. The full download (with the Java 1.3 Runtime Environment) is 6 megs. One time. You can't cache java programs from the web (well, you could if the user allowed you to have write access), but by that point, why not have a nice install you can undo? (and in j-twat's case, automatically update).

Also, despite claims to the contrary, its fairly fast (100ms to process 1KB of data? Please. A calculator watch could do it. Please write me if you want an explanation of network speeds vs. computer speeds The display might be a little slow, but I also provide a proxy which you can hook up a telnet client to.

And as I really didn't mean to write this much, I'll be signing off. But I of course have to plug the prog (http://www.j-twat.com) and of course say that if you are really interested in working on the project, give me a ring at badboy@goosemoose.com

Adios,
badboy

-------------------------
badboy@goosemoose.com
ICQ# 105123166

Download your free helper today!
"Isn't it time you put a little J-TWAT in your game?"
http://j-twat.sf.net

I've actually had a good show of interest from game publishers about a TW remake. Basically, all I have to do is write it, and they'll consider publishing it. Of course, I'm not sure I'd want to go through a publisher if it could be avoided. TW has always done well enough distributed entirely over the net. That keeps the expenses to a minimum.

Right now, I'm working on a new low-level game engine. I've also been working on a graphical interface for the game. Once the pieces start to fall into place, I'd like to shift my focus entirely to a new game. And I agree with you about the state of web-based games. I haven't been keeping up on the state of the art, but each time I've looked at it, I've decided that it's smarter to write a full client-server game. The only limitation there is that I want to keep the client small enough to be easily downloaded and installed from the Internet (I want to avoid selling and shipping CDs if at all possible). If the game gets too big for that, it's best to get it onto shelves somewhere. It totally changes the marketing approach.

As for your points about what makes TW interesting compared to other games, I agree with you on one point, and not so much on another. I DEFINITELY think that TW is a better model as far as the number of players goes. That's the big point about this kind of game that I'm pushing. I think the distributed server model that was pioneered by BBS door games is a better bases for modern online games than the monolithic server model that was pioneered by MUDs. Very soon, we'll be seeing wholesale failures in the MMPOG market, and people will start to recognize that the MUD model for gaming is not suitable for the large scale online gaming market. It's a great model, but it was designed around the idea of FREE GAMING. When you start putting in a marketing model, it destroys many key elements of the system. Doors, on the other hand, have been for profit from the beginning. Players will still play for free (as they should), but it can evolve to a system where a game company earns its money selling game clients (as with a stand-alone game) and doesn't have the overhead to support the game servers (another reason that a client-server model is superior to web-based). If I write a TW remake, I want to either sell or give away the servers (depending on how many features are written into it. TW admin features have always been very heavy), but the big change is that I'd want to sell a VERY sweet game client to the players. That's where the real market potential is. I've always gotten by selling the server to the gameops, but the player market is a magnitude or more greater. I see TW as a good prototype for this kind of game, but it's a game model that can be used with a large number of game designs. It's closer to stand-alone gaming than it is to MMPOG gaming as far as design.

The point that I disagree with is the point about persistence and how people are afraid to log off. This has actually hurt TW compared to even other text-based games. TW puts too much of a requirement on the player. A major flaw is the fact that the player has to be online at extern every night in order to really be competitive. I'd like to make some changes that would at least give a player some breathing room so that they could play seriously once or twice per week without falling behind. That's a tall order, but I think the market demands it. Most players just don't have the ability to commit to a game the way TW requires you to. I don't have any solutions in mind for this, but I do recognize it as an issue.

John Pritchett
Epic Interactive Strategy

quote:
The point that I disagree with is the point about persistence and how people are afraid to log off. This has actually hurt TW compared to even other text-based games. TW puts too much of a requirement on the player. A major flaw is the fact that the player has to be online at extern every night in order to really be competitive. I'd like to make some changes that would at least give a player some breathing room so that they could play seriously once or twice per week without falling behind. That's a tall order, but I think the market demands it. Most players just don't have the ability to commit to a game the way TW requires you to. I don't have any solutions in mind for this, but I do recognize it as an issue.


Good point. I think its tough to accomodate all types of players, but I think it can be done. In TW's case, I think it would probably mean having settings the game op can turn on/off to scale the difficulty from "casual" to "hardcore". The "casual" aspect of MMORPGs comes mainly from the fact that you can advance levels at your own pace and still enjoy the gameplay/interactions or whatever. The "hardcore" aspect would be perhaps player killing, where its necessary to be online as much as possible to advance quickly so you can waste the other players. I don't think that's particularly fun, but whatever suits you. I definately think finding a balance between the two is a pretty tough problem for an empire game like TW (your base can't "disappear" when you log off , but maybe things like harder planet defenses, hirable AI teamates, etc could all be used to make you feel a little safer when you log off. I think though you're always going to have the super-hardcore element that spends all their time online, constantly advancing, etc. and those players will seek each other out; likewise the more casual gamer will find servers they like and stick with that.

I'll be interested to see any developments for the new game, and I can offer one suggestion: make everything extensable from the start. Make the client engine API open, and with the model you're going for, the server API too. The more people who mod and trick out your game, the more people who want to run a server. Also, best of luck with the publishers--make sure you have a good lawyer, someone with industry experience as well.

Adios,
badboy

-------------------------
badboy@goosemoose.com
ICQ# 105123166

Download your free helper today!
"Isn't it time you put a little J-TWAT in your game?"
http://j-twat.sf.net

quote: If I write a TW remake, I want to either sell or give away the servers (depending on how many features are written into it. TW admin features have always been very heavy), but the big change is that I'd want to sell a VERY sweet game client to the players. That's where the real market potential is. I've always gotten by selling the server to the gameops, but the player market is a magnitude or more greater. I see TW as a good prototype for this kind of game, but it's a game model that can be used with a large number of game designs. It's closer to stand-alone gaming than it is to MMPOG gaming as far as design.


John, I agree with you 100 percent... As a former and soon to be new Sysop I always thought the bulk of the system needed to be on the client end. All of the graphics engine and what not, leaving the server side to take care of raw game data mad player mapping back to the concurrent clients. And this model does allow for a much better profit base than chargeing the game op for the server.

I had modeled out something very similar to this back in the mid 80's but as the internet took off and the BBS's were dying out I scrapped the idea and started writing my code for the Insurance Company I work for now.

There was once a graphical interface for TW I think it was called TWTerm or something like that.. I never used it so I dont know exactly what it did.

TW has always been in the back of my mind as probably one of the best concieved door games ever. I really want to thank you for keeping it alive... I re registered a copy from you last night, as I feel you have done remarkable work with the code. When I had origionally registered was with Gary back around version 1 . After looking at the gold modifications that you have made and the telnet server for the game it was well worth the money that I paid... I hope to be up and running this weekend..

Once again thanks

CSG

Formerly Millamber, Sysop of Riftwars VBBS



Edited by - csg on 12/05/2001 2:41:17 PM

Hello all,

TW is an excellent game, and I remember invading back in the door days with my corpies on the telephone, cuz only one of us could get in the game at a time.

If you are shopping for a publisher for a graphical version of tw, I'd urge you to approach Origin. The game Privateer is quite similar to tw, (if you exclude the story line) except that you cannot build planets. My 2¢, but I don't think it would be too difficult to use that game engine, (I really like the flight & battle play) make some changes allowing player created planets, etc....

I still play Privateer 1 & 2 today. One copy sold!

L8r,

Lightfoot

C'ya...in an escape pod!

quote:
Will Tradewars ever evolve into a graphical game?...... it is kick butt now but with graphics it would really rock BAWLS!!!
Just wondering if graphics will ever be in the future of the game, possibly moving toward a boxed program available at your local "Megasoftware store" that could be played online, local play as well as online server play, with alien races that could be activated or "classic" style if so desired.

Just a thought.....

P-A-N-T-H-E-R..... coming to a sector near you....

quote:
I have looked at and discussed the upcoming new company
on the block with the powers that be some time ago. The
new big guys bring this blockbuster tradewars isn't really
what I had envisined to be the Tradewars evolution. But
hey, thats just this ole wizard.
I think if JP had the time and the financial support from
tw fans- he might be able to start from scratch a new game
engine that would still have the same strategy as has JP
tried to maintain throughout all these years as distinguished
to some kinda shootem up arcade style game category type of
entertainment. Don't get me wrong- Merlin loves graphics!
but the new big guy on the blockbuster has a whole new different
strategy. I think if everyone were to contribute say about $500+
USDollars, JP could make the game what he really wants it to be
and with the support of all us tw fans... the big companies don't
feel the same way. I definately will put up some money, if others
do in order to make a real graphical game like what the tw community
really wants. I may presume too much, but I would say $20,000.00
goal per year ($500+/yr/member) would definately attain what we want
and within a year's time - we would have it. I believe JP will back me
up on this one. Anyway, that's this ole wizard's input... :>)

P-A-N-T-H-E-R..... coming to a sector near you....

Ok, maybe its just me, but I thought that Jumpgate was essentially TW with graphics. I mean, thats why I started playing again. I was in the open Beta of Jumpgate and wondered if TW was still alive and kickin. I saw Jumpgate for sale at my local EB, and figured they went ahead with it...it looked decent...



Morden Khai-SysOp
Uncharted Space TWGS
Telnet IP:24.23.154.190
Email: gshatraw@home.com

[quote]
Hmmm. Well, if that's what the jumpgate is indeed about - I may have been remiss. I hope you are right. :>) Is there am ETA on the jumpgates completion? I will talk with JP about it soon. Thanks for the info.
-Merlin-

sforsythe45@hotmail.com

It's good to see you back in the forums, Merlin

Well, there are games out there that I would say are definitely in the same genre as TW, only with Graphics. Jumpgate, perhaps (not to be confused with the Jumpgate portion of TWGS that I'm working on, which will be a web site that auto-lists TWGS servers), and Mankind. I'm happy to see any quality games that push the space trader genre. As mentioned above, Origin has done some excellent work in the genre, with Privateer and other games. But none of these games could be a graphical Trade Wars. What we're talking about here is a game that plays very much like the classic Trade Wars, only with a graphical interface. It's a much more difficult task than it may seem at first, because there are important parts of Trade Wars that can't possibly survive the transition. But I've been studying it for years now, and I do believe that a game can be written that would appeal to the old crowd as Trade Wars, not as a game that's LIKE Trade Wars, and that would also appeal to a whole new crowd because all of the subtle elements of Trade Wars would become more obvious to new players, and because it would appeal to them visually first, before hooking them with its gameplay and depth.

There are about a hundred little elements in the Trade Wars design that can't be changed without turning the game into something different. You can't just create a game that has ports and trading and ships and combat and then say it's Trade Wars (how many games are there out there that do that? Hundreds. And some actually call themselves Trade Wars whatever). To the extent that Trade Wars is a genre, not a specific game (because of the history of the game's development, it's a bit like a MUD where there are many different games all calling themselves MUDs because they derived from the same root code), these games are all Trade Wars. More correctly, they're all Star Traders, the core game that led to all of these other games. But Trade Wars 2002 has achieved a gameplay formula that is very solid, that none of those others have, and it's that formula that I would try to reproduce in a graphical game (if it's possible). Anyone who wants to create a game that's basically like Trade Wars can do so, and they can even use the name Trade Wars. But it is this specific implementation of Trade Wars that I own, and I believe it's a unique and valuable resource that has a future.

As for what Merlin proposed above, I think it's a bit too simplistic. Actually, the Trade Wars gameops already fund my efforts pretty well just through the sales of TWGS itself. I don't think it would be possible or appropriate to ask for donations from the existing Trade Wars crowd in order to get this done. All I can say is, it's something that's high on my priority list, and I've been tinkering with it since about 1995, and I continue to do so. At the right time, it might really start to take shape. Right now, I'm working on it along with TWGS/TW support, and about 10 other projects. I would very much like to be seriously working on a TW remake with the intent of releasing sometime during 2002, but we'll just have to see how that goes. If Realm's project goes public and starts to generate some revenue, that'll give me the funds to support a major project. And there are other projects I'm working on that could bring in the kind of money I'd need to develop a top-notch product. If I have to go it alone, it'll probably continue to move along slowly, but it will continue to move along.

John Pritchett
Epic Interactive Strategy

PS: I've had no shortage of interest from the TW crowd to help me to develop a Trade Wars remake, and there are some very talented people out there. What I've discovered is that I'm going to need to have at least a basic game developed, something playable, before I could actually benefit from the help offered by these people. So if I can get to that position, then I'll post what I have and we'll see about getting a project going from among die-hard TW players and gameops who are interested.

quote:
The point that I disagree with is the point about persistence and how people are afraid to log off. This has actually hurt TW compared to even other text-based games. TW puts too much of a requirement on the player. A major flaw is the fact that the player has to be online at extern every night in order to really be competitive. I'd like to make some changes that would at least give a player some breathing room so that they could play seriously once or twice per week without falling behind. That's a tall order, but I think the market demands it. Most players just don't have the ability to commit to a game the way TW requires you to. I don't have any solutions in mind for this, but I do recognize it as an issue.


Easy ways to solve most of this problem and still retain the unique TradeWars persistence (within TEXT TradeWars, these are suggestions for a future v3 version, or maybe v4, not the graphical version only!):

Allow maximum stored turns to be a different variable in tedit from turn generation per day. i.e. 600 turns/day, 2400 turns max. This would allow someone to play once every four days with no loss of turns. There are still huge advantages to playing daily, of course, but this would at the very least remove a MAJOR disadvantage of playing less frequently than daily--in this example, a permanent loss of 1800 turns.

As for keeping people from having to be online at extern, something as simple as not towing players until the SECOND extern after their last logout, if applicable, would go a long way toward that. Or releasing towing from being tied to extern at all and instead making it X hours (18? 24?) after their logout that they're towed. (Feds come around hourly and put chalk marks on your engine? ;>)

Really, extern in general is ready to be removed from TradeWars, IMHO. Everything extern does can be compounded by the minute or hour just like everything else in the game. NavHaz reduction could be done 1% per 8 hours (default), and just NEVER allow NavHaz in MSL's (or at least clear it hourly instead of daily).

Planet collisions could just be checked on the daily anniversaries of the sector being overloaded. i.e. if the sector became overloaded at 9:05:19 AM 04/19, then at 9:05:19 AM 04/20, the sector would do a collision check. Or, if keeping track of this by the second is too much load, just do an hourly check of sector planet counts and increment a counter if a sector goes over, zero the counter any time a check shows the sector okay, and do a collision check if the counter hits 24. Simple, and only requires a daily login to keep in check, not a login just before and during extern.

None of this would be a real bear to code, since so many things are already done by the second or hour anyway. It might add slightly to server load, but since the "legacy" code is already in there, you could make both ways of working things possible and make it a tedit setting, so people trying to run a 100 node server on a 486 could turn on "Classic Extern" or whatever.

And none of these changes would kill the classic TradeWars feel. It would still BE TradeWars, not just LIKE TradeWars, and while those people who CAN play 16 hours a day 7 days a week would bitch and moan against these changes because they'd lose some of their advantages, I can assure you the vast majority of players would welcome them.

quote:
And none of these changes would kill the classic TradeWars feel. It would still BE TradeWars, not just LIKE TradeWars, and while those people who CAN play 16 hours a day 7 days a week would bitch and moan against these changes because they'd lose some of their advantages, I can assure you the vast majority of players would welcome them.


All these things and more have been discussed (planned) for Trade Wars 2002 v4 when (if) it is developed. It should be a good equalizer between players who have limited playing time and players who can make extern every night. It will also bring back into line some of the limits that extern was supposed to enforce.

Lisa M. Wilson
aka Rave

quote:
quote:
And none of these changes would kill the classic TradeWars feel. It would still BE TradeWars, not just LIKE TradeWars, and while those people who CAN play 16 hours a day 7 days a week would bitch and moan against these changes because they'd lose some of their advantages, I can assure you the vast majority of players would welcome them.


All these things and more have been discussed (planned) for Trade Wars 2002 v4 when (if) it is developed. It should be a good equalizer between players who have limited playing time and players who can make extern every night. It will also bring back into line some of the limits that extern was supposed to enforce.


That's half my point though. v4 may or may not happen, and I tried to make suggestions that could be easily added to v3 in future revs, as well. i.e. things I'd like to see sometime in the next two years, not just within the next two decades :quote:
That's half my point though. v4 may or may not happen, and I tried to make suggestions that could be easily added to v3 in future revs, as well. i.e. things I'd like to see sometime in the next two years, not just within the next two decades :

The problem is, v4 isn't intended to replace v3. The players who like the game as it is now (many, many) would be able to play v3 games on a server right alongside (hopefully) a broader audience of players using v4.

Really, I think the only way to pull off any major changes such as this would be with an entirely new release of the game. Doing anything else would be like changing the rules of professional football during halftime of the SuperBowl.

Lisa M. Wilson
aka Rave