Torque Trade Wars
by John Pritchett · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 03/29/2005 (10:07 am) · 21 replies
I recently posted a general thread about my desire to become involved with a team of Torque-based indie developers, primarily in the capacity of designer/director, but in that thread, I mentioned one of my games, Trade Wars, and my ongoing goal to eventually create a modernized remake of the game. For those unfamiliar with it (it's way old-school!), Trade Wars started its life as a BBS door, one of the first multiplayer online games, in fact, and while it has continued to evolve to this day, and is still actively played, it's a text-based game.
Here's my history of Trade Wars for those who want the full background: www.eisonline.com/twhistory
Anyway, I decided to branch off of that post because most interest seems to be in a Trade Wars project rather than general game design.
First, I'd like to say that while I'm a novice in Torque development, and I empathize with all of the other novices and I'd like nothing more than to help others learn along with me in this project, I really do need to hook up with some experienced developers here. Trade Wars is at an advanced stage of design, is an ambitious project, and what it needs is an experience, dedicated and passionate team to make it a reality. So first priority would be putting together a core team. After that, a major part of Trade Wars has always been the hobbyist/3rd party developer community and I think there will be ample opportunities to allow people to become involved to gain some valuable experience.
So this is a start. With this thread, I want to assess general interest in such a project, and the level of talent that is willing and able to contribute. Phase 2 will be to post a .plan to really flesh out my goals for the project and present existing design elements. Phase 3 will be (crossing my fingers) to formulate a team.
And BTW, if you're a team involved in a project, but would love to consider this down the road, let me know. Time is not an issue for me on this. TW has been around as long as some of you, and I've personally been working on TW since 1994. I'm in no hurry. I'm patient and I know its time will come eventually.
Somewhere along the way, I want to fill in my profile so people can get an idea of what I would bring to the project. For now, if you're interested, have a look at my somewhat outdated portfolio at www.eisonline.com/portfolio
I'll be honest, a Torque Trade Wars is a more ambitious game than I had intended to start with. That is the point of my other thread. There are a number of less ambitious but viable and interesting game designs I would love to undertake before jumping head-long into this remake. If you're interested in discussing that option, leave feedback on that thread at www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=28088
Here's my history of Trade Wars for those who want the full background: www.eisonline.com/twhistory
Anyway, I decided to branch off of that post because most interest seems to be in a Trade Wars project rather than general game design.
First, I'd like to say that while I'm a novice in Torque development, and I empathize with all of the other novices and I'd like nothing more than to help others learn along with me in this project, I really do need to hook up with some experienced developers here. Trade Wars is at an advanced stage of design, is an ambitious project, and what it needs is an experience, dedicated and passionate team to make it a reality. So first priority would be putting together a core team. After that, a major part of Trade Wars has always been the hobbyist/3rd party developer community and I think there will be ample opportunities to allow people to become involved to gain some valuable experience.
So this is a start. With this thread, I want to assess general interest in such a project, and the level of talent that is willing and able to contribute. Phase 2 will be to post a .plan to really flesh out my goals for the project and present existing design elements. Phase 3 will be (crossing my fingers) to formulate a team.
And BTW, if you're a team involved in a project, but would love to consider this down the road, let me know. Time is not an issue for me on this. TW has been around as long as some of you, and I've personally been working on TW since 1994. I'm in no hurry. I'm patient and I know its time will come eventually.
Somewhere along the way, I want to fill in my profile so people can get an idea of what I would bring to the project. For now, if you're interested, have a look at my somewhat outdated portfolio at www.eisonline.com/portfolio
I'll be honest, a Torque Trade Wars is a more ambitious game than I had intended to start with. That is the point of my other thread. There are a number of less ambitious but viable and interesting game designs I would love to undertake before jumping head-long into this remake. If you're interested in discussing that option, leave feedback on that thread at www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=28088
About the author
Indie developer since 1994, games include TradeWars 2002 (named 10th best PC game of all time by PCWorld magazine), TW: Dark Millennium/Exarch/Dungeon Runners, and Rocketbowl 360. Have worked for Martech Software, 21-6, EIS and Black Squirrel Studios.
#2
Example: Player A enters Sector X. Player B has a fighter posted in the sector. This fighter sends a message to Player B, who isn't really playing, but has a bot controlling his game. The Bot captures the fighter message (event) and triggers a kill procedure. It warps a planet into Sector X, then enables the planet's PIG (Planetary Interdictor Generator, a gravitational well generator, if you're not up on TW jargon ;). Player A reflexively hits the retreat key, but it's too late. As the ship attempts to leave the sector, the PIG triggers, holding the player in place. And as the PIG triggers, the planet's Sector Quasar Cannon also automatically triggers, delivering enough firepower to reduce the ship to particles. Voila. Through Bot programming, players have created a fighter-based weapon so powerful that no ship, regardless how powerful and well equipped, can survive. So much for gameplay balance!
While this kind of Bot-controlled play is actually quite extraordinary, and I have another game design similar in many ways to TW that keys on bot-play, TW itself needs to get back to its roots, to recover some of the balance it has lost.
03/30/2005 (9:36 am)
2) One of the biggest problems with Trade Wars is tedious gameplay. The TW community has always overcome this problem through automation, first macros, then scripts, now bots. Heck, in some TW games today, not a single live human is playing. That's progress in many ways, but it has also killed the game for many. Bots break the game in a number of significant ways. Because while automation is good, instantaneous reactive automation is bad. I've made a number of changes to the classic game to combat this problem, but it is still fundamentally flawed, and only a new design approach stands a chance to solve the problem outright.Example: Player A enters Sector X. Player B has a fighter posted in the sector. This fighter sends a message to Player B, who isn't really playing, but has a bot controlling his game. The Bot captures the fighter message (event) and triggers a kill procedure. It warps a planet into Sector X, then enables the planet's PIG (Planetary Interdictor Generator, a gravitational well generator, if you're not up on TW jargon ;). Player A reflexively hits the retreat key, but it's too late. As the ship attempts to leave the sector, the PIG triggers, holding the player in place. And as the PIG triggers, the planet's Sector Quasar Cannon also automatically triggers, delivering enough firepower to reduce the ship to particles. Voila. Through Bot programming, players have created a fighter-based weapon so powerful that no ship, regardless how powerful and well equipped, can survive. So much for gameplay balance!
While this kind of Bot-controlled play is actually quite extraordinary, and I have another game design similar in many ways to TW that keys on bot-play, TW itself needs to get back to its roots, to recover some of the balance it has lost.
#3
03/30/2005 (9:37 am)
3) Aside from reactive scripting, automation has very positive uses. It has always been clear that automation should be part of TW, and it always has been, as long as telnet clients have allowed copy and paste. A modern TW should integrate automation into its design, exposing it equally to all players, not just those creative enough to come up with their own systems of automation. This can include a macro/scripting control language built into the game, that would allow capture and playback of common commands, in a controlled manner. But one thing I'd love to do with this game is create a primary gameplay paradigm that centers on automated rather than manual trade and exploration. It's fun to do these things once or twice, and a player should always have the choice to go out into space with a ship and bare-knuckle it. But really, the thrill is gone pretty quickly, and you're left with the daunting reality that you need to deliver 5000 loads of Ore to the Centauri Sector before sunrise ("East bound and down, load 'em up and truckin'!). The biggest shift in a new TW should be from micro-management to macro-management. I would prefer to allow a player to run a number of background, automated ships, some for exploration, some for trade, some for smuggling even, and the player can then simply focus on managing his game state. If you want to trade down a port pair (a pair that your scouts reported the day before during automated exploration), you'd set up the parameters of the trade operation and assign one of your limited number of trading ships to the task. Then you can track progress. And progress will continue, perhaps over a week's time, whether you're online or offline. No need to spend 6 hours per day to be competitive, just get on now and then to manage your game, keep your processes running, etc.
#4
Another part of the game will clearly be more player driven. As one player is running automated trade routes, another player may want to put together a marauding party and go disrupt one of these routes. Such aggressive actions will never be automatable. And that's the central gameplay of the game, that balance between automated processing and disrupting automated processing. Player A might have trade routes running that will generate a million credits per real day, but another player can disrupt a number of those routes, severally limiting the actual profit earned while the other player is off-line. Your goal should be to create situations that give your ships the best possible chance of completing a tasks. If you're trading ports, for example, fortify the trade lanes between those ports. Or better yet, use ports within a protected bubble of space, so marauders need to get past your Quasar Cannons before they can harass you.
A TW server will not only need to handle N players, but it'll need to be able to handle M automated background ships per player, 24/7. I've done a good deal of design toward this requirement, and I'm confident it can be done. Maybe TW won't handle 1000 players per machine, but that's really not necessary with an XOG (Extended Online Game, like TW) because unlike POGs where one monolithic site handles everyone, there can be hundreds of different game sites for players to visit. An optimal game really needs about 25 serious players. And a given server typically only runs about 4 games. TWGS (the game server that manages current TW games) allows a maximum of 100 players, and the most I've ever seen on one server was 80. So I do believe this is a reasonable design goal. Especially given the fact that background tasks can be slowed down immensely (and should be for a number of reasons) because a player is no longer directly tied to it. It is no longer tedious. Trade operations that currently take a few hours could take a few days. The pace of the game can change, resulting in a more laid-back environment in which players can maintain a powerful game presence with at most an hour a day and perhaps even less.
I've just used a thousand words to describe something that most of you would fully comprehend by a simple comparison to a modern RTS. In Warcraft, you don't mine gold by controlling your peasant back and forth between the Gold Mine and the Town Hall. You give him directions and let him go. Often you later find out that your peasant got squashed somewhere along the way, and that's a setback. But it's not so critical that you feel you needed to babysit the peasant through the whole mining operation. This is how it should be in a new TW.
So almost every (non-aggressive) tactic that players have devised over the years should be integrated into automated tasks. This includes basic port-to-port trading, obviously, but it should also include more advanced tactics like trade and steal routines for Reds (evil players). And that leads me to 4.
03/30/2005 (9:37 am)
(continuing with 3)Another part of the game will clearly be more player driven. As one player is running automated trade routes, another player may want to put together a marauding party and go disrupt one of these routes. Such aggressive actions will never be automatable. And that's the central gameplay of the game, that balance between automated processing and disrupting automated processing. Player A might have trade routes running that will generate a million credits per real day, but another player can disrupt a number of those routes, severally limiting the actual profit earned while the other player is off-line. Your goal should be to create situations that give your ships the best possible chance of completing a tasks. If you're trading ports, for example, fortify the trade lanes between those ports. Or better yet, use ports within a protected bubble of space, so marauders need to get past your Quasar Cannons before they can harass you.
A TW server will not only need to handle N players, but it'll need to be able to handle M automated background ships per player, 24/7. I've done a good deal of design toward this requirement, and I'm confident it can be done. Maybe TW won't handle 1000 players per machine, but that's really not necessary with an XOG (Extended Online Game, like TW) because unlike POGs where one monolithic site handles everyone, there can be hundreds of different game sites for players to visit. An optimal game really needs about 25 serious players. And a given server typically only runs about 4 games. TWGS (the game server that manages current TW games) allows a maximum of 100 players, and the most I've ever seen on one server was 80. So I do believe this is a reasonable design goal. Especially given the fact that background tasks can be slowed down immensely (and should be for a number of reasons) because a player is no longer directly tied to it. It is no longer tedious. Trade operations that currently take a few hours could take a few days. The pace of the game can change, resulting in a more laid-back environment in which players can maintain a powerful game presence with at most an hour a day and perhaps even less.
I've just used a thousand words to describe something that most of you would fully comprehend by a simple comparison to a modern RTS. In Warcraft, you don't mine gold by controlling your peasant back and forth between the Gold Mine and the Town Hall. You give him directions and let him go. Often you later find out that your peasant got squashed somewhere along the way, and that's a setback. But it's not so critical that you feel you needed to babysit the peasant through the whole mining operation. This is how it should be in a new TW.
So almost every (non-aggressive) tactic that players have devised over the years should be integrated into automated tasks. This includes basic port-to-port trading, obviously, but it should also include more advanced tactics like trade and steal routines for Reds (evil players). And that leads me to 4.
#5
By retaining all of the advanced tactics invented over the years by resourceful TW players, the new game can retain the classic feel, but by rolling those tactics into the game itself, it can overcome the "secret society" syndrome that the classic suffers from today more than ever.
03/30/2005 (9:37 am)
4) Over the years, players have created their own game tactics, playing the game in ways never intended by the designer. A new TW needs to take ownership of those tactics. The game should be less about players figuring out subtle and abstract secrets (bugs, often) and using them to their advantage. It should be more about advancement within the game. To use a port and steal tactic, for example, the player need only achieve the required level of advancement as a Red. Advanced tactics are exposed within the game in an obvious way, giving players clear goals to achieve, and allowing them to plan their strategies accordingly. Classic TW tends to be a secretive community, where the "in crowd" has all of the secrets, and these secrets are not passed on to you unless you become one of the "elites". While this is one of the things that has kept TW alive among a small, devoted group, for so long, it is not conducive to enlarging the game's audience.By retaining all of the advanced tactics invented over the years by resourceful TW players, the new game can retain the classic feel, but by rolling those tactics into the game itself, it can overcome the "secret society" syndrome that the classic suffers from today more than ever.
#6
That's a basic introduction to the new interface. I'll save the dirty details for later.
Ok, I'm sure I've lost most people, even those who love Trade Wars, so I'll stop here. I could go on for days discussing design changes for Trade Wars. But I just wanted to give people a start, to see if anyone agrees with me that this game has potential in the modern online gaming community.
03/30/2005 (9:38 am)
5) I am going to stop short of listing even the top 10 design changes I have in mind, but I didn't think I could end without mentioning something about graphics and interface. This is what most people think of when they think of a modernized TW. There have been a long list of "modern TW" games, actually, including Earth and Beyond, for example. The tendency is always to retain the space trader elements but otherwise make it a space sim. That's not what I'm about here. Trade Wars need not be anything more than a 2D game. In fact, creating a realistic space sim interface will limit what gameplay it can provide immensely. What I want to provide is a simulation of the kinds of displays and interfaces that the player might be using in "reality". In reality, if a person was actually managing a fleet of ships, planets, a whole corporation, it would be all about management, and not at all about controlling your ship with a joystick. The primary goal of the interface will be to provide as much information as possible to the player, and provide the least complicated means of control of the player's resources within the game. A representation of a sector, then, should provide for the possibility that there are 1000 ships, the vast majority for which the player has no concern. Tools are available to isolate certain ships based on certain criteria, and some ships are automatically highlighted for various reasons, for example hostiles, so a player can focus on them and ignore the "background" of the others. Such a design is best achieved in 2D, with icons, and to some extent, even lists, rather than real ship views. Real views can be provided, on request, for interest, but not necessarily for interaction.That's a basic introduction to the new interface. I'll save the dirty details for later.
Ok, I'm sure I've lost most people, even those who love Trade Wars, so I'll stop here. I could go on for days discussing design changes for Trade Wars. But I just wanted to give people a start, to see if anyone agrees with me that this game has potential in the modern online gaming community.
#7
03/30/2005 (10:12 am)
Hehe I remember TW back in the day. I actually got started in game development when I was hired by a local company to write door games for thier BBS. What a trip down memory lane :)
#8
You mention that you are looking for a team to make a Torque version of TW, I am willing to listen to your thoughts and maybe have you join our team to develop it. We are currently working on a different project right now, but we would be interested to look for a new project like TW after.
email me at ian.duchesne@gmail.com directly so we can talk some more?
03/30/2005 (10:17 am)
Woohoo, what a flashback. I loved playing TW. I'm actually impressed that it's still going and alive.You mention that you are looking for a team to make a Torque version of TW, I am willing to listen to your thoughts and maybe have you join our team to develop it. We are currently working on a different project right now, but we would be interested to look for a new project like TW after.
email me at ian.duchesne@gmail.com directly so we can talk some more?
#9
03/30/2005 (11:50 am)
TradeWars is a classic and i'm betting people will be knocking down your door to work on the project. I remember waiting till midnight so that i could log back into the BBS and get another 200 turns. I can't wait to play it. =) 
#10
Trade Wars is one of my all-time favorite games =) My first game programming project was creating an MFC/OpenGL (I know *wince*) version of TW.
If I were to approach this project, I would build the game in T2D first (*much* lower art requirements) and then move over into some kind of 3D environment later.
03/30/2005 (2:07 pm)
I did the same thing (waiting till midnight) =)Trade Wars is one of my all-time favorite games =) My first game programming project was creating an MFC/OpenGL (I know *wince*) version of TW.
If I were to approach this project, I would build the game in T2D first (*much* lower art requirements) and then move over into some kind of 3D environment later.
#11
03/30/2005 (2:24 pm)
TW peaks my interest....
#13
05/20/2005 (7:45 pm)
You know this would be an excellent candidate for a GID project, TW in 3D/2D any D and done in a single day no less! :) I ran the first BBS in Utah hosting a TW game, the Old phone number for my BBS still rings pretty much off the hook today according to the poor folks who inherited it. Note that this is nearly 10 years past me shutting it down.
#14
Glez
07/19/2005 (12:58 pm)
Tradewars rocked - I remember logging into our local BBS everyday to play, and hated running out of moves for the day. I programmed a little BBS game called S'Cool Daze for our local BBS, but dunno what happened to it (you made trouble in school, trying to get away with as much as possible and simultaneously get in as little trouble as possible). Man, I kinda miss those days :)Glez
#15
-Ajari-
07/19/2005 (1:21 pm)
Damn what a trip. My girlfriend was one of the 7 or 9 team members that worked on Trade Wars at Realm in 2000 to 2002. She was a 3D artist and the only female on the team. I'm glad to hear someone is going to finish the game.-Ajari-
#16
Very cool though, I like the macro automation ideas. I can see that this project will be very interesting to follow. Good Luck
-Warspawn
07/20/2005 (7:01 am)
I used to run a BBS back in the day as well. Tradewars was definitely one of the most popular games. I think that going with T2D first would be the way to go. Seems like a more natural way to go from text to 2d instead of 3d. Although T2D is still early adopter and I dont think they have the network code in yet... so I dunno.Very cool though, I like the macro automation ideas. I can see that this project will be very interesting to follow. Good Luck
-Warspawn
#17
For everyone else, I'm talking to a group of Torque developers about doing a Trade Wars project starting sometime next year. I'll try to keep the GG community updated on that, for those who are interested. Nothing to report as of yet, though. Everybody is busy on something else.
07/28/2005 (10:49 pm)
@Ajari: You know, I was just thinking about when I first went down to visit Realm. I met your girlfriend while I was there. I can't remember her name now... Dang. She wasn't there when I went to work for them in 2002. How's she doing? Is she working in the game biz? Does she stay in touch with any of the other team members? I have most of their contact info if she cares to.For everyone else, I'm talking to a group of Torque developers about doing a Trade Wars project starting sometime next year. I'll try to keep the GG community updated on that, for those who are interested. Nothing to report as of yet, though. Everybody is busy on something else.
#18
It is very nice to see a few BBS owners out there again. I used to play TW alot for about 5 years I think... At the moment, we're using Torque as a base game engine to create a fantastic and innovative new MMOG called "The Paradise Project". We have a small team working on programming, another team working on 3D, another team working on ... well other aspects of game design. (for you interested in what we're doing, here's the link to the forum (www.tpp-online.com/forum)). Anyway, we're hoping that we'll be beginning serious work with John, to produce the new TW.
Basically, John would do most of the programming stuff while parts of my TPP teams would be used as assets to work out the graphics (mostly 2D but with some 3D).
@Ajari: Do you know a guy called Montage Hix? He's currently working on our TPP project but he used to work with Realms on the TW project somewhere in the time your girlfriend was in there.
Anyway, we at Sylien Entertainment, are quite proud of collaborating with John to bring TW to life next year. As one of you guys said, it shouldn't take long to do. However, I really want to do it beautiful, balanced and professional so I think we'll be putting good effort into it.
Sylvain, CoDirector of Sylien Entertainment. www.sylien.com
08/01/2005 (6:32 am)
Hey guys. Hi there John.It is very nice to see a few BBS owners out there again. I used to play TW alot for about 5 years I think... At the moment, we're using Torque as a base game engine to create a fantastic and innovative new MMOG called "The Paradise Project". We have a small team working on programming, another team working on 3D, another team working on ... well other aspects of game design. (for you interested in what we're doing, here's the link to the forum (www.tpp-online.com/forum)). Anyway, we're hoping that we'll be beginning serious work with John, to produce the new TW.
Basically, John would do most of the programming stuff while parts of my TPP teams would be used as assets to work out the graphics (mostly 2D but with some 3D).
@Ajari: Do you know a guy called Montage Hix? He's currently working on our TPP project but he used to work with Realms on the TW project somewhere in the time your girlfriend was in there.
Anyway, we at Sylien Entertainment, are quite proud of collaborating with John to bring TW to life next year. As one of you guys said, it shouldn't take long to do. However, I really want to do it beautiful, balanced and professional so I think we'll be putting good effort into it.
Sylvain, CoDirector of Sylien Entertainment. www.sylien.com
#19
@John and Sylvain: She is constantly in touch with Montage Hix and Kevin Megginis who just landed an art job at Blizzard she told me. All three of these guys have jaw dropping tallent.
-Ajari-
08/02/2005 (1:06 am)
@John: Her name is Colleen Delzer. We are doing pretty good out here in California. She is honing her skills by working on a short animated film she masterminded while she looks for work in the industry. After Realm she said she was a little burnt out with the long hours but she is starting to get back into it. I will send you her email address.@John and Sylvain: She is constantly in touch with Montage Hix and Kevin Megginis who just landed an art job at Blizzard she told me. All three of these guys have jaw dropping tallent.
-Ajari-
#20
Even better that John and Montage know her personnally.
Cool for Kevin Megginis at getting a job at Blizzard though. I LOVE their products.
Sylvain Rochon, CoDirector of Sylien Entertainment. www.sylien.com
08/02/2005 (7:19 am)
Very cool. I know Montage has been doing very good work with us so far. I was just talking with my 3D art team leader about the possibility of getting another good 3D artist to create the world yesterday. We don't need anyone right now but next year we would probably need another person, especially with a second project like Trade Wars to do graphics for. If Colleen is still looking for work at that time, we'd be glad to have her if she's as good as you say!!! :) Even better that John and Montage know her personnally.
Cool for Kevin Megginis at getting a job at Blizzard though. I LOVE their products.
Sylvain Rochon, CoDirector of Sylien Entertainment. www.sylien.com
Associate John Pritchett
Default Studio Name
In many ways, it feels like a post-mortem when I talk about TW and "what went wrong". Only TW really hasn't yet died. It's like a zombie. It's an ungodly, horrific mass of code, yet it somehow manages to keep shuffling along.
The last classic TW revision I released was less than a year ago. I continue to support and modify the current game. But I've always felt that there are inherent flaws in the design that make the game too cumbersome for today's average gamer. So simply changing it from a text to graphical client isn't the whole solution. I've identified a number of fundamental changes that are intended to overcome the tediousness, decrease the player's committment, etc. My goal, really, is to retain the spirit of the classic game in a format that seems fresh and new, and that will appeal to modern gaming sensibilities.
Here are a few things I've targeted for change:
1) Some of you may remember "extern", the external game processing that takes place every night, typically at midnight. This was a necessary evil of all persistent BBS games, and it has been particularly problematic for TW over the years. While TW hasn't been subject to the limitations of a BBS since 1998, the design decisions required by "external nightly processing" permeate the game. It has been possible for some time to provide background processing in realtime to achieve such things as clearing out FedSpace and the MSLs (major space lanes), dissipating radiation and debris from destroyed ports and ships, progressing production and construction, spawning new aliens, etc. TW, going back to the late 80s, had elements of a persistent real-time strategy game, and first and foremost, a new TW will take advantage of modern RTS design to become a persistent RTS. So that's one intended change, overlaying modern RTS design onto TW, replacing nightly updates with realtime updates. Many goals will still take days to complete, but progress will be ongoing and apparent, perhaps even having continuous effects on your game state. Resources and credits, for example, could be drawn off in realtime as you manufacture your new Citadel.
The repercussions of this change alone are immense, and I could go on for pages discussing the design changes. The important thing is, it is a fundamental change, yet it retains the basic feel of the game. It removes limitations carried over from a simpler time, and allows TW to become what it ultimately should become, but it'll still be TW.