Regarding the build point refunds, I'm ok with setting the default ratio to 1.0. ... For that reason I'd like to make the ratio a variable so we have the option to tweak it slightly below 1.0 later on. My opinions: I'd like it to be balanced only by tweaking the time it takes to reclaim build point...

I'm somewhat sure though, that as long your own direct economy gets better from killing enemies, there will be a camping problem. I'm not as sure. Funds-for-kills does give an incentive to camp, but there could easily be enough disincentives (or limits) that it wouldn't be a problem. We don't need ...

The way you gain and spend all kind of resources should make sense. If by "make sense" you mean "be realistic" then I'd say that's exactly the opposite of how you should design a game that isn't a simulation. Aesthetic justification can always be found ex post facto and, while v...

I'll take a stab at non-building resources. Assumptions: Unvanquished will have building, and it will use a resource collected from the map itself, via some kind of resource generating structure (RGS). Players should be able to upgrade themselves somehow. Teams should be able to expand what player u...

1) There is one resource that both teams need to acquire. 2) That one resource pool is used for all aspects of a team’s progression (stage advancement, building, and individual compensation) This is a very novel approach, but I think having only one resource would be too problematic for all but the...

I've been thinking about this more and am starting to think that a decaying rate of build point disbursement adds little and complicates things too much. I think we'd be better off simply having one map-wide total (defined by the map, probably overrideable by the server) that depletes linearly in di...

If we go with the assumption that Unvanquished should be accessible as possible, then this question can be rephrased as what is the game responsible for teaching players? For example, if the game is intended for people familiar with Quake 3 derived games then the game wouldn't be responsible for tea...

Let's try to close this question. There appears to be a consensus that sudden death should not be a part of the game because the game should naturally come to a satisfying conclusion somehow . We realize that there will still be cases where this doesn't happen, so there should still be a timelimit s...

It sounds like there's a consensus for 20-40 minutes being ideal (irrespective of the inclusion or omission of sudden death ). Realize what this is saying is that if we find in playtesting that most games end before 20 minutes then the right course of action is probably to restructure the early game...