Unvanquished Forum

Norfenstein has given us four options for build point extraction, as seen in the resources thread.

Here are the four options:

norfenstein wrote:

• Fixed resource sites, global build point pool - The map defines resource sites (Domination-like capture points) and teams build RGSs to claim them, but all build points are drawn from the map's total. We've already decided this isn't the first method we want to try.

• Free placement, global build point pool - RGSs can be built anywhere (but with some kind of limit to how close they can be to each other) and all draw from the map's pool. This is what most of the posts in this thread have been assuming, and is probably the simplest approach.

• Free placement, resource map - Theyain's idea.

• Fixed resource sites, with local pools - Like Domination, but each resource site can run out of build points. This has two variants: RGSs and resource sites are one-to-one, or RGSs can cover multiple sites that are in range. With the latter option, if you have a lot of resource sites it starts behaving like a resource map.

Pick one option and vote for it. You don't necessarily have to explain why you chose it, unless you have something else in mind.

The biggest problem with a global build point pool system is that it allows for camping. Greatly.

i would chose "Fixed resource sites, global build point pool" if the resource site can run out of build points.

A global build point pool allows to build one big base, but to get the build points you cant camp.

Gireen wrote:

i would chose "Fixed resource sites, global build point pool" if the resource site can run out of build points.

A global build point pool allows to build one big base, but to get the build points you cant camp.

That would be option number 4, "Fixed resource sites, with local pools"

First of all, Free placement, global build point pool versus Free placement, resource map creates the impression that a resource map would be a limitation on where build points can be spend but as I understand Theyain's idea the resource map is a different approach on where build points can be acquired and is based on a global build points pool, too. As the title of this thread suggests, the difference lies in the way of extraction. I'd like to add that the implications of both approaches are diverse and can't be summarized in a single sentence as the poll suggests.

I think it's a bad idea to discuss the approaches here as we spend a lot of time to precisely define them in the resources thread. Anything discussed in this thread will be prone to misunderstanding - you will definitely need to read the resources thread before you vote.

Even though I did vote myself I don't think this poll can give us any evidence on what will be the best approach. We've alreay decided that we will need to test more than one approach ingame and since the resource map will be rather tough to program it would be wise to implement a more basic extraction method first and experiment with the distinct methods of acquiration limitations (minimum distance, resouce map, weighted distance (Cadynum's approach), etc.) afterwards.

As fixed resource sites is a tried and widely used method, we should try that second because we are pretty sure it will work. Instead, we should experiment with free placement first.

A remarkably simple thought occurred to me just now. Why not make whether it it's resource map or global pool a server settable variable? Something like sv_pool; 0 is resource, 1 is global

It would seem to me that it would be rather easy to do and gives our players more freedom.

So we can focus on balancing one gameplay mode instead of two.

Ah, but how much more balancing would we have to do with a global pool?

No matter what is chosen I'd prefer the focus of the game remain on combat. Not on construction and gathering supplies.