I've merged two questions into one thread:

1.) Do we support mods?
2.) Do we want different game modes? if, how many? minimum and maximum?

2)
Having a number of game modes sounds like a good idea but we should declare a main mode so we can focus our balancing efforts. The other modes shouldn't be designed before the behaviour of weapons and classes has come to a stable point so we aren't tempted to tamper with them and break balance for the main mode. We should have a low number of modes so we can balance all of them to a competitive level. We don't need to ship mindless (read UBP) mods that merely change some cvars and can't be played in a scrim, the community will supply these eventually anyway.
My proposition is a total of three game modes. The main mode should represent all of the ideas we devise in our vision statement. One of the other modes could have a focus on fast paced combat action while the other could stress the RTS elements of our game.

1)
We already support mods by design (a server can have any qvm and distribute arbitrary pk3s) but we need to establish support on a higher level, meaning that a mod gets a name and a namespace. Mod name and version should be listed on the server browser and downloading pk3s from a modded server shouldn't turn your local server in a multi-mod-mutant. If we ship game modes, the name of the mode should be listed instead. Mods should NOT get a separate config directory with clones of the base game's config files. OpenArena proves that this leads to a horrible mess of out-of-sync config files with binding revisions spread randomly among mods.

Viech wrote:

2)
Having a number of game modes sounds like a good idea but we should declare a main mode so we can focus our balancing efforts. The other modes shouldn't be designed before the behaviour of weapons and classes has come to a stable point so we aren't tempted to tamper with them and break balance for the main mode. We should have a low number of modes so we can balance all of them to a competitive level. We don't need to ship mindless (read UBP) mods that merely change some cvars and can't be played in a scrim, the community will supply these eventually anyway.
My proposition is a total of three game modes. The main mode should represent all of the ideas we devise in our vision statement. One of the other modes could have a focus on fast paced combat action while the other could stress the RTS elements of our game.

1)
We already support mods by design (a server can have any qvm and distribute arbitrary pk3s) but we need to establish support on a higher level, meaning that a mod gets a name and a namespace. Mod name and version should be listed on the server browser and downloading pk3s from a modded server shouldn't turn your local server in a multi-mod-mutant. If we ship game modes, the name of the mode should be listed instead. Mods should NOT get a separate config directory with clones of the base game's config files. OpenArena proves that this leads to a horrible mess of out-of-sync config files with binding revisions spread randomly among mods.

1) I agree fully with the idea of one combat oriented mode and one strategic/ teamplay oriented mode. 2) As far as mods go I am pretty neutral as long as it is clear to everyone that they are indeed playing a mod and what the mod does. We don't want newbies confused by how different the game plays depending on which server they are playing on.

1) I think high quality mods add to the longevity of the game by keeping players from being bored and are a potential source for fresh gameplay ideas. We should try to make modding as accessible and painless as possible so new modders will be more likely to find something interesting to do instead of just fiddling around in tremulous.h. A good set of tutorials is probably the simplest way to approach this. I think we should try to have resources that explain everything from packaging a mod to creating a new weapon, class, or game mode. Improving modding accessibility should probably be a fairly low priority until the game solidifies more, but it’s something we should be thinking about as we make other large changes to the code base.

2) I think Viech's idea about game modes is a good principle to focus our game design efforts around.

1.) Regarding mods, we want to support the sort of mods on the level of KoRX, not mods like the X server or Unlimited Build Points. Clearly, we want quality here, or else people are going to play modded servers and get turned off by the nonsense 'fun' they provide. Of course, you can't exactly tell people to make quality, they have to learn how to do it on their own, and you don't want to restrict them. Thus, I feel it's best to leave it up to the community, and provide them with tutorials and advice. When people make good mods, I can feature them on the front page of the site, and they can gain official status. By having official status as the endpoint, people will feel more of an incentive to produce quality work. The garbage can safely be ignored.

2.) Game modes are a good idea, but that can be left for later. For the moment, we need to focus on what standard Unvanquished is. At the moment, if we made game modes, they'd be departures from Tremulous, not Unvanquished.

Team Annihilation.

Mods, will of course, be supported by design. Having a strategic and competetive gamemode and several arcadish gamemodes will be best. Arcadiah gamemodes should be votable. Further, we ahould add a mod manager for sufficiently mature mods that will allow mods to be installed in ease.

Ishq wrote:

Further, we ahould add a mod manager for sufficiently mature mods that will allow mods to be installed in ease.

I know Steam has some sort of model to facilitate installing mods available from the store for their games; if we ever get ourselves on Desura, we should find out if they have a comparable mechanism, and, if so, how to utilize it.