I've always thought the way we do opens is pretty iffy. I understand that open games are far more prone to breaking, but I think it's a shame we don't let mods have any say in the games they select. Even if we didn't allow them to design a game, I'd suggest something like this:Vi wrote:The catch being that if you have an Open setup that's any good, you should be bringing it up to the Open Setup review thread.That way we'll play your setup instead of these silly 5P Vengeful refugees from the Marathon forum
That reminds me, I need to put the Sliding Scale of Openness on the wiki.
Give a library of game types possible to select from, sort into categories and perhaps sub-categories where games in the same sub-category are very similar to each other and games in the same category are similar at least in style. Say that no game with the same setup as one that has been run in the past 10 games may be run, no game from the same subcategory may be run within 6 games of the last one and no game from the same category may be run within 3 games of the last one (or something like that, the numbers are adjustable). Then let the mod choose the game to run.
Have the open mod, instead of picking games, continually review, add and delete games from the open library (based on when a game is broken or whatever).
I'm not fond of the top-down approach. I think it removes a lot of the investment a mod has with his games, and even though I fully expect every mod to see the game through to the end, when a mod is kind of meh about a game, it shows and it affects the rest of the game. Giving even a little choice helps. I also think that a more natural variety will come up.
