Railworks America

Having finally purchased the Weardale and Teesdale route, I started checking Steam Workshop for scenarios, especially those involving my favorite railroading activity, shunting. Happily, I discovered quite a number of them and most that I have run are very clever and enjoyable. Unhappily, some of them require a larger than usual number of DLC packs that I do not own. Although I have taken advantage of RSC's recent 40% off sale to make my collection match that of some of those scenario writers, I would like to suggest that all scenario makers take into consideration that not all TS fans, especially, of course, the newer ones, have bought every DLC that has come along.

Yes, I am aware that one of the purposes of Steam Workshop is selling more and more DLC -- that is quite obvious. However, that doesn't mean that scenario writers cannot restrict themselves to the rolling stock provided with a particular route, especially one so rich in assets as the W and T. In fact, I suggest that before including rolling stock beyond that provided with the route, scenario writers add up the cost of any additional DLC they would like to use and include the total in the description of their work.

I hereby shut my trap in anticipation of s and hope for some .

Thanks.

Good idea, especially with so many new folk jumping on board.

Agreed, a route should come with a dozen simple scenarios using included or "default" assets.
For workshop scenarios, however, I understand why the author would want to use more assets to make it more interesting.

I notice that a new route from DTG is always followed by a few workshop scenarios from an "official" source such as Elphaba, that use only included assets. I suppose this is done at DTG's request.

It was many moons ago that I stopped buying DLC just to use in a scenario. I even downvote scenarios that have tons of DLC. I understand the desire for realism and variety, but there's no reason a scenario can't be written for default and one, or at most two, extra DLC. Fortunately, there are plenty of some of the best scenario writers, like TobBirk, that understand this principle. I find plenty to run on my favorite routes that don't require additional purchases, and if they do, I happily give them a pass.

That is your choice. As long as folks post what you need to run the scenarios I think they can do whatever they chose since the price is free.

I agree with Buzz. I also think it's quite unfair to down-vote a Workshop scenario just because it uses a lot of DLC. People spend considerable time writing those scenarios. The more DLC they have in them, the more time and effort they have to put in (because more DLC means more unique consists that take time to build, place and route). Then they upload them and make them available for free. These people have feelings and I can imagine how disheartening it must be for them to be rewarded with a thumbs down. If it were me, I'd be very upset. It must surely discourage some people from continuing to share their work. Instead of a thumbs down, why not give it a thumbs up, as a thank you, but if you didn't genuinely like it, then write a comment suggesting improvements? Or if you really do feel the need to give the scenario a thumbs down, at least add a polite comment explaining the reason.

How is that possible? I mean to run an scenario with multiple DLC, you do not have and down-voting it?

Anyway I sympathize with OldProf for posting his plea.
I am very young at TS2015/16. I acquired the game in June during the summer sales (it was just a coincidence, a good one, btw)
I have mostly followed Elphaba and Steve Van Epps scenarios. I have had great moments with Elphaba scenarios.

From Steve I haven´t been able to play a single one, due to the so many DLC he uses to make his extraordinary work (I have watched several videos of his scenarios).

And one of the problems I have experienced, is that more than half US scenarios use Sherman Hill (Maybe a 70%), a route I decided to postpone.
I was about to buy the route when I heard it had to be part of TS2016 content.

I think some jimmies have been over-rustled. I'm not running rampant through the workshop down-voting things right and left. There are three options: up-vote, no-vote, and down-vote. All three have a meaning and a purpose. A down-vote means there is something you really don't like about the scenario. On a few occasions, when scenarios have been posted with a dozen or more DLC, particularly when there are assets appropriate in the default route itself, and some DLC appear to have been included merely for variety's sake, I have down-voted the scenario and explained why, politely, in the comments. I really don't like that...hence the use of the provided metric.

I would think that anyone who takes the time and trouble to build a scenario would like to have people run it and enjoy it. If you include a dozen or more DLC, how many people are going to be able to do that? There are scenarios written recently that include DLC you can't even get any more. I don't down-vote those, but I do think it limits the audience a fair bit.

I'm fairly effusive with my up-votes and comments of approbation when a scenario has been enjoyable.

mrennie wrote:I agree with Buzz. I also think it's quite unfair to down-vote a Workshop scenario just because it uses a lot of DLC. People spend considerable time writing those scenarios. The more DLC they have in them, the more time and effort they have to put in (because more DLC means more unique consists that take time to build, place and route). Then they upload them and make them available for free. These people have feelings and I can imagine how disheartening it must be for them to be rewarded with a thumbs down. If it were me, I'd be very upset. It must surely discourage some people from continuing to share their work. Instead of a thumbs down, why not give it a thumbs up, as a thank you, but if you didn't genuinely like it, then write a comment suggesting improvements? Or if you really do feel the need to give the scenario a thumbs down, at least add a polite comment explaining the reason.

Thank you, Mike, well said on all points. Having posted more than 300 scenario to Workshop which have been downloaded 600,000+ times in total (and generally been very well received, thankfully), I can say from experience that those individuals who choose to "down vote" a scenario seldom to never (which is to say basically never) provide comment as to the reason. That provides the scenario contributor absolutely no specific feedback or constructive criticism as to why a scenario is being down-voted or what might be improved. And it is readily apparent from results tracking that creating scenarios that use a range of DLC in an effort to recreate the diversity of an era and/or that are especially challenging result in a higher percentage of down votes, which essentially punishes a scenario writer for trying to be creative. I, too, wonder how many aspiring scenario writers have simply given up after freely giving their time and effort only to have a small group of anonymous individuals "vote down" their efforts without explanation.

Here I stand in the middle of the road again. I think that Ephelba and Rennie are quite right in saying that giving a workshop scenario a without explanation is less than useless, however, I think that Griphos is also correct in voting a scenario containing too much DLC and providing an explanation is a very good idea. In other words, a vote without explanation is not helpful to anyone. Come to think of it, a vote without explanation isn't very helpful, either. Regardless of how I vote, I almost always provide a comment as well. In fact, I would prefer being able to leave a comment without any vote and therefore in my opinion mandatory voting is one of the worst rules RSC or Steam (no idea which is responsible for this) has ever established.

Just one more comment: a flippant response in either direction is worse than none at all. When someone takes the time to leave a comment, I far prefer something substantive and helpful rather than a couple of meaningless cheers or sneers.

Okay, one more again: I still stick with my original comment: workshop scenarios that require a lot of DLC are counter-productive, since the chance that other possible players will own the same combination of packs as the scenario writer is fairly slim. Before the advent of AP folders, using RW_Tools to swap rolling stock was fairly easy, but now it has become a much more taxing business. Similarly, while the TS Scenario Editor can be used to swap a player engine, doing the same for an AI engine is impossible, since neither the engine nor its instruction discs appear in the editor.

Now that I see Elphaba posting here, I have to say I have enjoyed much your scenarios and passed many hours of fun running them.

jalsina wrote:Now that I see Elphaba posting here, I have to say I have enjoyed much your scenarios and passed many hours of fun running them.

Very kind of you to comment, thanks, and glad you have enjoyed the scenarios.

There are two scenario writers that I look for and d/l everything they offer as long as I have the DLC. Both of them seem to me to be judicious in their use of additional DLC. Both of them write thoroughly enjoyable scenarios. Not that others don't, but these you can always count on.

Don't miss Eliphaba's and TobBirk's for both Us and UK swimming fun.

jalsina wrote:Now that I see Elphaba posting here, I have to say I have enjoyed much your scenarios and passed many hours of fun running them.

Agreed. These are no brainers for me to subscribe to.

As for too many DLC you guys need to see the ones for German routes.Those individuals love the variety. I personally wouldn't downvote a scenario just because of what's required to run it. However I do wish the system and/or creators would actually show the information on what's required in a clear manner. This is always a killer because sometimes you end up running one only to find out you don't have what's needed. Once there you have no choice but to vote since TS won't let you get out without doing so.

We should also consider the asset developer's point of view.
What would be the use of creating 3rd-party assets if no one used them is scenarios?

An interesting solution I've seen is that some scenario authors publish two versions of a scenario: one with DLC and one with "default" assets.
Once the scenario is working with DLC assets, it is a simple matter to swap them out with default ones, without affecting the scenario's logic.