What do you think of the idea of a Download of the Week Competition?

Would you like to see a Download of the Week Competition on these forums?

  • Yes

    Votes: 78 62.4%
  • No

    Votes: 34 27.2%
  • Not Sure

    Votes: 13 10.4%

  • Total voters
    125
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Whilst I'm wary of the idea of such a competition, I also feel that different creators have different skill levels which will have an impact (and Vinnie - I think you will find N3V only remove things from the DLS in certain circumstances like copyright violations).

Shane
 
I have to agree with NIARTcar. This has the potential to turn into a gigantic can of worms.

Promote Trainz but I don't think this is the way to go about it.

Finally - Isn't it a bit redundant? Doesn't download count do the same thing?

Ben

Ben
 
I think it's excellent to be able to see a good layout now and then. We create our own for a while, then we're scratching our heads to work out what we'll do next.

Over the years, I've downloaded dozens from the DLS and found a few really good ones that I can modify to suit my way of thinking and I keep those. Any others that don't have what it takes, I delete, but before I do, I always look for an asset that I have not seen before and take note of it.

It's a great idea.
Cheers,
Roy
 
The NMRA has always had contests and the DLS is getting 400 uploads a week so you can not keep up on what is good and what is bad, this could help find the good.
 
...as the title asks:

Would you like to see a Download of the Week Competition on these forums?

...to be honest and straight to the point:


hell-naw.gif
 
Last edited:
I would have to agree with the statements made by Vinnie. Yes, the DLS is a place for people to share their work, but it shouldn't be a place to pack full of, dare I say, CRAP.

Make content people would like to see, not just random CRAP.

Just because you think looks good, DOESN'T mean it is. (I've learned that the hard way in my time here)

My votes a 'Nope' until there's more regulations on what gets uploaded.


Also, as a side note, how about we just add a score system to the assets, ie, the ability to 'like' assets.

Think this is a great asset? Like it.



That's all I've gotta say.
 
Last edited:
The idea of having subjective rules to what gets uploaded would be the ultimate can of worms. We already have objective (& machine-testable) rules as to what gets uploaded and N3V gets stick for that (and so many others), though these rules only go to improve content.

Decisions about usefulness or aesthetics must inherently be subjective. The person responsible (and presumably N3V as, it seems, always) would end up as the target of so much unpleasant abuse that it does not bear thinking about. Also, this person would be tied up almost full-time on this onerous and thankless task and would not be available for development tasks (either improving TANE or developing new products and services).

Why does N3V need to develop new products and services? Because it is a business! If cash flow falls below a certain level, it is in danger of dying. This would mean the death also of our hobby. I certainly do not want that. Do you? N3V may be a business, but it is doing business in our favour.

The same goes for these petty squabbles. These must inherently drive people away, N3V's cash flow falls, N3V dies, our hobby dies and everyone loses. These forums are not, or certainly should not be, a forum for petty bickering, name calling and fruitless dispute, but for for rational, well thought out, positive, even passionate discussions leading to positive outcomes for us all. Isn't that what we all want?

Peter.
 
My vote goes in favor of no this time around. While I like the idea to extents, the horizon is just to broad for it to work in this setting right now. Personally, I would think it would work quite better if it was drawn up assets at the time of the competition. I don't think that people should go to the DLS, and dig stuff up, because where is the filter going to be? Somebody digs a fantastic asset for TRS2004 up, adds it to the competition, X people with TS12 SP1 or TANE download it, and find out it doesn't work in that version, and then it turns into a trash talking ground of either those who use old versions of the game or the content creator himself, because he made an asset that doesn't work in TS12 or TANE. That's not really going to improve the hobby in any way, shape, or form.

In terms of content creation, it needs to be specific as to what the asset is, and I think for the given time frame, should always be something scenery related. Locomotives and rolling stock in general take a long time to get to perfection. Far longer than a week to make it right. Again, there isn't going to be filter, so anybody can dig something up they want, once again causing the very issue mentioned above. It gets worse for rolling stock and locomotives because people hardly ever see eye to eye on what they consider detail and such. This will turn a friendly competition into a war zone that will end up driving more creators away than it will do good for the hobby.

Personally, a system that could work would look like this:
Theme for asset of the week: Warehouses
Rules: Asset must be made fresh and adhere to all CoC guidelines, other than that, the sky is the limit!
Voting criteria: Functionality
Creativity
Usefulness on layouts
Appearance

When we as the users go to vote, we have to make our vote in ACCORDANCE to those criteria, deciding which one was most suitable.
Voting: Each person has 1 vote regardless of how many entries. And they must weigh one of the criteria, they can lean heavily on one of the above, but they must consider all before voting for any one asset.
When voting, you provide feedback on why exactly you are choosing the asset, and then give a brief feedback on all the other assets providing the up and downs that you personally seen with each asset.
I think that by each voter providing feedback on the ups and downs of all the assets, not just the one would help the hobby grow, as it would help the creators drive this game further into the future with the help of the users. But sadly, it can also turn into a war ground, and there is no safe guard anywhere on this forum for this. Certain people will want to use that as a way to bash the creator, bash his work, and not be constructive, and when they do so, their post should be removed, and their vote not count. This should be a 3 strike policy. 3 strikes, and your out of the game with a ban, and then bans continue for users caught doing this multiple times until they get that it is not a way to bash, be childish, and a henderance on our hobby.
I think emphasis should really be about the user provided constructive feedback rather than the competition itself, thus why I believe that upsides on each one of the assets should be discussed.
I think in that form, we could really propel assets which propel the hobby into the future. Because then when the assets used on routes and etc are better, than so are the routes and stuff. The future could be bright, if people do it right.

As peterwise stated:
The same goes for these petty squabbles. These must inherently drive people away, N3V's cash flow falls, N3V dies, our hobby dies and everyone loses. These forums are not, or certainly should not be, a forum for petty bickering, name calling and fruitless dispute, but for for rational, well thought out, positive, even passionate discussions leading to positive outcomes for us all. Isn't that what we all want?
That is a statement that I couldn't agree more with, and sadly will occur on this front, and end up driving more people away than it creates excitement. It is for this reason, that strict rules must be put into place to ensure that the children of the forums do not come here, and start petty bickering for the mere hatred of N3V, TANE, and other people. It is also one of my main considerations, and reasons I vote no. There really is no control of these people, and sadly, they will continue to harm any perceptions of good of this hobby.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And given that people are already using this thread to criticise the creative efforts of others, this is doomed to failure and will just create a flash point for more bickering, Voted No.
 
Also, as a side note, how about we just add a score system to the assets, ie, the ability to 'like' assets.

Think this is a great asset? Like it.

I'll second that. The download count is pointless and self-fulfilling - it doesn't record that people downloaded something because it had a good download count, thus adding to the count, but then discarded it because it wasn't much good.

Implementing a 'Like' scoring system would be much better use of N3V resources than trying to manage a pick of the week that will only generate argument and criticism.
 
Whilst I like the idea of a "like" or "rating" system that a user can opt in to, it will always be subjective and applicable to the specific version of trains that user has downloaded it for.

For example, if a user is running T:ANE and installs an asset that works but was built for TS2, they might rate it low as it is really not suitable for their version.
A different user who is running TS2 might download the same asset and rate it highly as it is the best for that version they are running.

The "like" or "rating" system works very well if it is version specific, something that would be way to complex to implement with so many version of Trainz in existence.

JMTCW.
 
I agree with some of the "no" voters.

My fear is this will become a popularity contents instead of a "discovering hidden gems", especially if you are going to include 3rd party websites.
My hope, when voting for this in the newsletter survey, was to learn about those hidden jewels on the DLS. Those are by definition known by not many people, so when people end up voting I doubt everyone is going to first download all assets so the "commonly known" are more likely to win which are not likely the "o, nice, I did not know that existed" assets.

If you are going to do so, I suggest either limiting it to the DLS (as that is the main chance the object actually is available for download a few months after the competition) or have it be "DLS only" one week and "3rd party websites" the other week. A lot of us are mainly interested in DLS only material where another group of people is very happy to include everything in his/her routes.
 
Whilst I like the idea of a "like" or "rating" system that a user can opt in to, it will always be subjective and applicable to the specific version of trains that user has downloaded it for.
That's exactly what is needed. We want the subjective evaluation of the asset - not some arbitrary score based on a criterion that was selected only because it was measurable. We want to know what people who actually installed the asset thought about it. Of course, that opinion might be based on odd reasons - such as the Trainz version it is used in - but that's what the process is. If someone has taken the trouble to go back to the DLS, access the asset and note 'Yes - just what I was looking for' or 'No - wasn't what I thought it would be' then that's got to be useful, even if we don't know what standards they judged it by.
 
That's exactly what is needed. We want the subjective evaluation of the asset - not some arbitrary score based on a criterion that was selected only because it was measurable. We want to know what people who actually installed the asset thought about it. Of course, that opinion might be based on odd reasons - such as the Trainz version it is used in - but that's what the process is. If someone has taken the trouble to go back to the DLS, access the asset and note 'Yes - just what I was looking for' or 'No - wasn't what I thought it would be' then that's got to be useful, even if we don't know what standards they judged it by.

But....
If you get a lot of T:ANE users download an asset that is only passable in T:ANE but is great in an earlier version of Trainz, then the result would be skewed and people who are running the earlier version may see it as a low rated asset and hence not use it, even if it is the best for their specific version.

Don't get me wrong, ratings work but you do need to know what the version of Trainz the rating was based on for them to be effective.

The other thing is, how long do the ratings stay current? Rating something as excellent now may not be quite so good in a years time.
 
I vote 'No'. Please do not do this!

Why do we have to have competitions. Trainz/T:ane is not a game where there have to be winners and losers. The disagreements on this forum are bad enough without adding another reason for more ill-feeling.

My hobby of almost 15 years is being degraded and I worry about it. The introduction of something like this is not what Trainz/T:ane is about.

Peter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top