[Announcement] 01.06.2021 : New FORUM RULES announced! Please familiarize with them.

Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

User avatar
natvander
SCS Software
Posts: 3377
Joined: 01 Feb 2015 01:42
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#611 Post by natvander » 18 May 2021 03:10

Don’t forget that for each new company that’s added, they also need to be added to (at least some) older states. For example it will look pretty silly to introduce a new chain to Texas and not have at least some representation in the current states. It’s not as simple as ‘hey let’s add a new company’.
Never argue with idiots. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

User avatar
Xaagon
Posts: 778
Joined: 07 May 2016 02:35
Location: Colorado Springs, CO, USA

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#612 Post by Xaagon » 18 May 2021 03:33

I can agree with this to an extent, but there are regional companies, and also single-city companies. No reason not to also consider these.

That said, I must say that it's always a special day for me when an SCS employee directly responds to one of my posts. :D

Edit: I really hope you didn't mean that new companies would be few and far between in the future. I don't think most of us really expected any new company to be added to all existing states any time soon. I was thinking more along the lines of truck trailers in AI traffic.

User avatar
natvander
SCS Software
Posts: 3377
Joined: 01 Feb 2015 01:42
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#613 Post by natvander » 18 May 2021 03:58

What I mean is each new company needs to be added with the in-game economy in mind. We need to consider where and how a new company fits in to the whole map (not only the current map, but also the future). As I said earlier, if we added a 'Swift' or 'Amazon' or 'DHL' styled company, how will the community react if it is added to Louisiana but not the most populous cities/states in the US? And does this company add something to the game that we don't already have (apart from a different look). There will likely be states that do not add new companies (like Idaho) simply because adding a new company for the sake of adding a new company really doesn't make sense. At the same time, if a city or state has a particular industry that is worth a one-off (or small chain), then it will likely be considered. But it all needs to be balanced.
Never argue with idiots. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

User avatar
Xaagon
Posts: 778
Joined: 07 May 2016 02:35
Location: Colorado Springs, CO, USA

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#614 Post by Xaagon » 18 May 2021 04:17

OK, I get that. Still want more, but that's my job as an ATS fan.

With Swift/Amazon/DHL, I was thinking maybe you were going to create companies without depots. For example, you're hired by Swift and get to drive trucks and trailers with their logos, but get jobs going to and from other companies. Even if you didn't drive for one of these companies they would appear in AI traffic. Where they might add something new to the game is if you could implement LTL deliveries - for example you pick up one load at a furniture factory and have several deliveries at various Walbert/Eddy's/Tidbit places, the trailer getting lighter with each drop-off.

How you pull that off with the cargo market in a technical way, I don't know. I just trust all that behind the scenes magic you guys make happen.

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 20226
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#615 Post by flight50 » 18 May 2021 05:32

I keeping hearing the same thing...that is not easy though. No disrespect but what makes no sense is how easy it is to add new companies in ETS2 with every new dlc time and time again. People keep bringing culture into the equation, different countries and languages. You have to start somewhere adding new companies to ATS. The longer the wait, the weirder ATS will be and it will be harder for sure. This all starts with brainstorming. Find out what companies there are, what fits ATS game economy and where are these companies located. Make a large map (paper or photoshop, doesn't matter) and places these companies on the map to collect and brainstorm for the future for what's to be added when (x) dlc arrives. The US has the same type of economy as Europe. There is your economy model right there. The industries in Europe that are represented in ETS2 are more than like in North America but not represent for ATS. There are many more industries to come in ATS and things will have to get added for them. The planning part for ATS needs attention/help.

There are several US company list all across the internet that can be used. I've posted them in places for many to see. The list are not too difficult to find. Just like truck stops, old prefabs, old everything in the base map that is about to change, you slowly change those companies out over time as well. Implementing new companies should be the same way. If Texas gets this and no other state, there is plenty of future ahead to go back and add them but you have to start somewhere. If Florida gets x,y,z....there is time still to go back and implement if one chooses to do so. Same thing that is being done with Annie's restaurants from Colorado, the map team is slowly replacing things in older dlc's to implement her new prefab designs. Granted they are not deliverable depots its still a matter of going back and implementing. The economy is always in a state of adjustment code wise to make things coexist...if its not, it should be and that's more than likely ATS's problem. Its not being adjusted enough to keep up with the fast growing map...its being patched which explains why some cargo makes zero sense at all. The easiest thing to do thought is nothing and nothing is the wrong move imho. I find it odd that this situation does not happen in ETS2. The concern for companies in one dlc, doesn't seem to bother dlc's way across the continent in another region. The US has national chains, regional chains and state specific companies. The US states are not looked at on an individual basis and they should be. The US regionals are not looked at on a regional basis but they should be. The US is looked at as a whole and even still, those national chains aren't being represented. There is a ton of US left to map. Not bringing on more national chains now.......yes it would make things more difficult by time 50% or 75% of the map is created. You guys have to chug away at companies just like anything else but sitting back not adding much of anything doesn't chip away at anything.

If I was Pavel, I'd get my team looking at national companies asap. The purpose of the game is to deliver to a company and we are severely limited there. Create regional chains as well as national chains asap. Anticipate the future. Know what cities have this or that industry well before you get to it...does it work with the game model for ATS. What other pieces of the puzzle go along with this or that industry....can we support this or that industry. That type of planning is necessary for ATS if its looked at as a whole. There are 3 levels to look at... National (USA), regional (4 US regions) and individual states (48 lower US state). Its quite easy for an American to point out the obvious missing companies but it seems very difficult to have it make sense to someone that doesn't live here. Trucking is the backbone of North America and it doesn't feel like that in ATS to me....sorry devs. When I go out shopping or pass x,y,z...great chance, its also in another state that is in the future for ATS and in a past state for ATS. The base map has some of these. If US companies where looked post Oregon, ATS wouldn't be in this situation. Oregon brought 11 new companies and we only had 5 states at that time. ATS is about to doubled the state count since Oregon. Nothing after Oregon came remotely close in producing that many companies. Call me stubborn if you guys like but none of this makes sense to me why ATS is so limited when it comes to depots and cargo variety. A shiny new California road layout is fine and dandy but is it really exploiting the California economy realistically? Revamped cities, new signage, better implemented trucks stops will all be great....but will it really feel new or just new look? Nevada...same thing... Arizona the same thing. If these states are getting reworked, I am sure SCS will only implement things that are currently in the game now. I doubt any new company that wasn't there before outside of what Los Angeles itself will bring much new despite getting a new lease on life.

At the very least, break ATS down by regions. Outside of Montana, the West will be completed. The game as we know it, is set with Western companies....let say this is the case. Texas starts a new region.."The South", what now? Will the South be looked at has if it was an ETS2 region and bring a whole new outfit of companies? In ETS2 a whole new region brings a whole new outfit of new companies. Shouldn't ATS be the same if regional are considered? Will Texas be treated like its part of another region....probably not. Outside of Wallbert, Charged, USBB and Home Store there no other national chains depicted in ATS that are recognizable...and that trend more than likely continues. I've posted many comments defending and vouching for SCS on many occasions. I am one of the last people to trash SCS but I will point out issues/concerns when I see them without hesitation. I will eagerly point out things that need improving for the economy as it just so happens that I am a stickler on ICC's (industries, companies and cargo). I talk about them the most. Fans will always tell you what they want....devs just have to listen and decide how to act upon that.....and as a huge fan of the game, I see the potential and simply don't feel like SCS is putting that best foot forward when it comes to ICC's.

At the end of the day, SCS is a business. The goal is to earn money. Provide what people desire or eventually people drop off the radar. If enough drop off, well things go bad unfortunately. There was already a drop off at the ATS launch. ATS has yet to see those type of number since day one. Without paying customers, things go South. If ETS2 got the ATS treatment, sales would dip for sure as their bread and butter would be on the down spiral. You have to keep bringing "new" if you want to keep people engaged. Nature of the beast. The game as to keep evolving...you can't level out much without people noticing. Something has spark continued excitement. Otherwise its the same just 300 miles East from the last dlc.

Grizzly
Posts: 681
Joined: 13 Feb 2018 08:19
Location: Land of Oz

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#616 Post by Grizzly » 18 May 2021 07:48

Yeah with the rebuild in progress and a new state coming out soon this should be a good opportunity to add a new company or two.

User avatar
Marcello Julio
Posts: 4153
Joined: 12 Nov 2016 19:27
Location: Ceará, Brazil

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#617 Post by Marcello Julio » 18 May 2021 11:57

I still dream of IKEA (IKA Bohag) coming to ATS. It is a company that can be introduced since only a few cities have it.

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 20226
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#618 Post by flight50 » 18 May 2021 13:19

^Yes. The fewer there are, the easier it should be. Its those huge chains that should have been in the game by now. By time Washington came, Target, Lowes, Sams Club, Costco, Amazon, Swift, JB Hunt, Albertson's, Kroger, etc.....those are the ones to target well in advanced as much as possible. There are plenty more that could have been in place years ago. Its all about planning. I understand there wasn't a research team available until Utah though so they have a lot of catch to do.

Ikea is like 1-2 per state. Outside of California and Texas, most states will be easy with just one. I'd try to add an Ikea distribution center as well. Stuff can't just pop up out of no where. Not enough distribution centers anyways. Of the states in the game, they all have an Ikea except Idaho. California can get a couple for the base map and maybe Texas could get a couple. No need to over do it.

User avatar
lakers20
Posts: 85
Joined: 12 Apr 2018 13:48
Location: Brazil

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#619 Post by lakers20 » 18 May 2021 20:25

ATS is great with its landscapes and cities but urgently needs a greater variety of companies and cargo.

I am feeling tired of delivering to the same companies, with the same loads.

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 20226
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Base Map Rebuild (CA, NV, AZ) General Discussion Thread

#620 Post by flight50 » 19 May 2021 00:15

Yep. Same here. Seems like too small of a number of fans mentions it though. I talk about it constantly but nothing is going to happen if its just me. If ATS was more like ETS2, I'd have no issues with the game. The potential is great if only the game evolved with the growing map more. With all the land that keeps getting added per year, its still the same old companies. We might get a newer prefab but it still holds the same company name. That kind of defeats the purpose imho. Create a new prefab but still call it the same company? I do agree that there should be several variants of the same company to create variety but this is going on too far without a good amount of companies introduced. We are about to be 10 states deep with little variety since Oregon released. Oregon brought 11 new companies. Between Washington, Utah, Idaho and Colorado, we only got 11 more new companies. I don't get it.

Maybe we can get another California blog before Phase 1 releases. I'd like to see California kick in some new companies. If all of California is getting reskinned, I sure hope a lot of the old prefabs either got a nice makeover or they are removed in favor of New Mexico and newer prefabs. I'd love to see 1-2 new farms in California. Mix in some new with the old.....change it up across the board. Not just new roads and shiny new backgrounds. I don't play as much anymore because I didn't want to get burned out like I did when we had that super bad L shaped map. I limited my trips to 500-800 miles. But its still the same depots so I'm kinda getting burned out anyways. 11 new companies from Oct 4, 2018 to Nov 12, 2020????? To much focus is only visuals imo. I fell in love with the gameplay, not with being obsessed with wanting ATS to look like GTA.

California cities are now on the menu per the phase blog. So cities should get reskinned as well. I'll give an example of a city refresh and introduce new. I agree with the person that said Redding looks nothing like it. That is because nothing matches up with anything. Depots are just thrown on the map. If things are getting reskin, might as well get some accuracy to it. After all, that is the style of mapping now anyways. Lets take Redding for example on what it could be shall we:

This is current Redding:
Image

Redding that is more realistic with new options:
Image

Real life Redding:
Image

Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gaillard, metalwarriorx and 25 guests