Poll: Choose the State you would like to see next

Choose the next state you would like to see next

Texas
45
22%
Oregon
67
33%
Utah
77
37%
Idaho
1
0%
Colorado
13
6%
Oklahoma
3
1%
 
Total votes: 206

Hell_Raiser
Posts: 94
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 00:54
Location: Temporarily Displaced Texan

Re: Poll: Choose the State you would like to see next

#141 Post by Hell_Raiser » 15 Nov 2017 04:25

The only state currently in game that any of the interstates in Utah connect to is Nevada (I-15 cuts through Arizona, but doesn't connect to any Interstates, US hwys or state routes). Further the only connections to any state in game other than Nevada are US-191 and US-163 in the east and US-89 and UT-59/AZ-389 in the west. US-191 runs from I-70 down the eastern part of UT to I-40 in AZ (the AZ section is currently in game), and US-163 splits off it just north of the UT/AZ border and runs to Kayenta AZ. In my opinion these route offers no advantage over current options unless you are trying to get to/from Kayenta. US-89 runs from the western side of I-70 to Page AZ, and UT-59/AZ-389 connect US-89 to I-15 in southern UT. This provides a good alternative to US-93 if you are trying to get to northern AZ or NM. Otherwise these routes don't offer much in the form of more realistic transit routes, or faster routes than what we currently have.

This next section is mostly for people who are not from the US, however I will have some more content for my fellow Americans at the bottom.

US-hwys are not used much for travelling through a state IRL for a multitude of reasons, the biggest are speed, safety and convenience. With few exceptions, speed limits on the interstate are significantly higher, allowing you to travel faster by using a less direct route. Especially since US and state hwys will pass through towns and have stop lights and speed reductions frequently. Further, as most state/us hwys are 2 lane roads (1 lane each direction), you will frequently be stuck behind someone traveling slowly, with few opportunities to pass.

As far as safety is concerned, Interstates are built in such a way that you can safely travel at high speeds, minimizing the opportunity for a wreck to occur. Corners aren't as sharp, there are no at grade intersections, you have more lanes and wider lanes, and opposing traffic is separated by either a wall or large median. Further if you get into trouble, help will usually arrive quickly when you are on the Interstate, even in more remote locations.

Lastly you have convenience, this can be separated into two sub-categories, ease of drive and amenities. With ease of drive, interstates will rarely change speed limits, and with the exception of weather/traffic conditions, there is hardly any reason to drive below the speed limit, meaning you can set cruise control and enjoy the ride. It also requires minimal focus to safely operate the vehicle, so the drive won't wear you out as much. As far as amenities go, truck stops, rest areas, gas stations, restaurants and hotels/motels are readily accessible while traveling down the interstate. Almost every other exit will have a gas station, and probably somewhere to eat, and you will usually see a truck stop and hotel/motel every hour or two (~30 mins east of the Mississippi River). Further every truck stop, and almost every gas station will have restrooms along an interstate, and most will even be clean. :D

When you take state and us hwys, truckstops will be almost non existent, so will rest areas and hotels. You might find a motel every few towns, but you won't want to sleep there most of the time. Finding somewhere to park a truck will be hard, usually you will have to park along the street if you need to eat/use a restroom/sleep(sleeping along the roadside is illegal in most places), and refueling a truck will be almost impossible. Most restrooms will be disgusting, and not all gas stations will have one, and if you happen to be in the midwest/south eastern US, they may have a meth lab instead. :( Most towns will have somewhere to eat, but you won't have many choices.

Now you may be saying, so what, we don't need to stop for anything but fuel and rest, and the locals in the game won't rob us or blow us up. Well, yes you would be right, however the lack of truck parking and truck stops still apply, as does the driving safety, speed and convenience. Besides the whole point of the game is to replicate driving a truck in America, and maybe my bias for taking interstates everywhere is mostly caused by real life driving, but I still do it in game, because that's how you drive in America. This is the primary reason I don't want Utah alone.

STOP SKIPPING NOW
States don't have to be bundled based off how similar their scenery is, instead if they are bundled, it should be because they have road networks that don't make sense or work without the other state(s). Utah and Idaho don't fit this criteria, and would make a weird bundle. Examples of good bundles would be (Utah & Colorado) (Oregon & Washington & Idaho) (Rhode Island & Connecticut the entire North East).

I think the best way to approach Utah and Colorado, is with two teams, have one do Utah, the other Colorado, and if necessary delay the release so they come as a bundle. However, if SCS is still only using one team for ATS, then the states should be released separate, and created in sequence. What I don't want to see is something like Utah->Oregon->Texas->Colorado.

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 533
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth

Re: Poll: Choose the State you would like to see next

#142 Post by flight50 » 15 Nov 2017 05:08

@EricW. I wouldn't exactly say Nevada is fairly unpopoular. I will give you 3 reasons why. 1) Las Vegas 2)Reno and 3) legal prostitution. Vegas is a world attraction actually. I been visited Vegas once in my life and that was like 2 years ago. I have never been in a US city so International diverse. I am Texan but I met Canadians there and a few from the UK. I see many from the Asian world from watching youtube. But there are tons of Europeans that visit. People visit from all over the world at anytime of the year.

I-80 and I-15 are the only Interstates yes, but there are several US highways there. In ATS once I clear Vegas going North, I actually like the SH's thru Nevada. The twist make me keep my eyes open. Add in random events and I really have to pay attention. For me, a lot of the US highways are more fun to drive than the Interstates. In the US, the interstates are mostly high speed straights. The state highways is where roads come to life.

I-15 is really just barely in the Nevada. We need Utah to expand it so as of now, yes I-15 in Nevada is useless. For the most part, everyone tries to avoid traveling thru Las Vegas simply because how SCS depicted it in the game. Utah gives everyone that bypass around Vegas that we all been looking for. I would much rather take US 89 North into Utah from Flagstaff and hit Northern Nevada that way.

If SCS wanted to make maximum distance driving, Texas would be a better option than Oregon. It takes like 16-18 hrs just to cross Texas alone. With Oregon, I would not be making that trip from NM to OR anytime soon. I did notice that with update 1.29, SCS modified the Long Distance skill point again. I got a slot taken away and now you must do 2500miles or more to get that 30% extra. The longest in game route so far is Hobbs to Eureka or Redding. That is 1500+ right there. Square it up please.

@anrgybird. NM took 6 months to hit closed beta from the time it was announced. We got the announcement in Feb, closed beta by late August. It is possible they could have started NM 1-2 months prior to that announcement but SCS hasn't stated that. It took just over 2 more months for NM to go public. A lot of this had to do with 1.29 compatibility patch as well as closed beta testing. NM also also experienced a delay from the external team that SCS used. I am sure this delay resulted in a 1-2 month delay as the goal was to get NM out by early fall if I recall correctly. So factoring in that 1-2 months, I would think that future dlc will come 1-2 quicker than NM. Utah nor Colorado has that many more cities to get in the game than NM. Colorado probably has as many big cities as NM but Utah will only have a hand full of big ones. Both will fill out the maps with quite a few small towns. So in theory, 18-20 won't happen just to make 2 states without setbacks in play. Within that time frame, I expect 3 almost 4 states to hit. 18-20 months is more feasible for Texas to go public than both Utah and Colorado. Together Utah and Colorado total 188,992.4 sq miles. Texas alone is 268,580.82 sq miles. Texas has 79,588.42 more sq miles to cover. That is equal to throwing in the State of Washington which is only 71,299.64 sq miles. If Oregon is next, SCS could do Utah, Colorado and Washington all in the same time it would take to do Texas. This is why Texas can wait.check this out
LOOKING TO BUY AN SKRS SHIFTER?
DO NOT BUY FROM CSIO TECHNOLOGIES

They'll take your payment immediately yet they show no signs of fulfilling orders,
I ordered mine July 6, 2017 and they WILL NOT communicate with me at all!
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

Hell_Raiser
Posts: 94
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 00:54
Location: Temporarily Displaced Texan

Re: Poll: Choose the State you would like to see next

#143 Post by Hell_Raiser » 15 Nov 2017 05:34

Sq miles isn't really a good way to measure how long a state is going to take, look at Nevada for example, most of the area in the state isn't mapped. A better approach would be to measure the combined length of all the roads that would most likely be included, but this is rather hard for anyone but SCS to do, still if we are going to guess this is probably the best way to do it.

As far as Nevada's popularity in game goes, Utah and Colorado would give you the ability to take more jobs through the state, but I wouldn't say it is currently unpopular. Least traveled probably, but even that is a bit of a stretch, I always find myself in Vegas, which is why I want it reworked so badly, but that is a topic for another thread.

angrybirdseller
Posts: 576
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 05:16
Location: Minnesota

Re: Poll: Choose the State you would like to see next

#144 Post by angrybirdseller » 15 Nov 2017 07:40

I would be okay with Las Vegas freeway to freeway connection if I-215 bypass was used to connect I-15 its south of the strip Primm would be destroyed, but it not like cant use Indian Springs or Beatty to replace Primm in Nevada. Las Vegas strip would not need to be modified if you build freeway to freeway connection around Las Vegas.

Using I-515 to I-15 it wont work well, and it will destory the city layout would opposed this approach. The I-215 to I-15 south of strip is only alternative would work not damage the strip at all.

Map design and gameplay having Utah, Colorado, Washington, Oregon all to have quality New Mexico and Arizona likely need to be built each separately. What matters is gameplay experience and its been repeated per verbatim-L shaped map bad idea. There real life driving and gameplay compromises have to made and with 1:20 only have so much room to work with.

Its will take 8-12 months to build Oregon and another 8-12 months for Utah, and then same amount for Colorado and Washington. Scenery matters alot people that buy state DLC do not want click and paste that what map mods are for. New Mexico was worked before the rescale the assets are in game on release day lol.

Sure, could take 3-6 month to build each state, but unless your willing to give up having more assets like landmarks, and truckstops in the game it wont happen. The resreach can take weeks too because gotta balance gameplay with driving considerations also.

Gazer75
Posts: 399
Joined: 19 Jul 2013 04:56
Location: Norway

Re: Poll: Choose the State you would like to see next

#145 Post by Gazer75 » 15 Nov 2017 13:21

The Las Vegas we have now was made with the old map scale. There is a lot more room to do it better now.

LV just needs that interchange for the I15/US95(I515). Doubt there is enough space for I215.

Hell_Raiser
Posts: 94
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 00:54
Location: Temporarily Displaced Texan

Re: Poll: Choose the State you would like to see next

#146 Post by Hell_Raiser » 15 Nov 2017 15:31

Well since we are talking about Vegas here anyway, I really don't think it will take much to fix it. I-15 should be running north through Vegas but the can just rotate the city to fix this, we already have the interchange for US-95, it's just a T interchange right now. A slight rework of the downtown area might be required, but it isn't perfect right now, so that isn't a big deal.

@angrybirdseller It doesn't matter how many states they work on at once, it will still be the same quality, just longer between releases if they only use one team. Further the asset modelers most likely are ahead of the map team, so a faster pace wouldn't mean lack of landmarks, just less detailed scenery. That said, nobody wants that, or has suggested it so I'm not sure why you are talking about it.

User avatar
bobgrey1997
Posts: 648
Joined: 30 Nov 2015 02:13
Location: Bryant, Arkansas

Re: Poll: Choose the State you would like to see next

#147 Post by bobgrey1997 » 15 Nov 2017 18:01

I15 does run north in Vegas in the game... It turns east on the north side of town, just as it does in reality. In fact, I15 starts to turn eastward about half-way through town, but it runs straight north in-game. This is due to the scaled-down version. They got it about as close as possible. The only thing I think that could be done to improve it is to add a loop freeway around the south and east sides which would be Interstate 315 and Interstate 515, respectively. 515 also is US 95. This would allow drivers going from Arizona to north Nevada or California to not have to use the city streets in Las Vegas, but rather stay on the highways.
Image
ImageImage

Sora
Posts: 153
Joined: 22 Feb 2017 18:47

Re: Poll: Choose the State you would like to see next

#148 Post by Sora » 15 Nov 2017 20:51

Hell_Raiser wrote:
15 Nov 2017 04:25
States don't have to be bundled based off how similar their scenery is, instead if they are bundled, it should be because they have road networks that don't make sense or work without the other state(s). Utah and Idaho don't fit this criteria, and would make a weird bundle.
I'd actually disagree somewhat. Utah and Idaho are an odd combination, certainly: Idaho fits in more with the northwest, and Utah fits in more with the southwest. But your explanation is actually exactly why they do work.

Idaho and Utah, after Oregon, are the last two states that border the base game map (not counting Colorado at one point.) However, Oregon would make more geographical sense to bundle with Washington if you're going to bundle it at all, and Oregon+Washington+Idaho may simply be too big for SCS to realistically take on at one time. This unfortunately leaves Idaho in a weird position where it can't really be justified on its own due to its pathetic connection to the base game, but can't really be bundled with any remaining states next to it either because Montana is already big enough on its own and Wyoming doesn't even have an interstate connection with it.

But it does have a connection with Utah. In fact, it has two major highway connections -- leading to Oregon and to Montana -- right above its border with Utah. Utah in turn can provide Idaho with routes into Nevada, Wyoming, Colorado, and a US route into Arizona/New Mexico for the time being. Utah's biggest cities just happen to be right next to Idaho, and most of Idaho's major cities aren't far from Utah, so it actually works out a lot better than it really should. Both states are also states that seem like they'd require generally less work, and are less popular, so selling them as a bundle while leaving big hitters like Colorado to sell themselves also seemingly carries value as a good economic decision. Finally, bundling them smoothly deals with the most awkwardly-shaped area in the US in a single DLC, thereby minimizing the need for DLC dependencies because complete and simple paths to Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado can all exist with a single DLC pack, while also providing an awkward connection between Oregon and New Mexico through Arizona.

The 'ideal' way to deal with the Idaho problem would be Oregon/Washington/Idaho, sure, but that's a lot of work and I can hardly expect the greater ATS fanbase to have that level of patience when many of them couldn't even wait through a time zone difference for New Mexico.

User avatar
flight50
Posts: 533
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth

Re: Poll: Choose the State you would like to see next

#149 Post by flight50 » 15 Nov 2017 21:45

Hell_Raiser wrote:
15 Nov 2017 04:25

States don't have to be bundled based off how similar their scenery is, instead if they are bundled, it should be because they have road networks that don't make sense or work without the other state(s). Utah and Idaho don't fit this criteria, and would make a weird bundle. Examples of good bundles would be (Utah & Colorado) (Oregon & Washington & Idaho) (Rhode Island & Connecticut the entire North East).

I think the best way to approach Utah and Colorado, is with two teams, have one do Utah, the other Colorado, and if necessary delay the release so they come as a bundle. However, if SCS is still only using one team for ATS, then the states should be released separate, and created in sequence. What I don't want to see is something like Utah->Oregon->Texas->Colorado.

I have to agree. I would like the bundle of Ut/Co to square up the map at once. Of coarse both don't have to happen as a bundle but give Utah first and then Colordo before moving to Oregon and Washington. I have to agree with the bundling scenario you proposed though. Idaho can go with or without Wa/Or. If it goes without, it only makes since coming after both Wa and Or. If the Wa/Or is not bundled, the order should be Or, Wa and then Id. We can't go Oregon straight to Idaho. We can but it would be one ugly map. Ideally, yes two teams would be perfect but SCS said they don't have that yet......or do they, wink wink, lol. One do Utah and the other Colorado just as Hell_Raiser stated. This would allow them both to be tested together, share a compatibility patch and released together either Nov or Dec 2018. Having just those two next makes the map a whole lot more attractive and boxed style. This approach makes the most sense to us that voted Utah which are problem the same ones that voted boxed style on RTobi's thread. Oregon should not be in the mix right now.
Sora wrote:
15 Nov 2017 20:51
I'd actually disagree somewhat. Utah and Idaho are an odd combination, certainly: Idaho fits in more with the northwest, and Utah fits in more with the southwest. But your explanation is actually exactly why they do work.

Idaho and Utah, after Oregon, are the last two states that border the base game map (not counting Colorado at one point.) However, Oregon would make more geographical sense to bundle with Washington if you're going to bundle it at all, and Oregon+Washington+Idaho may simply be too big for SCS to realistically take on at one time. This unfortunately leaves Idaho in a weird position where it can't really be justified on its own due to its pathetic connection to the base game, but can't really be bundled with any remaining states next to it either because Montana is already big enough on its own and Wyoming doesn't even have an interstate connection with it.

But it does have a connection with Utah. In fact, it has two major highway connections -- leading to Oregon and to Montana -- right above its border with Utah. Utah in turn can provide Idaho with routes into Nevada, Wyoming, Colorado, and a US route into Arizona/New Mexico for the time being. Utah's biggest cities just happen to be right next to Idaho, and most of Idaho's major cities aren't far from Utah, so it actually works out a lot better than it really should. Both states are also states that seem like they'd require generally less work, and are less popular, so selling them as a bundle while leaving big hitters like Colorado to sell themselves also seemingly carries value as a good economic decision. Finally, bundling them smoothly deals with the most awkwardly-shaped area in the US in a single DLC, thereby minimizing the need for DLC dependencies because complete and simple paths to Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado can all exist with a single DLC pack, while also providing an awkward connection between Oregon and New Mexico through Arizona.

The 'ideal' way to deal with the Idaho problem would be Oregon/Washington/Idaho, sure, but that's a lot of work and I can hardly expect the greater ATS fanbase to have that level of patience when many of them couldn't even wait through a time zone difference for New Mexico.
I agree with you as well for the most part. Idaho is definitely the odd man out due to it's shape. It stretches the height of both Washington and Oregon. If not bundled with those two, it must come by itself. I agree that it may be too much for SCS to handle at one time and get it out in a timely manner, so I am fine with Idaho coming by itself if and only if both Oregon and Washington are there. Idaho should be one of the quicker states to do imo. As Sora stated. The bulk of the cities border Oregon and Utah. Looking at Idaho's map all the meat of Idaho is in the South. US 93 and US 95 are really the only north roads in Idaho until you get to US 12 and I-90. There isn't much of a road network there at all outside of the i-84,I-90 and I-15. Just long North and South roads to map. Same with Utah. It's road network does not seem time consuming which is why it could be bundled with Colorado. With Colorado, we definitely want NM quality as unlike Utah, it has more of a road next that is worthy of mapping. Not all roads have to make Utah. 7-9 big cities should cover Utah just as SCS covered Nevada with few big cities. We can get away with more town in these states that don't have enough big cities to go around.

One thing for sure is that SCS will not down grade their quality just to get a dlc state out quicker. I think we are all in agree that we prefer to wait if quality is to be jeopardized. NM is the new standard. Az quality for Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Montana is feasible. For the record Arizona is very good quality in itself. Only reason NM beats it is because its newer so different things have happened since Arizona. In a nutshell, states that don't have a large road network, will not take 8-12 months to do. The ATS team is much larger now to take that much time. NM actually has more of a road network than both Utah and Idaho. It will not take the same amount of time for those two as it did for NM. I can almost guarantee that.
LOOKING TO BUY AN SKRS SHIFTER?
DO NOT BUY FROM CSIO TECHNOLOGIES

They'll take your payment immediately yet they show no signs of fulfilling orders,
I ordered mine July 6, 2017 and they WILL NOT communicate with me at all!
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

User avatar
saur44l
Posts: 262
Joined: 07 May 2016 22:16
Location: Macedonia

Re: Poll: Choose the State you would like to see next

#150 Post by saur44l » 15 Nov 2017 22:41

Hmmm.........Arizona is good quality but for me nowhere near to NM or latest ETS2 dlc's........why would you sacrifice quality when it comes to some other states,how are you going to attract new or ETS2 players if your future dlc's are worse than the ones in ETS2.

Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: saur44l, SlashBeefgnaws and 4 guests