Wyoming Discussion Thread

User avatar
Sora
Posts: 2183
Joined: 22 Feb 2017 18:47

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#5681 Post by Sora » 21 Sep 2021 21:20

At the risk of playing about five different broken records, southern Utah doesn't bother me but Cody does. There are a few big differences between the two:
  • Southern Utah is, genuinely, pretty much devoid of civilization. Either of the two cities we've decided to care about in that location (Torrey or Hanksville) have populations below 300. Cody is at least somewhat substantial - it has a population of around 10k, and is the largest city in Wyoming that isn't on I-80 that's missing from the game.
  • Without those two cities, Southern Utah doesn't really impact any other routes. Cody, even just on its own, makes a couple of routes already in Wyoming more generally useful; at the moment, the entire stretch between Riverton and Sheridan is basically a scenic detour. Cody would individually make those routes useful for either Cody-Riverton or Cody-Sheridan.
  • Neither US 14 (west of Cody) nor UT 24 "should be" driven by truckers. But Capitol Reef is just one of many scenic locations in Utah, while Yellowstone is genuinely the most well-known aspect of Wyoming and arguably one of the most well-known natural locations in the US.
If they add Southern Utah, I certainly won't complain, but I see it as more of an "it'd be nice" sorta thing - even within Utah itself, if we're getting more roads, I'd prefer they be the absent stretches of US 6 and US 89. But Cody/14 would genuinely round out the Wyoming DLC very well and is without a doubt the first thing I'd add to Wyoming if I had to include one more thing. It's also a lot shorter, incidentally, which is helpful for SCS.
AlexxxF1 wrote: 21 Sep 2021 20:51 not having huge resources and extra time, for me it is more important that the SCS does not waste time on secondary things, but concentrates on the most important things being released as quickly as possible. as 3-4 DLС releases per year for ATS and accelerated the rework of all old territories, as CA, NV, AZ.
We can take this to extremes and ignore all non-Interstate roads, but I feel like this would make for a rather boring game. I don't think I'm alone in this opinion, either, considering that people got upset at both Iberia (which was almost entirely freeway, at the expense of minor routes) and Black Sea (which, apparently, sacrificed major routes for scenic ones.)

Ideally, I think the medium here is to have as many Interstates as possible, while supplementing them with whatever roads can demonstrate a state's unique attributes without being completely redundant. Inevitably, that will lead to roads that are not used a lot... but it also gives you somewhere to go if you feel like leaving the beaten path, and it gives players a good feel for the area they're pretending to drive through.
Tristman
Posts: 1536
Joined: 17 Mar 2021 20:15
Location: Pizza Hut

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#5682 Post by Tristman » 21 Sep 2021 21:40

Strongly agree about the "missing roads" in Utah. I don't think the gap in south Utah is that significant. There are no big towns or important roads in that area at all, just a nice scenic drive for when you have time to burn.
I don't personally care about US-14 west of Cody, but I think Cody with connection to Greybull and Thermopolis would make a really nice addition to the Wyoming DLC.
User avatar
festmache
Posts: 426
Joined: 21 Nov 2016 18:44
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#5683 Post by festmache » 21 Sep 2021 22:09

I agree with @Sora's five broken records :)
Especially that Cody would make the very scenic road from Riverton to Sheridan more useful.

And @AlexxxF1, you're right about not visiting places like Grand Canyon that often. Myself, I drive way more on the interstates than on these small remote roads. However, when I do drive to such places now and then, it feels great. It's like the cherries on the cake, which are valueable even though most bites only contain cake and pudding :)
vanilla player, loving ETS2, loving ATS even more! | 🇳🇱 🇪🇺
Map with all cities | Personal cabin accessories

[ external image ]
User avatar
yukonjack_ak
Posts: 121
Joined: 21 Jul 2019 19:07
Location: Montana
Contact:

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#5684 Post by yukonjack_ak » 21 Sep 2021 22:31

I'll chime in on the "Great Cody Debate" as someone that works in the northern part of the state and frequently drives through Cody...

It's not surprising that Cody didn't make the game at launch. Since Yellowstone wasn't planned, there was really no reason for Cody to be there. It's pretty much a dead end as NOTHING commercial goes west unless you're delivering TO a facility in the Park.

Sure, Cody has the usual suspects: a Walmart, an Albertsons, lots of ranching/agriculture so there's lots of traffic coming TO Cody (mostly from Billings) but it would just be another dead end like Salmon, ID...

That said, now that Yellowstone did get made for the DLC and it's a deliverable location, I do really hope that SCS goes back and adds Cody. Add in a Walbert, an Eddy's and a Homestore in town and a farm or two just west of town. If you want to be fancy, add in the Museum or the rodeo arena for scenery. The biggest reason to put Cody in is the dam though. West of town, before you get to the reservoir, is the Buffalo Bill Dam. I'm sure we could run heavy machinery to/from it. Iif nothing else, the tunnels by the dam are cool and the East Entrance into YSNP is a stunning drive as you go up several thousand feet in elevation in just a couple miles. Also, having Cody in would mean that 310 would have a better chance of making it in the Montana DLC as a alternate route into Billings.

Honestly though, I think we get Cody eventually. Probably in a map update patch along with some more of the CA Re-Work project or with Montana. I think the thing I'm most disappointed in is not having 287 from Ft Collins to Laramie. But that's a different issue...
My ATS Steam Workshop
- Western Star 4900FA Patch
- Mack Anthem Bull Bars
- Cascadia Sunvisor Fix
- Sweet Bran skin for SCS Grain Hopper
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30042
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#5685 Post by flight50 » 21 Sep 2021 23:25

@yukonjack_ak thank you again for chiming in. I think when you chimed in last time, that gave SCS 100% confirmation that trucks can serve the park with a real life local. Not only a local, but someone that works in the trucking industry that services the park. That was the icing on the cake for something high debated. So bad kudos to you Sir. You many not take credit, but I think you are the reason we go YS day one Sir. Despite me showing links in Google satellite view of a van at the gate, a van at a lodge and several dumpers fixing roads, it didn't stick. Pavel was against it and he admitted to it. So instead of blaming him, we can thank him to for changing his mind. I'm glad Wyoming was delayed a tad to at least get something for YS. Day one with no YS would have had a much larger negative impact on the game. No Cody and now YS wouldn't sit well with many. Most diehard fans would have been okay but the casual crowd, they won't have it, lol.

I agree that I like the chances of Cody now. US-310 is a definite add if we can get Cody. Billings, Cody, Sheridan and Riverton becomes very valid for US-310, US-14 and US-20 travel. Filling in that gap complement Montana once it comes. I-90 is not a substitute for US-14. US-212 is not a complement to US-14 either. Only US-14 can justify US-14. Whether updates comes with 1.42 or not is the question. People will be expecting it but if SCS does not say anything prior to 1.42 releasing in beta, no one can blame SCS. They have made zero references for US-14 no Cody. Its all fan speculation. We'll see what we get when 1.42 open beta kicks in.
User avatar
AlexxxF1
Posts: 555
Joined: 20 Oct 2020 04:50
Location: Belarus
Contact:

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#5686 Post by AlexxxF1 » 21 Sep 2021 23:57

at 1.42 we already got hints that we will get a rework of Austria and the city of Leon for ETS2.
we haven’t been shown anything like this for ATS yet. then we will not get a rework of next parts CA or NV in 1.42. possible only with 1.43.
about a month left before the beta version 1.42 will start and it will be interesting what SCS prepared for us at 1.42 for ATS.

I'm too much interested in Driving School, which was shown to us in the New Year's stream. for both games? is it possible at 1.42?
if not, then I think it should be expected only next year, from version 1.43-1.44 (although I was really looking forward to it this year 2021).
it's already the end of the year and we haven't received any news or blogs about the driving school yet.
is there any chance that we will see driving school this year?
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30042
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#5687 Post by flight50 » 22 Sep 2021 00:49

We are still several weeks out from a 1.42 open beta. We have not been show anything for ATS more than likely because of Wyoming needing the spot light which is still under 1.41. There's still time for hints for ATS though. If something for California comes, I don't expect much unless new people came to the team during the time stuff released for 1.40. If the same team is in place, I don't see them getting much done for California in such a short time since phase 1.

I wouldn't say its the end of the year though. We are getting there but we still have a full 3 months before SCS goes on holidays. That is plenty of time for stuff to come. The driving school could be on the menu. DX12 beta is possible. Another ATS truck is possible. An update to Wyoming is possible. There's a lot of time left though. I wouldn't write off anything this early as being nothing else is coming outside of the Volvo dlc.
User avatar
Cranlet
Posts: 136
Joined: 13 May 2018 21:52
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#5688 Post by Cranlet » 22 Sep 2021 02:31

Personally, I'm in agreement with the people saying the scale is hurting the game. Even in the big, empty West, there's still denser areas that feel way tinier than they really should. The Front Range from Cheyenne to Colorado Springs is a prime example of this. It takes way too little time to go between Cheyenne > FoCo > Denver > Colo. Springs > Pueblo, you can even see Pueblo and Colorado Springs next to each other if you go high enough with dev cam, and I imagine it's the same with Denver and Colorado Springs. I'm kinda afraid it'll just get worse with that dense agglomeration of cities in central Texas, and the sheer urban sprawl Texan cities can have. The east coast I'm slightly less worried about, as the DC > Boston area can feel like one gigantic city at times in real life too.

I'm also not bothered by the southern Utah hole. That area is one of the most remote areas of land in the contiguous USA, and there's really not much going on. Meanwhile, Cody has about 10 thousand people, which is pretty big for a city in Wyoming. I'm also kinda bothered by US-89, and how Star Valley was just kinda skipped over, in favour of having a more "interesting" road layout. But that's mostly just me.

Overall, Wyoming is pretty good. But things like old prefabs being used and the scaling bug me. I know SCS can do great things, their priorities just get skewed.
Trucker Nik
Posts: 2146
Joined: 27 Feb 2021 10:29
Location: Trenčín, Slovensko

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#5689 Post by Trucker Nik » 22 Sep 2021 12:29

@Jatruck it would be good to add to the map the missing section of US-287 between Laramie and Fort Collins
@plykkegaard yes i would like to do it 2 times a day 🤣
killingjoke28336
Posts: 522
Joined: 02 Sep 2019 12:50

Re: Wyoming Discussion Thread

#5690 Post by killingjoke28336 » 22 Sep 2021 12:36

All the talk about scale is futile. There will never be a change with the map this big now. The should have gone with 1:15 rescale, the scale of the UK in ETS2 right now.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hangman005 and 12 guests