Montana Discussion Thread

User avatar
harishw8r
Posts: 4103
Joined: 14 Mar 2020 05:52
Location: Moon
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#561 Post by harishw8r » 23 Nov 2021 04:34

Exactly my point. But new branding in old DLCs is possible, at least by looking at what happened with NM. The particular companies (not the prefabs) I mentioned are everywhere in the map, some rebranding would definitely go a long way.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30162
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#562 Post by flight50 » 23 Nov 2021 06:41

Rebranding but using existing prefabs are cool with me. Better than seeing repetitive companies pasted everywhere. Rebranding is still adding diversity. SCS can get away with copy paste all companies once. But use the same prefab 3 times is not attractive and it shows the focus is elsewhere.
User avatar
TheAmir259
Posts: 283
Joined: 12 Sep 2018 12:51
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#563 Post by TheAmir259 » 23 Nov 2021 09:48

Not me though, i'd prefer that if they considered rebranding, they should go the length to make the depots/prefabs different rather than such recycling, even if its just 2-3 of them. Of course, as mentioned, if it starts to get more repetitive its even worse.
Two wrongs don't make a right, three lefts...do :D
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30162
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#564 Post by flight50 » 23 Nov 2021 13:35

Ideally yes. All new prefabs per new company. What we are saying is rebranding is better than nothing at all. This works better in the West region where everything is currently, including Montana. Texas and beyond, it would be better to create from scratch new prefabs per new depot as we are starting a new region.

Good examples for rebranding would be logging camps. Where's Lumber Jill? Target. The one Wallbert that is in a shopping complex that doesn't look remotely close to a Walmart. It's a Target Supercenter. CVS. The small Wallberts that look like a CVS rather than a neighborhood Walmart. Gallon gas stations. Where's ExxonMobil, Shell, Vallero, ConocoPhillips, etc. Some of the Bushnell farms and some of the Sunshine Crops. We can use at least one more new farm in the West and start swapping out some of the Sunshine Crops and Busnhells. Just like NAMIQ did with Coastline Mining. Olthon Homes is an easy one as well.

It's always easier to copy paste. But it drags the quality down for some of us. It doesn't show thought is put into the dlc for me. I challenge the devs to minimize the copy paste same companies so much and take the easy way out. It's making the map more boring the larger the map is getting. Not everyone enjoys a new dlc when everything is pretty much copy paste. I'd love to borrow the ETS2 map/asset team for one dlc to see what they'd come up with. ATS might look better but ETS2 has a much better diverse economy. I'd model ATS's economy a bit more like ETS2 and that would solve the ICC issues in ATS.
User avatar
AlexxxF1
Posts: 555
Joined: 20 Oct 2020 04:50
Location: Belarus
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#565 Post by AlexxxF1 » 23 Nov 2021 13:57

I'm interested in what rebranding can give. except for the mess in finding a load or performing the same achievements in Steam, for example.
and well, judging by Google maps, even if a new region opens up after Texas, like in real life there are many properties there that are used in the same way as in the western region.
but yes, there are some new ones. but not so that everything would be fundamentally different. like it's a new country. as if it were Mexico. with its own culture and unique architecture or road signs. or also Nicaragua, for example.

it's just that in ETS2 it is not only that the DLC is 3-4 times larger in comparison with the ATS DLC. each ETS2 DLC + 1-3 different countries. which are new and unique every time.


yes, I do not mind getting something new with each ATS DLС. I just think it's impossible to get it in the same amount as we get it in ETS2.
only if our construction of DLC in ATS would go the same way as in ETS2. for example Road to the Caribbean Sea DLC ( with Belize, Guatemala, Honduras) we can get the same number of new companies and firms as in ETS2.
Last edited by AlexxxF1 on 23 Nov 2021 14:46, edited 9 times in total.
User avatar
Marcello Julio
Posts: 5666
Joined: 12 Nov 2016 19:27
Location: Ceará, Brazil

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#566 Post by Marcello Julio » 23 Nov 2021 14:08

I hope to Montana they bring a new logging company. Currently the only one is Deepgrove.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30162
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#567 Post by flight50 » 23 Nov 2021 14:56

Nothing is impossible. Unlikely is a better term. Impossible is a strong word and I don't think it fits when we see it for one game already. A new country getting a new company new prefab is no different than a new state getting one. The problem is SCS sees the US as a whole right now and not in regions. Its easy to make a ton of prefabs and new companies. One just has to be willing to implement it and they are not at this time. Nothing is never easy but I don't make the game. I can only point out things that don't mesh. People are not asking for ETS2 number of companies exactly right now. The mass majority of the US is not in the game right now to introduce all industries to do all that. But the states we do have, the industries should be much deeper and deeper brings new companies to cover the middle man companies I always talk about. Each industry could easily add 1 new company to be that middle man in the cargo chain. People are asking for ETS2 type diversity, not necessarily the quantities. Each industry in ETS2 has 5-8+ companies at least. That is diversity. ATS for the most part has 1 maybe 2 companies excluding the one off like ports and airports. Coastline Mining/Namiq, SunShine Crops/Bushell and then the gas stations. Those are the only ones that have more than one company in an industry. I could be missing 1-2 but by memory, that's it. Everything else, does not have a second option, no competitive company. That is the diversity ETS2 has. That is what ATS needs. A more competitive economy.

I don't really see Montana turning the hands of time here but its not like it can't be done. It just might be harder. I'd start from the bottom to get more diversity in. I'd start with California. Get a few new companies maybe even a new industry or two going with California. Add it to Nevada and Arizona if applicable. Then spread to the other Western states thru phased updates. That takes care of the entire West. Lock those things to the West just like ETS2 does. Regionally, ETS2 doesn't carry everything around the map. Now the US does have national but that's a different ball game. Texas and Kansas starts new regions. Have the same mindset for them for those new regions. The states we have now plus Montana can be set and treated as one region. But moving forward, we have two new regions that are about to come online in the next 2-3 years. Will SCS make them feel like new regions, or do we get the same as we currently have is the question. So again, I challenge the devs to depict the US economy in a more realistic manner for ICCs.
User avatar
AlexxxF1
Posts: 555
Joined: 20 Oct 2020 04:50
Location: Belarus
Contact:

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#568 Post by AlexxxF1 » 23 Nov 2021 23:11

I can agree. with the growth of territory and the rework of old territories, new companies could appear there.
when the California economy did not work with the Nevada economy, now the California economy and its new companies can easy work with the Texas economy, for example.

although it is possible for the SCS to spend a lot more time working out each DLC for ATS than for each ETS2 DLC for a comparable number of roads. due to the more complex terrain and landscape of the west USA and the elaboration of cities. and there is just no extra time to spend on working out a large number of new companies.
although with the arrival of the central (steppes) and eastern states (more looks like europe) , I think the elaboration and addition of new companies will increase. when not by the beauty of the landscapes, but by something else, it will be necessary to hook the players.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30162
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#569 Post by flight50 » 24 Nov 2021 00:33

The research and asset team should be the ones worrying about new companies. They spend the time to find out what it looks like and what prefab to make. The job of the map designer is to just place it. Programmer then sets up the economy for the prefab. Back when ATS first started, the map designers was responsible for a little bit more. Its more straight forward now though. Mappers spend their time on the layout of the game while someone else worries about the companies. Whoever is the one deciding on the companies and industries, those are the one that need to work together the tightest. The economy should make sense. Currently, it doesn't. We pick up from odd places and we deliver things to places that we shouldn't.

Now I will say that mappers have to deal with the complexity of the terrain which may take away from another area of the map. That is when roads are missing or not polished because too much time was spent on the terrain. But luckily, each mapper has their strengths and weaknesses. SCS will place the stronger landscapers on the more difficult parts of a dlc. The best city builders will do the most complex cities. This saves time so that people that are not specialist in certain parts of the map, they don't waste a ton of time. Now if one wants to get better and become a specialist....practice makes perfect.

Montana is kinda that grey area state. It has some complexity in the West but then it mellows out in the East and gets easier. I see Kansas all the way up to the Dakota's going pretty smooth. We might hit 7-9 months of develop with simpler states, who knows. Montana should give us a glimpse on what to expect with those states. So not only does Montana box up the map, complete the West, close gaps to Idaho and Wyoming, but it gives us a solid feel for what we get in those Northern Plains states. Boring........ehhh depends on who you are and what you want. I think a lot of people are wanting to get out of the mountains now and get to some flatter lands. This adds even more diversity. As more of the South and the Midwest kick in, the biome changes again. ATS hasn't seen the bulk of what it can offer in regards to landscaping, city complexity nor consistent busy road networks but its coming. We are years away before we start honing into the Great Lakes region and filling in the South up towards the Northeast.

The cool thing I like about both Montana and Texas as w.i.p. together, is that both are huge. Once in place, they will allow a ton of space to drive and perhaps even gain a bit more patience waiting for smaller states that should take less time. When we were getting 2 dlc's a year, that was great. Get past these 2 large dlc's that are w.i.p. now and we'll get back to that and just maybe, up that one and we get 3 dlc's a year. The map will seriously feel like its moving fast then. I can' wait to flirt with those times. Hopefully 2023 is what brings that but we'll see how SCS splits up the teams after 2022 releases.
User avatar
JeeF
Posts: 405
Joined: 08 Jul 2017 03:10

Re: Montana Discussion Thread

#570 Post by JeeF » 24 Nov 2021 01:39

Texas Dec 21/Jan 22
Montana July/Aug 22
"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something." - Plato
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Darsol, LeGod7, rbsanford and 10 guests