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

User avatar
TheAmir259
Posts: 283
Joined: 12 Sep 2018 12:51
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

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

#2511 Post by TheAmir259 » 20 May 2022 01:15

As it is right now, the only problems i see is the missing of the Siskiyous Summit on the I-5. And i doubt that'll warrant a rescale at all.

Is it just me or the Napa Valley-ish areas kinda look plain on the map? They could've slotted in a few depots was what i thought, as aside from that, is really just pointless extra alternative roads or more roads to discover.
Two wrongs don't make a right, three lefts...do :D
User avatar
Travismods
Posts: 1261
Joined: 05 Aug 2019 10:30

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

#2512 Post by Travismods » 20 May 2022 11:40

Thing is, people that are against a map re-scale are probably in the minority. From what I see only a few very vocal forum users are against it and funnily enough its the same people that play the game like 10 minutes every 4 weeks that think a bigger scale would be an issue. Yeah, in YOUR situation a rescale is a problem. It would be unwise for SCS to prioritize that kind of player if they want this games Steam numbers to ever take off. That kind of player that don't have time to play but still time to basically live on this forum to tell others rescale and enhancements to gameplay are bad ideas, even though they barely even play the game, should probably not be the target group for SCS. Now actual regular players of the game, people that don't even have an account here, that play the game nearly every day, would most likely love such a map rescale just like they would love gameplay features beyond drive truck from A to B and press green button. A bigger world would feel closer to IRL trucking, which is what a lot of players want (again, actual PLAYERS not forum users here looking to win debates that debate more here than play any videogame) and give the game a much more realistic feel overall. Generally those types of changes are very well received in simulator communities. Anything moving closer to realism is, when it comes to simulators, really. But its clear people here want this to remain kind of a toy game you pick up every now and then, play vanilla drive from LA to SF in 2 minutes and then turn the game off after 20 minutes. If you are that kind of player expecting a mindless hectic arcade, having distances between cities be say 3 minutes instead of 1 minute would with a rescale still not be the end of the world for you. Just pick a shorter run if you only have 10 minutes to play. The ATS gameworld should not be tailored to impatience, at it already is in so many ways and impatience is not what simulation is about. Perhaps a round of Mario Kart or a game on your phone is better suited for those kinds of time constraints.

Anecdotal, but as someone who actually plays (and mods) the game a lot, I know I and everyone I have asked - not on this forum - would love to see 1:15-1:17, even though we don't expect it at this point. MSFS 2020 is 1:1 scale (yes, I am comparing it to a flight simulator, deal with it) and I do not see a single person complaining about the 1:1 scale there. People praise it for that very reason, even though you have to skip flights sometimes due to IRL time constraints. Again, not arguing for 1:1 here. SCS are not generating maps based on satellite and GIS data. But a bit better and bigger than 1:20 to give cities some room to breathe would probably be well received if we forget the forums loud impatient voices saying no to everything between heaven and earth as far as improvements and expansion goes. In fact, I have not seen a single simulator title where actual players did not want the world to be bigger, as long as its somewhat filled with content. That goes especially for vehicle simulators. And especially when you in this game can't interact with your truck or cargo or walk around or even do anything else in game - ATS is just about driving, so world expansion is the name of SCS game already. Even as crazy as 1:10 would most likely be very well received by the community, beyond the few naysayers here. 1:15 is a no brainer to give the world more opportunities.

Now, if its WISE for SCS to do it and spend time on it, that's another question. Probably not if they just want to bang out copy paste DLC until US is completed as fast as possible. I don't really think they are interested in another rescale, they are done with that. But players definitely are, so forget the loud voices on here saying no to everything all the time.
Last edited by Travismods on 20 May 2022 13:06, edited 6 times in total.
User avatar
Vinnie Terranova
Posts: 5109
Joined: 09 Nov 2017 10:24
Location: Netherlands

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

#2513 Post by Vinnie Terranova » 20 May 2022 12:21

About realistic simulators: ATS is not a simulator. It's somewhere between a simulator and an arcade game: a simcade. Although I would love to have more realism in ATS, I know that there are other people who do not want more realism in ATS. So that's why I think SCS will not implement much realism in the near future; maybe some small improvements, but that's all.
User avatar
Travismods
Posts: 1261
Joined: 05 Aug 2019 10:30

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

#2514 Post by Travismods » 20 May 2022 12:26

Agreed, its not a simulator, even though its called that! But beyond the forums it has a decent chunk of its fanbase wanting it to be one, and that matters. This is becoming a problem since SCS progress towards simulation is moving at a snails pace, with a loud forum community telling them to keep the game dumb, simple, hectic and arcady.

Realism can and should always be made optional as a toggle. That way you can please both teams. The game shouldn’t stay a mindless arcade just because some people can’t deal with more. They can turn realism off. Its called American Truck SIMULATOR. As such it is supposed to become more and more realistic as it develops over time, not stagnate into a mediocre arcade.
Last edited by Travismods on 20 May 2022 19:50, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
TheAmir259
Posts: 283
Joined: 12 Sep 2018 12:51
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

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

#2515 Post by TheAmir259 » 20 May 2022 13:12

I don't know what you're really throwing tantrums for. I don't know what you see me and some other people as, but if even flight50, who is like the biggest and best veteran we've got over here, not aggressively pursuing this case, you should know better of the consequences. I feel like typing longer paragraphs isn't gonna get to you at all, so i'll leave it here, hoping that you'll cool off and rethink about it again.
Two wrongs don't make a right, three lefts...do :D
User avatar
oldmanclippy
Posts: 5386
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

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

#2516 Post by oldmanclippy » 20 May 2022 13:31

To say that the only people who are against rescale are those who don't play often is quite arrogant @koolizz. Here you are again with the "if you disagree with me, there is something wrong with you" mindset. That's the toxic attitude people are against. I criticize these games every other post I make but when people disagree with me that doesn't mean they are beneath me. I don't know how many times people have to explain this to you. It's your attitude, not your criticisms, that rub people the wrong way. You can go ahead pretending that the reason people push back is because you criticize the games and that makes you so special and unique, but that's not true. We all criticize the games. You just do it while putting other people down for disagreeing with you. Look at @seriousmods. They are just as critical of the games as you are, but they don't make personal attacks when people disagree. It's the difference between bringing value as a different perspective from the majority, and just being grating.

You have great ideas and bring a lot of criticisms to the table that others might not have thought of. But you ruin the chance of others seeing your point of view when you make personal attacks.

...

There are plenty of reasons to be against a scale change. Practical reasons like preferring more map expansion to just rehashing the same map in a different scale. Or gameplay reasons like simply thinking that 1:10 or 1:15 is just too big to be fun. There is not an objective slider from 1:1 to 1:20 with the former being the most fun and the latter being the least fun. Everyone has a sweet spot scale that they would prefer. Some would prefer 1:10 but think 1:5 is too big and 1:15 is too small. Some like 1:17 but think 1:15 is too big and 1:20 is too small. Some are just fine with 1:20, and others would only be satisfied with 1:1. And that's a-OK that people have different opinions on the matter. People who prefer more realistic scales are not any more "real fans" than people who prefer more abstract scales.

I'm personally in the camp that, if we could start over again, something between 1:15 and 1:18 would have been best, just to give us that little bit more wiggle room to make space for ring roads, dense urban corridors, and parallel roads. But given that we're already so far in with 1:20, I do not want a rescale slowing things down.
Last edited by oldmanclippy on 20 May 2022 13:45, edited 2 times in total.
blog screenshot IRL maps: Greece | Nordic Horizons | see profile for link to Germany cities and Switzerland rework maps
prediction maps: Greece | ATS 2024-2025 DLCs
research map: Upper Midwest (work in progress)
User avatar
VTXcnME
Posts: 1243
Joined: 04 Jun 2021 12:53

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

#2517 Post by VTXcnME » 20 May 2022 13:43

1:20 works for the west and midwest (for the most part).

There are some very small states that are going to amount to cities only. New Hampshire.... One city and nothing else.... Mostly forested? Nope... Not in SCS map, the scale only allows for one city and no forests. Same for Vermont.


Look, I realize a 1:15 might not be the feasible choice, but there needs to be some consideration made for what's going to happen on the east coast. States are going to look absolutely trash, and even LESS like their real world counterparts than they do now. Manchester, Portsmouth, Concord in NH are all semi large cities with commercial activity. Not going to be possible to get those in there at 1:20, they'd all be stacked on top of each other with no woods surrounding. Burlington/Rutland/Brattleboro in VT, same problem, all cities no woods. That's going to be a challenge.

Rhode island will be Providence and literally nothing else. A 1:19 scale is not a 1:20 scale. I thought they were the same, but knowing this, everyone saying "Luxemburg is small too" can quiet themselves. LOL.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30162
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

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

#2518 Post by flight50 » 20 May 2022 13:47

Its ironic to make a claim that people live on this forum are against this or that when the most negative person on this forum lives on here to be negative. There are pros and cons to recaling and the ignorance and failure to comprehend that is on those constantly demanding a rescale. If one wants the most realistic world possible, that is called reality. ATS/ETS2 will never be what you want. Nothing wrong with getting more realism in the game but a rescale is not the only way to bring more realism. Simcade like @Vinnie Terranova stated is the best term to use. Larger than 1:20, increases map time. People are already pissed at the slow production of maps as is. Now people want even slower? That makes zero sense. At least finish the US first before ever considering that is what SCS should do. But because I don't want a rescale at this point, that summarizes the entire forum...........lol. You are indeed quite the character. I am a small percentage of the forum just like you. I am a regular player....just like you. I have opinions....just like you. But everything I say, you like twisting it, lmao.

If people have that much time to play, good for you. The rest of us have grown folk stuff to do. The shot at living on this forum, lol. I do for sure because I have time with the type of job I have most days and still make bank. Its easy to do when you have a desk job and in between projects to burn time. I can promise you I have a lot of benefits to being here regularly vs someone that comes here regularly to complain day in and day out. What's your excuse @koolizz? You make time to be negative day in..day out. Do you not live here? So the same people you state live here, what are you doing? You disappeared at one point and now the past year or so, you live here like some of us but for a totally different purpose.
User avatar
oldmanclippy
Posts: 5386
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

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

#2519 Post by oldmanclippy » 20 May 2022 13:54

They're going to have to be really smart about which roads they choose on the east coast. Obviously I-80, I-90, I-95, etc will be a necessity to have unbroken. But a lot of other interstates are fair game to be chopped up like in ETS2.

I think the way you make the east coast feel bigger and showcase the rural parts, is to lean heavily into US routes and state highways. Include the main interstates of course, but when other options are between straight freeways and curvy highways, choose the latter when possible. You can exaggerate curves more easily on those kinds of roads and artificially inflate the distances between cities via those kinds of roads. This will be tricky to pull off without a similar backlash to Road to the Black Sea, where people criticized the usage of smaller roads when an alternative freeway was available. But I think it's the lesser of two evils vs leaning heavily on interstates and losing the special landscapes and towns and rural areas that are scattered across the east coast. I love Iberia and Road to the Black Sea, but if you ask me which one makes me *feel* like I'm actually there, it's RttBS. They are starting to address this with the two newbie-made rural roads from 1.42 or 1.43 but when push comes to shove I'll take an overabundance of highway vs an overabundance of freeway.
blog screenshot IRL maps: Greece | Nordic Horizons | see profile for link to Germany cities and Switzerland rework maps
prediction maps: Greece | ATS 2024-2025 DLCs
research map: Upper Midwest (work in progress)
User avatar
supersobes
Global moderator
Posts: 13712
Joined: 07 Dec 2016 21:53
Location: Northern Virginia, USA
Contact:

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

#2520 Post by supersobes » 20 May 2022 15:39

Chopping up the Interstates would be a bad move, in my opinion. Sure, it may make the game look pretty by letting you drive through small towns, but it would be terribly unrealistic. I think that in ATS, Interstates should always have priority as they are the most important highways to truck traffic. There are still plenty of US and state highways in the east that don't run near Interstates that could be added to mix things up for players who don't like freeways. Interstates in the east are far less straight than those out west too, particularly in the Appalachian Mountains. I know that in my experience driving the Interstates here in the east, we have a fair share of sharp curves on Interstates where even cars have to slow down a bit similar to a lot of the mountain passes in the Rocky Mountains. There are lots of options SCS can choose to pull off the east, but deleting parts of Interstates is not one that I would ever consider.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dkasper00, Google [Bot], oldmanclippy and 12 guests