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

[Calibuddy99]

I said what would happen IF!!!!! Oh my god. I was saying what would happen if they started there. I might as well stop arguing. it's not worth it, I'm just the stupid idiot, that's fine. I play the idiot role i guess. So I guess I am leaving. Goodbye!

[Optional Features]

Animated trailer loading/unloading, similar to the animations of the short ferry ride in Romania, in ETS2. Yes to that.

Stockton has 2 of those intermodal terminals, as linked earlier in this thread.

Question. New trucks, some are transported by rail too, right?

I believe flight is correct: they are just driven to the dealer in piggyback formation (which slightly differs from the scs new truck transport system).

Military equipment is often shipped by rail, and obviously cars, but don't think semi chassis, at least not today. I have found some pics, but they are all like 70s.

[Shiva]

Okay, cheers.

[angrybirdseller]

Non time sensitive cargo rail is cheaper modular setup just haul trailers to centralized and drivers can make last 200 mile delivery. California it used alot because less pollution and less trucks on the road. Have new vehicles its easier just to load on train haul to Kansas City or Chicago.

[Quasimoto7]

I said what would happen IF!!!!! Oh my god. I was saying what would happen if they started there. I might as well stop arguing. it's not worth it, I'm just the stupid idiot, that's fine. I play the idiot role i guess. So I guess I am leaving. Goodbye!

I browse this forum periodically but I didn't create an account until I was seeing your responses. Responses that I thought that were quite silly.

The discussion about having so called "different base states" I think is pretty valid, given the cost that the full game actually is. For someone who buys every DLC on release day, $12.00 every 6 months on average is not unreasonable, but for someone just starting out, wanting to make trips to and from their home state, say Georgia (when it gets to that point) it's a huge cost to connect their state with others. What do you do there? just accept that you have to play Georgia on its own? I get there's sales and all, but I can understand if this is a point that turns some people off.

California for all the positives it has, is not an amazing "base state" in practice. Not for anything personal to map makers or developers, or for how California looks. Rather, it's for the simple reason that California has the downside of being bordered by a massive ocean on the west and Mexico in the south. Meaning, you can only go North, and East from California. This is a similar problem with Texas, and Florida as well. Also, for the fact that it is in the far west of the map, making it difficult for new players with little cash to branch to their home states, when that time eventually comes.

If the game had started from, say, Missouri, you would have several more options in several different directions. It probably makes more sense in hindsight to have the "base map" be a state in the center of the country for that reason, also so that it would take a bit less cash for people to get to their home states. But that's not a complaint; I have personally no problems with California as a base state.

Also, it's important to note that because of scaling, things are going to be looked over. And that's totally fine; the 1:20 scale makes it so that no state is too large for map makers, or too long for more casual players like myself.

[oldmanclippy]

California for all the positives it has, is not an amazing "base state" in practice. Not for anything personal to map makers or developers, or for how California looks. Rather, it's for the simple reason that California has the downside of being bordered by a massive ocean on the west and Mexico in the south. Meaning, you can only go North, and East from California. This is a similar problem with Texas, and Florida as well. Also, for the fact that it is in the far west of the map, making it difficult for new players with little cash to branch to their home states, when that time eventually comes.

If the game had started from, say, Missouri, you would have several more options in several different directions. It probably makes more sense in hindsight to have the "base map" be a state in the center of the country for that reason, also so that it would take a bit less cash for people to get to their home states. But that's not a complaint; I have personally no problems with California as a base state.

Agreed. Hindsight is always 20/20 though. California, Nevada, and Arizona had the benefit of being very very different from anything in ETS2 at the time, so it was easier to market it as new and different compared to something in the central US. It also had very internationally famous cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas, not to mention iconic locations like the Golden Gate Bridge, Hollywood, the Grand Canyon, and the Hoover Dam. So I don't think I can blame SCS for choosing that as the base map for those reasons. Texas might have been a close second in terms of best options though. Very famous state, enough geographic diversity if not as much spectacle as the West. Either way, the rework phase that we're in right now would be daunting. So I think the only main benefit of starting in the center, is as you said the ability to expand in more directions.

[Quasimoto7]

Agreed. Hindsight is always 20/20 though. California, Nevada, and Arizona had the benefit of being very very different from anything in ETS2 at the time, so it was easier to market it as new and different compared to something in the central US. It also had very internationally famous cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas, not to mention iconic locations like the Golden Gate Bridge, Hollywood, the Grand Canyon, and the Hoover Dam. So I don't think I can blame SCS for choosing that as the base map for those reasons. Texas might have been a close second in terms of best options though. Very famous state, enough geographic diversity if not as much spectacle as the West. Either way, the rework phase that we're in right now would be daunting. So I think the only main benefit of starting in the center, is as you said the ability to expand in more directions.

Yeah, that's a good point. Having your first state be say Kansas would not exactly be appealing from a marketing standpoint, not to dish on Kansas or many of the middle states but it's no California; in prestige or scenery. Even Illinois, which has Chicago and Borders St. Louis, doesn't have the most exotic terrain at least that I'm aware of. That would probably be the only other option aside from Texas if you wanted to start in the middle of the country.

So yeah, it's a complicated issue. It doesn't get any easier for newer players to join in especially when the number of DLC's to buy continues to rise.

[flight50]

So yeah, it's a complicated issue. It doesn't get any easier for newer players to join in especially when the number of DLC's to buy continues to rise.

First off welcome to the site. We all lurk at some point, lol. But the latest conversation seriously struck a button if it got you signed up, lol. Well you're here now so might as well continue to contribute.

I agree with what you just said but like oldmanclippy stated, the start has to be practical and attractive enough. California, Texas, Florida, Illinois and New York are the best options imo. Then branch out for one of those areas. Each of those I mentioned should come with 2-3 states just like California. After that, all are paid. If it was possible to do multiple base map packs, that is the route to go perhaps. If at any given time one could start with either bundle around the US, that bundle would include the base map files and we'd only need one base map. Doing a selective map region does allow one to have a centralized location based on what they want. Right now, one must go West to East if you road connective to all states.

For me, honestly I don't care what the base map will be. I plan on buying any and all dlc's for ATS. There are many people in that same boat. But SCS knows that will not be the case for everyone so teleporting was made as an option.

[dj212]

I know it's old news at this point, but I just wanted to give a little feedback about the Sacramento rebuild since it's one of the areas I know in real life.

Overall, I'm a big fan. Some personal highlights:
- The suburbs that spread out of the city towards the freeways in all directions help sell Sacramento as a big city.
- Downtown looks authentic to me, and I appreciate the local landmarks (Old Sacramento, the office building called "The Ziggurat", etc.).
- The short segment of US 50 east of I-5 has the right "vibe" and feels wonderfully familiar. I'm eager to see more of US 50 heading towards Nevada!

A couple negatives:
- Many of the freeways are too narrow (they often have 2 lanes when they should have 3 or more).
- Hills and pine forests are right next to the city, but they should actually be far to the east and not visible from downtown.

The city being too close to the hills is a really tough problem, but I hope the team can come up with some tricks to mitigate it as ATS goes east into denser parts of the country. At one point there was talk on the forum about using cut-planes to prevent "distant" scenery from being visible from too far away -- maybe that would help in this case?

Anyway, thanks again to the rebuild team. I'm really looking forward to the next phase!

[oldmanclippy]

@dj212 I'm also a pretty big fan of Sacramento, and yeah your negatives are my negatives. The mountains being so close is a problem shared by Cheyenne too, victims of 1:20 scale. But overall, both are good despite those challenges I would say. Bay Area will be a test of their ability to work with the 1:20 scale like no other test they've had yet. Should be interesting to see how they handle it.