Texas Discussion Thread

[parasaurolophus67]

John Deere still out of the question due to reasons viewtopic.php?t=304165&hilit=john+deere

[flight50]

With all the cool tourist things SCS adds to ATS, I've advocated for an RV dlc a few times. If ETS2 gets coaches, ATS needs RVs. We do have RV prefab parks already in ATS. So RV are not a new site as is. So it makes sense to get an RV defactory along with a RV retailer. We just got a garbage truck for cargo with MWM. Why not an RV to an RV dealership from the factory which aids the RV dlc. It solidifies an RV dlc imo. RV's dealers are along many Texas roads frontage roads along with mobile homes which would be another great depot to have to haul more realistic mobile homes. The one we have now is just too short. We need a long one and a double wide.

Trailers is another good. I've debated that one for awhile now. I thought about adding them to the ATS flatbed thread before. I know there are a few off I-30 East of Dallas that would be cool for agricultural environments. There's so much potential with cargo in this game that is sad we aren't getting much. The game can be have as deep of an economy as SCS is willing to make it.

So here in Texas, just off I-30 alone, I know where there is a mobile home retailer, a trailer depot and an RV dealership. 2 are within 5 miles of my house. The other is much further out. And to be honest, I'd even go are far as betting SCS gets each of those in as scenic, lol.

@parasaurolophus67 I wouldn't say JD is out of the question. They are just extremely difficult to work with that its not worth it when there are other options. JD was mentioned as an example because they are a big face. If a perso say JD, you know exactly what equipment one is speaking of. Other brands, most people have to look them up. But there are several brands that SCS could approach for licenses and I bet they'd be thrilled to get featured. If they think marketing, they can get exposure and that helps compete with JD.

[JoeAlex23]

I haven't done a long post like this in awhile. I don't expect everyone to sit here and read this but a few will. I just hope its the right few

Excellent post as usual Flight, i agree with every single word you said there, i really enjoyed reading that, ICC's need to be shaken up ASAP in ATS, we aren't even asking for something almost impossible to do or something they have never done before (*cough*ETS2*cough*), i always say ETS2 and ATS get the same amount of love and details but the ICC's department in ETS2 leaves a lot to be desired in ATS, it's time SCS show us both games can be at the same level.

And btw, no, you don't sound like a Karen , you just gave perfect examples on how to fix the ICC's problem in ATS and i totally believe it's the right way moving forward.

[flight50]

@JoeAlex23 Thanks. I just have a lot of passion for ICC's for ATS. The logistics in the game is soooo barely scratched that its frustrating. I know features are desired and are necessary as well, but the entire point of the game to begin with is the logistics system. There is no trucking game without that. Any driving simulator can provide features but in a trucking sim, we need more focus on the logistics because that is the point in the game. Idaho struck me like a bolt of lighting. I was in disbelief that the devs thought so little of ATS to bring absolutely nothing new for ICC's. I've been on the ICC's push every since then. That should never happen again. That was embarrassing and I took it quite personal to be honest. Obviously I'm still a bit upset at Idaho and how it was treated for an $11.99 dlc.

I don't work for SCS but I'm worried about their bottom end with Texas. They will sell it pretty well...........in the beginning. If the type of backlash happens like with Iberia and Black Sea but with ICC's, future Texas sales could be compromised. That is why SCS should really boost up things for its day one release. If that means holding Texas to polish it more to focus a bit more on ICC's, I'd hope they do that. The community shouldn't be like "release it now fix it later". Those will be the first ones leaving negative reviews saying its not finished. For the areas we do get, they need to be well done. Texas needs to have a minimum of 15-20 new companies and that is still far less than most ETS2 dlc's of a similar size. I just haven't see enough in the blogs to get me thinking 15+ is coming. Now there is still time though.

My biggest fear is that we'll get several new prefabs but they'll be under the same company names we already have instead of installing new prefabs and new companies. I'm hoping Texas blogs will go strong in a few more weeks after Montana gets its spotlight. Without an ETS2 dlc this year perhaps, Texas has fill that void as much as possible. So its has to met expectations to be a great dlc. I don't think Texas needs to target okay or good dlc status. The goal needs to be great status.

[Sora]

Leave it in the West. Make a new one for each of the other 3 regions

I have... I don't know if I should call it an objection, per se, but it's something I don't feel you're making crystal clear.

You keep saying things like "the other three regions", but the US isn't so rigid that that's an inherently meaningful statement - you can easily divide the US into as many or as few regions as you need. Furthermore, some companies will inherently be larger or smaller; some "regional companies" may extend across half the country, while others only appear in a single state. Transitions aren't necessarily going to be at state lines, either - west Texas should have some "western" companies you'd see in Colorado or New Mexico, north Texas should have a (relatively smaller) handful of "midwestern" companies you'd see in Oklahoma or Kansas, and east Texas should have some "southern" companies you'd see in Louisiana or Arkansas. The reverse is also true; for example, some primarily Texan companies will have a bit of spillover into neighboring states like Louisana or New Mexico.

And even within regions, there are distinct differences - the west coast will have a lot of stuff the more mountain-westy states don't, the "deep south" may differ from the more central states on the east coast, and Texas is practically a region of its own. It's worth keeping "regions" in the back of your head, but they're ultimately a guideline and not a rule.

The core of your idea isn't wrong, but I need to emphasize that it's not as simple as "the west uses company set A, the south uses company set B, the midwest uses company set C, and the northeast uses company set D". Sets should bleed together at the boundary states, and some types of companies may follow different boundaries entirely, such that they appear in multiple regions or share half of their only region with a different regional company.

A great example of this is grocery stores. Broadly, Walmart and Target should appear in almost every state, with Walmart being the more common (and it's fair to say that it should ultimately still be the biggest company overall when all is said and done), and the west would probably have a lot of Albertsons or Safeway on top of those two. But the midwest would have a split of both Aldi's and Kroger's with a handful of each extending all the way down to Texas, Texas would have an HEB parody all to itself, and some states wouldn't have anything besides Walmart or Target because that's just how it is. (I usually see Eddy's as a Walgreens/CVS and Tidbit as odds-and-ends things like Trader Joes or Family Dollar, as an aside; I'm not counting those here.)

(side note: I tried to get through that paragraph using only parody names like "Ton Eighty" (Target) or "Bon Voyage, Inc." (Safeway), but by the time I got to Aldi's I was just too tired for that crap.)

-

tl;dr: Don't just scrap everything completely at the state line. Texas and the states above it should be a gradual transition, with "older" companies still appearing on their western sides, and "newer" companies appearing more frequently as you go further east. And South and East Texas, in particular, should transition into a different set than either - because they're more closely tied to the south than they are to the west or midwest. Having said that, some companies should already have been split, such that their "transitions" should have happened across Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Idaho - as the West Coast sphere of influence began to fade.

[flight50]

@Sora thanks for reading and providing feed back.

I understand your confusion though. The biggest reason is that you don’t come here enough to follow most things I post. You tend to only come around after major updates only. People who are frequent posters will understand much better. I post a lot of pics of charts, graphs, sketches and ideas in regards to ICC's. Not sure if you seen that expression. ICC is an acronym for Industries, Companies and Cargo. If you Google regions in the US or if you recall from school, there have always been 4 basic regions here. At least this is what I was taught in the 90’s. Not sure what they teach now. There are some graphs that say 5 or 7 regions. Pick one though, doesn't really matter. I follow 4 so I’m keeping it simple for the games sake since SCS likes to copy paste such a larger area. 4 regions is simpler to follow than 5 or 7.

Secondly, this isn’t real life and I am basing a lot of this off how ETS2 is setup. It’s not real life either. But when I talk about regions, SCS tends to see ETS2 logistics is setup by regions. Why can't ATS is my point. But what is clear is that I stated it’s my opinion on how I see it. Doesn’t mean it right. But I don’t see anyone else ever trying to provide such a guideline or blueprint on how to fix the logistics for ATS to get some much needed diversity. Adding Target and HEB is not going to solve things for Texas. We need a ton more. I also mentioned to carry over 25-30% from what we currently have. That means blend a percentage, a small one. There's a section I called out for National. There's a section I stated for new industries that can blend over.

Leave in the West and make new for the other 3 regions means make new companies for the South region (R2), the Midwest region (R3) and the Northeast region (R4). Texas is the first state arriving for the South. Kansas will be the first for the maid West. Northeast is much further out and Pennsylvania is probably the first there.

For a company that does not live here to try following US economy......for a video game, following hard lines as in regions is much easier for them than worrying about soften boundaries...blending stuff as you say. Sure they can do that if they can pull it off. Texas is easy blend R1 with R2 and R3 because it’s so huge. But worrying about blending regions within Texas itself is too much. If you notice how they layout companies in dlc's, its all over the state. They put industry where it at using the exact same company name. I'm using the principles they use already and apply it to the entire US. My suggestion is for them to use what they do now but expand on it a lot more. Smaller states, blending isn’t so straight toward as Texas is. It’s the KISS method. Follow the 4 major regions...5/7 whatever...the sketch I provided several times on this forum and it the blueprint I speak of. I’ll provide the sketch again for you.

[ external image ]

[killingjoke28336]

Strange to see the South going really way up to the North almost to Philadelphia.

[Travismods]

Now that’s an interesting geographical definition on the South if I ever saw one. Almost hitting NY state there lol.

[Viper28]

@flight50 that interpretation of the major regions of the country is nothing more than opinion and far from definitive and certainly debatable in accuracy.

[oldmanclippy]

I think the idea of regions should be used as a very limited idea of "OK we should really get some new companies here pronto", with the actual implementation being blending as @Sora put it. Look at what regions are used for real life companies. Here I see a lot of companies that operate in MN, ND, WI, IA, SD. Some operate just in MN and ND, or MN and IA, or MN and WI, etc. Some reach down to NE or MO or IL. Some are national. Some are a hodgepodge, existing in MN and AZ for example. You get the idea, it's similar across the country. Ideally ATS includes a mixture of these: some national, some interstate contiguous regional, some interstate non-contiguous regional, some confined to one state, some intrastate regional, some local to a metro area, and some local to a city. The concept of regions can be used as a guide rather than a rigid system. Because every industry has many different overlapping definitions of regions. And every industry has exceptions. I want SCS to embrace the chaos. Rigidity is unrealistic. ETS2 suffers from each DLC mostly only adding intrastate regional companies, with most of the interstate regional companies being from the base map and not DLCs. I want ATS to take what works from ETS2, combine it with what works in ATS, and add in all the types of company distributions that are missing from both games.

I also agree that R2 is a bit silly. El Paso and Dover should not be in the same region.