#1732
Post
by flight50 » 27 Jun 2022 15:37
^That is why Idaho was so depressing for me. When I buy a new map....day one....withing 2 mins of SCS hitting go, lol, I look for certain things. There are 4 things I always...always look at before I ever start driving.
1. What roads do we get
2. What is the final city roster
3. What new companies came
4. What new cargo came
This is the process that I look for to justify what I just paid for. Oregon was the best of the crop to date. From there, 3 and 4 got smaller and smaller but why? Montana, I think SCS is taking a step back and going back to Oregon thinking. Now I am not saying we need 8 new industries every dlc. That can't happen as there are only so many industries that make the game before we run out. But 8 new companies.........that can always happen per dlc. Cargoes, that can always happen with every dlc. If ETS2 can get 20+ per dlc, why can't ATS at least get 5 or more as the standard. I tire of hearing excuses of why ATS can't get new companies. That's b.s. We see it happen for ETS2 all the time. Bring diversity and open up the economy with more variety please. This should always be the focus per new map dlc. Its just too much of the same companies and cargo without adding to the roster pool of options.
But like I've been saying since the Montana industry blog, I sure hope this is the new trend for ATS. That blog gave me hope. That blog makes me feel like we are getting thru to the devs. But considering Montana and Texas is what we know now, no telling what Oklahoma, Louisiana and Kansas do. What happens beyond those? Will they keep the trend of Montana/Texas? Or will we slip back to Idaho, Utah where we got very little to zero focus on new ICC's. I'd like to remain positive with what could come as the new norm with that Montana industry blog but I can't hold to that amount of happy just yet until I see consistency with ICC's for future dlc's. ATS can be a lot more enjoyable than it is for sure if more new came.
Until we can get new features added to the game, use the best asset for the game.........the map. But the map has to bring new for it as well. The map team/asset team is the largest team for the game. To make progress and shave off years and years of completion, the map team has to be large to kick out more per year. But make the maps worthy of purchasing. Sure some states can start looking similar to another but that is real life. Why do we get Walmarts where there are not always Walmarts in real life. Why get fictional depots if building accuracy is somewhat of focus to deliver to. If there is a Target on a corner, I'd like to see a Target and not a Walmart. If there is a one off food distribution center, why do we get a Walmart distribution. Make that food center that is actually there. Better judgment on companies would be nice.
Cutting corners and reusing a depot that doesn't apply is becoming way to obvious. Make more generic prefabs for such prefabs vs making it a Walmart all the time. With more generic names is much better than dropping a Walmart where it does not belong. If SCS is going modular, for generic buildings, make it to where 3-4 different signs can be applied to it to change the company name on the prefab, just like the examples of the 2d art concepts on the microsite. For anything food related, all the same food products can go to all. Grocery stores and distribution centers. For construction companies, all the same products can go to all. Blend the industries and the cargo more seamlessly while adding depth to the economy.
