Montana Discussion Thread

[Shiva]

I do remember the intersection in Troy, but not whether MT-56 looked like a stub or not. It would make sense to have it as a western entrance to Thompson Falls though.

MT-56, that did look like a stub road.
But one can always hope that things change.

Same with ID-200 towards MT-200.

I do still hope for a connecting road between Thompson Falls, MT and Wallace, ID.

[Travismods]

"The game will never be like real life and that is what many want considering the word "simulator" is in the title. "

No. That is not it. I see this pop up now and again on here and its not a fair assessment to the large group of players that are now requesting more simulation out of ATS after all these years. First off, no simulation game on the market is ever "like real life". What people expect is some simulation, not real life. In fact, if you look at just about any simulator on the market you see they always cut corners from real life to make gameplay decent and fun. Thats the nature of the game. However when people see the word simulator in the title ATS they expect a level of simulation higher than ATS. Driving is not all there is to trucking, and its not all that is potentially fun or worthwhile to do in a trucking game either.

If we look at what ATS is today, it is almost identical in functionality to when it launched 7 years ago - you drive between points on a map to deliver cargo that magically disappears without any interactivity. From a simulator perspective, its almost what simnuts would call dumb. The only interactivity or simulation there really is beyond driving is the customization of the truck. When people read "truck simulator" it would make sense to think they expect more simulation than what is currently in game. However, and this is the crucial point - there is no reason to look at this and go "yep, its either ATS or reality and reality would not work". There is room in between. We can have an ATS with more functionality that is not bordering on reality but that would still be way more interesting, fun and engaging a "truck simulator" if it featured more and optional simulation mechanics.

Also, I may be wrong, but aren't games that devs market as "simulators" whole point kinda that they should strive to include features from real life? This is not exactly Skyrim or Mario Kart, lol.

[Kistk3]

Austria in ETS 2 got it's Pass over Grossglockner , just me again dreaming something like this for Montana >> Beartooth Pass


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFacWiR ... nnel=JohnR


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj82vkF ... nel=SunHig

[eonellivlem]

Montana is the state i'm looking forward too rather than Texas. The map will be nicely boxed and it's almost like the final piece of the jigsaw with the maps current shape. I do wonder though, when Montana is released how many players will be happy with the map and leave it at that.

[Travismods]

@eonellivlem When Montana drops people will play it for a week, then get back to waiting for more maps, since there is nothing else to do in game. Just maps, maps maps so you consume them very fast when they drop.

[VTXcnME]

@koolizz 100% nailed it.

[VTXcnME]

"The game will never be like real life and that is what many want considering the word "simulator" is in the title. "

No. That is not it. I see this pop up now and again on here and its not a fair assessment to the large group of players that are now requesting more simulation out of ATS after all these years. First off, no simulation game on the market is ever "like real life". What people expect is some simulation, not real life. In fact, if you look at just about any simulator on the market you see they always cut corners from real life to make gameplay decent and fun. Thats the nature of the game. However when people see the word simulator in the title ATS they expect a level of simulation higher than ATS. Driving is not all there is to trucking, and its not all that is potentially fun or worthwhile to do in a trucking game either.

If we look at what ATS is today, it is almost identical in functionality to when it launched 7 years ago - you drive between points on a map to deliver cargo that magically disappears without any interactivity. From a simulator perspective, its almost what simnuts would call dumb. The only interactivity or simulation there really is beyond driving is the customization of the truck. When people read "truck simulator" it would make sense to think they expect more simulation than what is currently in game. However, and this is the crucial point - there is no reason to look at this and go "yep, its either ATS or reality and reality would not work". There is room in between. We can have an ATS with more functionality that is not bordering on reality but that would still be way more interesting, fun and engaging a "truck simulator" if it featured more and optional simulation mechanics.

Also, I may be wrong, but aren't games that devs market as "simulators" whole point kinda that they should strive to include features from real life? This is not exactly Skyrim or Mario Kart, lol.

I go back to some previous conent/features wish list items. Things like being able to get out of the truck and tie on your own air lines. Do a walk around truck check. Having an animated loading screen, showing things being loaded onto or off the trailer. Having to lash down a flat deck load yourself, or at least check the straps are tight. Simple pre trip things like this would make a huge impact on driving. If you drive a walbert trailer, when you uncouple it and disconnect instead of the jack stand handle automatically coming out and deploying the skids, what if the animation included your driver actually manipulating the handle?

Would that be a little added work? Sure would, but how much would it add to game play? Would people buy the game because it had added functionality? It certainly can't hurt.

There are some games that can really claim "simulator" status in my mind... and those are still, as you say, not quite 100%. I think of MSFS off the top (I know, the mere mention on this forum usually incites a riot). But MSFS succeeds where ATS fails: MSFS has a whole mess of in game sliders. You can make it as simulator-ish and difficult as you want or as easy and arcade-ish as you want. That kind of customization is where you net the most gamers from. You get the casual and hardcore folks, and with the near endless customization of realism, graphics and assist sliders everyone is more contented.

[flight50]

Although I have zero interest in getting out the truck to do anything (gets old fast just like anything else) I'd never be against it. The request is highly up there. Some of us focus on different adds than others but in the end, we all want improvements. But such improvements comes within the limitations for the department responsible for the task at SCS. Map team/asset team, Vehicle team, Sound team, Programmers...we all want something from these groups. Maps is about the one things that seems to come much easier for SCS to implement. Adding more states to drive is just as critical as any other aspect of the game. Its the main source of income that won't run out no time soon. So its obvious they must ramp up the map/asset team.

To be honest, if ATS stopped production right now and only did features that some request, I'd get super bored playing the same roads over and over. Taking the same cargo, seeing the same companies without expansion. I think SCS needs to balance it all though. A little bit of this and a little bit of that. We all play differently, we all play for different reasons. Some of us take it more seriously than others, some are just casual. Casual could mean 2-3 hrs a week. Others could be 2-3 hrs a month. Some may not even play unless there is a new update are dlc of some sort.

[VTXcnME]

@flight50 Same cargo to different states gets tiresome as well.

I agree whole-heartedly that state DLC is what's doing the lion-share of bill paying, but there needs to be a touch more balance in the cargo and feature as we've all asked for.

And if SCS could or would implement a sliding scale of realism/difficulty it would be easy for those who want to be out of the truck doing inspections, air line ties, skid lift etc to do that. Meanwhile those who would get tired of it, or just not have any interest from the start could leave it all automated.

There's so many avenues one can look at and visualize improvement. It's certain that SCS couldn't possibly drag in every direction simultaneously. Economy, in game features, cargos, states, trucks, trailers. Everyone wants something. Usually we all want something different. But there are patterns that develop. Another thing I remember reading (and agreeing with) is being able to sleep anywhere. Home Depot lots, or interstate off ramps, sleep triggers in sleeper cab trucks.

There's a lot of asks, no doubt.

Montana improves the cargo system, or at least adds some diversity with a new carrier and some new loads. It's not huge, but it's a start. Everything in it's turn. It would be cool if one update included walk around features. Similar to what you can do in truck garage customization page. With 18 W.O.S. legacy stuff coming up in Montana, some added game features could be a nice little bonus.

[oldmanclippy]

It's all about balance. More states without more features is not a good move, but more features without more states is not a good move either. Ideally, all aspects of the game (maps, physics, simulation, graphics, etc) would advance together consistently. That's not how development works though, so sometimes we get more maps, sometimes we get more features, etc. What I think is driving impatience among some folks is that we haven't seen a whole lot of meaningful changes on the physics/simulation/feature fronts in recent years. So it seems like more maps is dominating the content that SCS is putting out. I think that's a fair assessment. I have faith that stuff is in the pipeline, if only because we know SCS is employing all these programmers and modelers and it would be ridiculous to pay them to sit on their butts and be unproductive for years on end. So I'm certain that there are unannounced improvements on the way. But I don't blame people for being pessimistic based on the output in recent years in those areas.

Montana is bringing improvements in terms of industries and companies, an area of the game that has been practically neglected since Oregon. So that's one improvement on the way for sure.