ATS long term development map - all states, Canada & Mexico

[Mohegan13]

SCS are already aware of the possibility of people not having connecting states and have been since long before ATS released. In fact this is a problem they are going to have to cover very soon in ETS2. There's currently only two countries I can think of that can be DLC and not be connected existing DLC packs, after that time, all new DLC will be connected to other DLC maps so how to "fill the void" is something that will have to be decided.


I know your talking more about how SCS can release things as opposed to people not buying all map packs, but the problem is the same.

When a new map pack is released the game gets a compatibility update, in the case of France, it got free France updates too. They can use a similar system for non-connecting states.

Lets say Oregon has been released already and Washington is just about to drop. Person X has no interest in Oregon, but lives in Washington and buys it. They need some way to reach California, so the free compatibility update adds a couple of the main highways that would run through Oregon, they should have fuel stops, but no exits other than Washington state ones.

When it comes to actually releasing states that aren't connected, I really don't think they would do that. I don't believe it would be in their best interests to have map gaps in the game, it just wouldn't look right to someone new discovering the game and could potentially put off a new buyer. I'll be honest, if I saw a game that had Cali, Arizona, Nevada, then Texas with nothing connecting it. I would probably not buy it, it really would put me off.

[golcan]

Hi Moh,

in the case of France, it got free France updates too

Yes, and as I mentioned in the other thread, they still can add a road to connect existing vanilla map with a future Spain/Portugal DLC (if any).

I don't believe it would be in their best interests to have map gaps in the game

Obviously, it's not a good option. I repeat again, I mentioned that situation only to show how flexible would be the connection road network solution.
Anyway, we use to be focused on the development stage of the map. This solution is good even for that stage, but is a lot more useful for the final stage, with the map completed, where more likely a player will have many DLCs available. IMHO, on that stage this solution could be MANDATORY if SCS don't want all players suddenly forced to buy many DLCs to connect two points of the map.

Kind regards.

[wolfedg]

I think it would be better to treat disconnected states as standalone areas wth jobs only offered to attached areas than to put in interconnecting roads. A third somewhat less desireable option to consider is teleportation at the state line with an apporpriate deduction of time and rest as well as fuel and maintenance costs.

[golcan]

I think it would be better to treat disconnected states as standalone areas wth jobs only offered to attached areas

If I understand correctly, that implies to treat each group of connected states as a separate map. Please, let me know if I misunderstood something.
As in ATS each profile "see" the entire map as only one map, this solution means a lot of changes to the engine, while the solution based on roads connecting the states means map contents only, as in vanilla map or DLCs contents. IMHO, it's a huge difference.
In the other hand, having many separate groups of states is more unrealistic, because long distance deliveries would probably dissapear even if you bought distant states (it would depend on the states you bought).
Regarding teleportation, it is like ferries in ETS2. No, thank you, I prefer driving, this game is about driving!

Kind regards.

[wolfedg]

@golcan While none of the options are going to please everyone, I prefer disconnected option mainly as an incentive to get people to purchase more states so the developers have the funds to complete the map. If they had to open routes through most states to provide interconnectability(made up word perhaps), it would disincentivise people to buy states they dont care about, whilst still allowing them to see a significant portion of the content in several of the states. Just my take though.

[golcan]

Hi wolfedg,

I think a few routes don't make a huge difference. IMHO, nobody would enjoy a map made of a few routes.
People enjoying map DLCs contents and having the money more likely will buy them, no need to enforce them.
For the case of people not having enough money to buy many DLCs together, this option would make that people happy as well, and would allow them buy more DLCs in the future. Perhaps that potential sale of DLCs is the part you are missing.
IMHO, If you try to enforce them to spend amounts of money that they don't have available in a certain moment, the only result could be the frustration and loss of those players as customers, including their potential future purchases of DLCs.

Kind regards.

[ReverendTed]

With the announcement of New Mexico DLC coming, I was thinking about what would happen if I wanted my home state of Texas but didn't buy New Mexico.

I like the idea of a baseline set of Interstates that is either included as a part of the base game or as a one-time "Interconnect DLC". The idea being that as each state DLC is completed (presuming all DLCs progress from existing states), a set of Interstates from that DLC is designated as Interconnecting, allowing basic passage across the state and giving a "teaser" (in the vein of a demo or, for the old timers, shareware) to entice players to purchase the DLC package and unlock all of those closed-off interstate exits. I'd expect these would have an appropriate density of gas stations and rest areas to negate the need to open up any cities necessarily.

Also, since the first paid DLC is about to be released, I think SCS should consider offering an "All-American Access" option so that players who want to bet on SCS's continued development of additional regions can go ahead and make a single larger investment now rather than pick-and-choose from the smaller DLCs. (To clarify, this would be a single purchase that grants ownership of all future DLCs as they are released.)
Obviously, their management and marketing team would need to take a long look at how that would impact their short- and long-term cash flow, but that's ultimately just a matter of setting an appropriate price point.

[RTobi]

To be honest, I was a little sad when they confirmed New Mexico as the next state since I really hoped it's going to be Utah for a nice square to drive in. I do hope that they work towards the boxy approach after the release of NM. I kinda fear that we end up driving on the same roads and interstates.

On the other side I believe the reason they completed NM is because it was already worked on when they were releasing the game.

The thing I can imagine with such an "all american Interstate access" is, that it's probably going to be 10-20 bucks as well. Considering that you will be able to drive a huge amount of interstates from state to state. This is why I thought it could probably work better if the player just gets the direct road which connects to his other DLC's. E.g. I-10 if he wants to drive from Arizona base game) to Texas without purchasing New Mexico. I-10 takes him from Tucson to El Paso on the direct way.

[RTobi]

Oh I think I can smell the sense behind New Mexico as the next state! They could then go to the boxy approach by creating Utah as well as Colorado which could be the next states!
And after them, probably to the north (Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming).

[Solo_Kamen]

Wait, there is that new part of SCS team that goes north, map-wise.... right?