Poll: Choose (3) States you would like to see next

What state should be next

Kentucky
11
2%
Mississippi
30
6%
Iowa
101
19%
Tennessee
25
5%
South Dakota
97
19%
Louisiana
126
24%
North Dakota
46
9%
Illinois
84
16%
 
Total votes: 520

Tarcansari
Posts: 27
Joined: 05 Oct 2021 17:22

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5551 Post by Tarcansari » 05 Dec 2021 19:27

I think I have a feeling that she will hear scs Oklahoma dlc this year at New Year's Eve because she said scs Wyoming texas, she didn't say montana texas, so they will announce 99.9% of what they will announce in Oklahoma.
User avatar
SenseFM
Posts: 399
Joined: 24 Apr 2021 17:00
Location: Spain

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5552 Post by SenseFM » 05 Dec 2021 19:37

^I don't think it's very likely, since Montana was just announced a few weeks ago. It would be unprecedented to announce another new DLC in such a short time span. I'd expect the next DLC to be announced shortly after Texas' release.
Tarcansari
Posts: 27
Joined: 05 Oct 2021 17:22

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5553 Post by Tarcansari » 05 Dec 2021 19:42

because in a very small place, it would take 5 or 6 months or so.
Attachments
images.png
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30151
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5554 Post by flight50 » 05 Dec 2021 19:51

With KC to Missouri, Topeka is the last stop for I-70 for sure. To make up for KC not in Kansas, they are better off developing Southeast Kansas to tie in Oklahoma much better. US-69 to KC in the future is a good add. Pittsburg would be the go to city in that region so I'd map it with Kansas. Normally SCS leaves out the Southeast of a dlc. Flip the roll and leave out the Northeast this time if they go KC with MO.

US-69 and Pittsburg gets us to US-54 and hopefully US-160 comes to be the Southern most road. So considering US-69 would terminate in Fort Scott until Missouri, we can head West on US-54 to US-75 to get to Topeka. 69, 75, 160 and I-35 would be good density in the Eastern part of Kansas. But getting a lot more of I-35 would be ideal. Making I-35 from Wichita to KC is a ton of work added to the Missouri dlc. SCS might as well cut out half that and provide half of I-35 with Kansas.. Cheat Topeka West a little bit, that way KC has more space. Without I-335, Topeka can hold up shifting West a bit. I'd move Topeka about 3-4 game miles West. That would give Kansas City and even St. Joseph some space for the future. But like I mentioned earlier, the roads have to come first. Find out what fits. Get the right junctions in there and go from there.

As far as I-435, every city in the game will end up missing some spurs. If every major US city is to have a downtown area, those loops and spurs have to be compromised. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Either we have an awesome town center with the major interchanges thru town center and have all the industries pushed to the perimeter........or we have no town center and have spurs and loops populated to bring all the industries in place of towncenters. I'm sure town centers are more important. People would be livid without them for the largest cities in the US. Every US city has major industries along something that won't make the game though. SCS just has to find alternate industries. The same ones over and over get too repetitive anyways. Find other solutions to make a city enjoyable. They have to cut corners somewhere for the largest cities in the US to be represented.

I'd imagine the top 71 from this list that make the game as marked cities, get town centers. Of those 71, I see 59 of those cities as either in the game already or coming with their respective dlc's. Those 59, have slimmer chances of driving thru town centers than other lower than 71. The Eastern cities will definitely have to shave corners. We can't dismiss surface streets either. They'll needs space. So surface streets or spurs/loops. I'll take the surface streets to link the city together.

As far a Oklahoma, I think there is a strong shot that its teaser could come in March. Same time when other things get teased. March is good because whether Texas is a Spring or Summer release, there could be enough people done with what they needed to do and jump over to start up life after Texas. If the Texas team has like 65-70% of the ATS mappers, they will get split up anyways. Come Spring, Texas could be in a position to only have one map team working it to push it out. That frees up a team or enough of a team to move on. If Oklahoma could get announced to follow Montana, I'd expect Oklahoma to be a Spring 2023 map release. Once Texas releases, that team could push to Kansas. Kansas could be the Summer 2023 map release. Then there is Montana. If it releases for Winter 2022 or even earlier 2023, they'd move on to either Louisiana or Nebraska. One of those could be the Winter 2023 map or worse case, early 2024. The smaller states are busy but at the same time, they are easily done in the 8-12 month development time frame. There could be a chance we see 3 maps start up for 2023 if all goes well. Of course this isn't official but based on the time frames the devs reveal how long each state takes, we can some what take stabs at dev time moving forward. Outside of Texas and Montana, all dlc's are within that 12 month dev time.
Last edited by flight50 on 05 Dec 2021 20:03, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
SenseFM
Posts: 399
Joined: 24 Apr 2021 17:00
Location: Spain

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5555 Post by SenseFM » 05 Dec 2021 19:56

Tarcansari wrote: 05 Dec 2021 19:42 because in a very small place, it would take 5 or 6 months or so.
Although Oklahoma is a lot smaller than Texas, it's still slightly bigger than Washington, a state that took a year to map. And its area isn't much smaller than Colorado or Wyoming either. The thing that makes Oklahoma easier to map than its predecessor states would be its geography - the state is mostly flat with the exception of the Ouachita Mountains and the foothills of the Ozark Plateau in the east. But relief is not everything, there are many other things to map such as cities, towns, a dense enough road network... So it's not always evident if a state will take more or less time depending on its area.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30151
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5556 Post by flight50 » 05 Dec 2021 20:07

I agree with SenseFM. No way Oklahoma gets done in 5-6 months. No dlc should ever go that fast unless we get individual states in the Northeast. But even then, those smaller states would get bundled. So in a nutshell, we are looking at 7-8 months as the minimum. That is what it took for Utah and Idaho iirc. If states can be done in 5-6 months solo, they need to be bundled for sure. All dlc's for ATS imho should be 8-12 months worth of work if we are to get quality out of it.
Shiva
Posts: 4967
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5557 Post by Shiva » 05 Dec 2021 20:27

Could depend on if they have worked a bit on Oklahoma, while doing Texas?
But I do not see Oklahoma before Montana.
NTM's B-Double Telescopic Skeletal Container Carrier. Youtube video on how it works. W & S thread.
B-Double trailer and short modes: EN 7.82 swap body, 20’ or 30’ containers.
Standalone 40' mode: EN 7.82 swap body, 20', 30', 40' or 2 x 20' trailer.
User avatar
TheAmir259
Posts: 283
Joined: 12 Sep 2018 12:51
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5558 Post by TheAmir259 » 06 Dec 2021 00:24

They might have, but Oklahoma's announcement is definitely not something we'll see until Texas is very close to being released, earliest that is. Have we seen 3 announced map DLCs (but not yet released) at the same time before? And just like how Montana's unlikely to release first before Texas, same goes to Oklahoma. I really hope SCS won't be pulling our leg here and suddenly decided to do some other state first because from what i see, Oklahoma's no-brainer choice, should definitely come next after Montana, but if they suddenly decided to do so anyway, I can see North Dakota as the possible follow-up to Montana, in addition to Louisiana as the possible candidates.
Two wrongs don't make a right, three lefts...do :D
Tristman
Posts: 1543
Joined: 17 Mar 2021 20:15
Location: Pizza Hut

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5559 Post by Tristman » 06 Dec 2021 00:53

I don't want to say that SCS will never do it, but so far they have never released DLC in a different order than they announced them. So I think we can be 99% sure that Texas is the next DLC, then Montana, and after that Oklahoma is highly likely.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30151
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next

#5560 Post by flight50 » 06 Dec 2021 00:57

North Dakota should be a no no honestly. With Texas in place, we'd have a C shape gap. If you build out then in, it gets down to a one state gap in which that C shape would be a pita.

So Texas/North Dakota. Then Oklahoma/South Dakota. Then Kansas and finally Nebraska. Nebraska would be a problem. Going from Eastern South Dakota to Eastern Kansas without Nebraska in place is odd. They are better off starting from one edge of the map and build to the other. Working both outer edges then in, makes an unwanted C shape.

The Southern route is logical if we keep Pavel's ambition in mind. Get to Florida asap and thar involves the Southern route. So build South to North.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests