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

What state should be next

Kentucky
11
2%
Mississippi
30
6%
Iowa
102
20%
Tennessee
25
5%
South Dakota
98
19%
Louisiana
127
24%
North Dakota
46
9%
Illinois
84
16%
 
Total votes: 523

User avatar
oldmanclippy
Posts: 5380
Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Contact:

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

#5271 Post by oldmanclippy » 24 Jun 2021 17:17

I think they could probably get away with 14.99 for bundles since that's half way between an ATS price and an ETS2/Texas (presumably) price. They definitely can't charge 17.99 for Texas and Mississippi/Alabama. People would riot lol. But 11.99 is too low for a bundle IMO, so somewhere in between either 13.99 or 14.99 is a good compromise.
blog screenshot IRL maps: Greece | Nordic Horizons | see profile for link to Germany cities and Switzerland rework maps
prediction maps: Greece | ATS 2024-2025 DLCs
research map: Upper Midwest (work in progress)
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30156
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

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

#5272 Post by flight50 » 24 Jun 2021 18:14

I can agree with $14.99 but that is the max. People will start comparing overall size and not the content packed in them, that's just people for ya. I'll use Washington as an example. Its always my go to when I compare West to East. Washington is one of the smallest yet densest states so far in ATS. For the most part, most Eastern states are equal to (2) Washington's. Give or take a little. I'll use our first possible bundle imo, Ar/La. There is a lot of over lap here but a lot of AR and La is wooded areas and tons of it. Both Ar/La is perhaps about 15% more than Washington. Fine but that's a lot of tree walls coming to Arkansas and Louisiana at the same time.

I give Louisiana: Shreveport, Monroe, Alexandria, Lake Charles, Lafayette, Baton Rouge and New Orleans as locks. Possibles are Houma and Natchitoches.
I give Arkansas: Fayetteville, Jonesboro, Little Rock, Conway, Fort Smith, Pine Bluff, Texarkana, El Dorado. Possibles are Hot Springs and Forrest City.

So between the two, that is 15 locks with a possible 19 total cities. Majority of these are Boise, Grand Junction, Ft. Collins type sizes and drivable (just a guess). The largest 2 (Little Rock and New Orleans) will spread out like Vegas/Twin Falls/Idaho Falls with a tad bit of center town center that we may not get to drive thru. We'll need big buildings where they exist to create town centers. I'd expect them to be something like Vegas and not drive thru it all. Depots in and around the city and we can access it all despite big buildings mostly. So on the low side, 15 marked cities is only 3-4 more than what we typically get which is about 11-12 marked cities. On the high side, 6 more cities than the norm at 19. Although I think such is worth $13.99 or $14.99, SCS still needs to be careful. That's only $3.00 off from having a dlc the size of Iberia/Texas. Texas is larger than (3) Arkansas's and (2) Louisiana's for the most part so if people have to pay closer to ETS2 dlc's for only (2) ATS states, there will be less people buying ATS bundled dlc's that release as one.

I'd rather SCS go for selling more by charging less here. More people would buy Ar/La at $13.99 than at $14.99 at regular price. If I was Pavel, I'd want more sales for dlc's before Steam sales kick in. If you already have several or all the other ATS dlc's, you already get a Steam discount as is for adding more ATS dlc's. So if regular price is $13.99 for Ar/LA, with a discount you could be at $12.99 and people would be quick to buy that for a 2 state bundle. It might seem like SCS is cheating themselves but you gain more sales over the dlc's life span by selling more for less. Sale (2) copies of Ar/LA at $13.99 vs (1) Texas at $17.99 and SCS could get more people buying Ar/La for sure. They complement Texas well. So for every one copy of Texas sold, SCS could sale (2) AR/LA bundles.

Pricing is even more critical for ATS than ETS2 at this point because not enough states exist compared to ETS2. ATS doesn't bundle states right now and people love a bargain, so offer it. Whatever template Pavel sets, he'll have to live with it. But remember, the dlc's once on Steam, the price only changes during a sale. The more states that release, the more post bundles can happen too. In the next 6-8 years, 75% of the US could be completed and people that are new to the game will be looking for the cheapest deal they can get. No one will want to pay $100+ bucks for ATS even though the dlc's would well exceed that. But most should be willing to pay about $59.99 or $69.99 for 75% of the US. $59.99 is the same price for a regular installment for a new PS or Xbox game. $69.99 for a special edition of the game. Those that buy dlc's prior to Steam sales, yes we will pay more in the long run but why dwell on that. Me personally, its not worth waiting for some sale. I want the dlc asap. (2) ATS dlc's a year is still cheap. (2) ATS dlc's won't even fill up my gas tank on either of my vehicles so I'll never complain about ATS prices, but we all know there will be many that does complain.
angrybirdseller
Posts: 3298
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 05:16
Location: Minnesota

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

#5273 Post by angrybirdseller » 25 Jun 2021 05:09

The price won't change it may with Texas at 11.99, but selling Texas at 11.99 could be done to produce more sales at lower profit margin. Think Texas at 17.99 will be fine by me some players will complain. It would not suprise me they sell Texas with 25 cities at 11.99 and make it up selling some smaller states at same price. Still, dont see Texas going beyond 17.99 sell price.

Texas at 11.99 price with 25 cities and 12,000 in game road miles could be done.

If Texas as 40 or more cities and 20,000 in game road miles then 17.99 price more likely.
User avatar
harishw8r
Posts: 4100
Joined: 14 Mar 2020 05:52
Location: Moon
Contact:

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

#5274 Post by harishw8r » 25 Jun 2021 05:25

The pricing map is interesting! The way DLCs are bundled also makes sense.

After Texas, the smaller team can do Montana, Oklahoma and Kansas and the larger team for the 6 eastern states, 2 at a time. That would hopefully gives us a decent shaped map.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30156
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

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

#5275 Post by flight50 » 25 Jun 2021 13:47

angrybirdseller wrote: 25 Jun 2021 05:09 Texas at 11.99 price with 25 cities and 12,000 in game road miles could be done.
Even at 25 cities, that is impossible to price Texas so low. 25 cities is still double the cities we got for all the other single state dlcs. That's like saying we get both Washington and Colorado for 11.99 and still have space left over to fill in Texas. That's too much work to charge so low. We typically get 11-14 cities per dlc. 25 cities plus a huge road map.......SCS can't possibly consider Texas being so low. That means they'd have to lower all the ETS2 prices as their maps are just as large as Texas.

@harishw8r Yes that is what I was thinking. The smaller team builds everything North of Texas. Montana could use a few more bodies than what it took for Wyoming though. If Wyoming took 10-11, they could use 12-13 on Montana. Once Wyoming releases, I hope the Wyoming team goes to Montana.......but I think it could take a little longer than 12 months so next Summer, we may not get a map. Me personally, I'd look for Montana as the Winter 2022 map to give the team 1.5 years. We should get Texas for Spring or Summer of 2022 so we can still get 2 maps next year. That would knock out the number 1 an the number 3 largest US states in the lower 48. Then its on.

I'd love to get the 3 states surrounding Texas done asap though. Once Texas is done, I'd actually do Oklahoma first with the Texas team. Put most people there and then get 2-3 started in both Arkansas and Louisiana. So if Texas took 15-20 people, Oklahoma may only need 10-11. Split the others up to Ar/La for a 2023 bundle release. No way the entire Texas team fits in Oklahoma without causing issues with people getting in the way. I don't know how many city builders are in Texas but one will need to go to the rebuild team. The other(s) can go to Oklahoma. There is OKC and Tulsa to worry about as the largest cities. 1 person can handle both those over the course of a year. Other than that, its Little Rock and New Orleans with a few other nice sized mid sized cities. I don't think bundles could come until after Oklahoma is out. Let if follow Montana and then the borders are set up to go East now. Once the Montana team is done, they should do Kansas, then Nebraska. While the East team tackles Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.

Once those are in, now its time to look into Missouri and Iowa before doing South and North Dakota. Maybe around this time, we get the rebuild team back into action and we can have 2 super teams if not a tad sooner. I'd like to not see SCS get stressed with trying to release 3-4 separate maps a year. Add in the ETS2 maps and that is 5 maps a year. That will be rough on everyone. Keep it Summer and Winter. That gives yourself wiggle room for the odd ball time like what happened with Iberia and possible with Texas with Spring releases instead of Summer. Release when ready but if you have agendas for Summer and Winter to shoot for, you know what you need to do.
Shiva
Posts: 4967
Joined: 21 Dec 2018 16:16

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

#5276 Post by Shiva » 25 Jun 2021 14:30

Texas at $11.99€ would be even more robbery that Iberia at $17.99€.
The amount of roads we got for $17.99€ in Iberia, is more than we deserve.

Map teams? either 3 smaller, that work different areas. 1 to dual state DLC's.
Or 2 bigger teams. Dual to tripple state DLC's.

I am sure there will be those that complain that Texas has too few roads or/and too few cities, etc.
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
flight50
Posts: 30156
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

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

#5277 Post by flight50 » 25 Jun 2021 15:13

Until we get Texas, we can't judge it in regards to roads or cities. But majority of people are in the 25-35 city range for expectations. Those who expect more than 35 cities have way to high of expectations because they keep comparing what happened in Iberia. Texas is big but its not heavily populated like Iberia. Iberia is on a totally different continent and things are totally different here in the US. I wouldn't even want more than 35 cities in Texas. That's too much and things will seem too compact. Texas is a spread out state and the dlc needs to represent that.
User avatar
CodArk2
Posts: 479
Joined: 15 May 2019 04:30
Location: Texas coast

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

#5278 Post by CodArk2 » 25 Jun 2021 16:07

Once we get past Montana and Texas the maps become smaller. Smaller maps are easier to test and bug fix than giant maps.

On the previous page, I could see Louisiana having 10 cities, Bogalusa is a small lumber town. Louisiana could pretty easily have 10 cities, max probably 12.
Arkansas has lots of cities that should be added to at least considered. I would removed Forest City as there wasn't anything there form an industry standpoint when I was there. I would add Russellville, Blytheville,Stuttgart, Harrison, maybe Men a (it would definitely be scenic if we get US 71). Arkansas could have 13 cities and be pretty dense.
Arkansas+Louisiana would be 140% the size of Washington. Arkansas by itself is almost 80% the size of Washington by land area: https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/state-s ... ington-usa
SO Arkansas+Louisiana would basically be the same size as Oregon but with he population ofColorado+ New Mexico ir Washington.


The primary determinant of whether a DLC should come standalone or coupled with another state is:
"Does the state have enough distinct natural features, distinct cities, distinct industries, and interesting history to make his a standalone state?".
It is SCS's job to do this assessment for each state and try to make them standalone. From SCS's perspective 1 purchase of Arkansas at $11.99 and I purchase of Louisiana at $11.99 for $23.98 total beats 1 purchase of an Arkansas/Louisiana DLC at $13.99. They basically lose out on $10 doing it that way. If the coupled states bundle is $11.99 they are basically giving away a state for free. Something would have to give: do they cut back on content that would have made it if the state was standalone? What kind of tradeoffs are made? Are the implants about "you forgot that city" "you forgot that route""you forgot that industry" gonna be worth it? And that adds up financially and in terms of reputation. So it would be in their best interest to keep single state DLCs going as long as they can. Besides, they can still bundle states together on steam, like we got with the Pacific Northwest bundle.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30156
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

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

#5279 Post by flight50 » 25 Jun 2021 18:07

13 cities for Arkansas is pushing it. Thats as many as Colorado and Colorado is much larger. Cities would feel very compact at that point. If we got 12-13 for Western cities, the spacing is good there. East will be an issue. I'd rather not see them try to squeeze too much into these smaller states. Its better off omitting things than making things to tight. I think Washington already pushed the limits and its as compact as things need to get. Beyond Washington's compactness, that's pushing it.

Everything depends on what roads we get with Arkansas. With any state really that will be the case. Harrison and Stuttgart are not not off main interstates. Interstate will get first priority. As we go East, the interstates will be the main roads as US and state roads take more of back seat. Russellville, Blytheville and Forrest City are all off Interstates. If we get US-65 connecting Conway to Springfield, then Harrison works. But Harrison could also be scenic with a remote depot from Fayetteville. Stuttgart is close to Pine Bluff. PB is already a push South from Little Rock type city to gain space. Blytheville is perhaps split apart enough from Jonesboro. Its a very small town though. Maybe it can be a Burns, Oregon type town. There is some legit industry there to before we hit Missouri.

Blytheville - Loves Truck stop, Walmart/Lowes/car dealerships, one of these Steel companies and maybe a farm would work.

Forrest City - this should be a small Tonopah type town prior to hitting Memphis. Boar's Head is there but that's meat processing and we don't know yet how Pavel will approach ATS livestock. I'm not too convinced we'll get slaughter houses. So what else does that leave us? Love's will need to come here as well. We can get Walmart as usual with Drake or DeMuro across from it. We an get Voltison next the dealership to act as O'Reilly auto parts. This small quarry brings NAMIQ into the mix. We don't need much for Forrest City but there is enough industry to make a 2-3 depot type city. Pushing beyond Little Rock needs to get us somewhere so I-40 need to take us further than just Little Rock/North Little Rock area. We'll need Brinkley as scenic so that we can get US-49. Until Tennessee comes. US-49 is the only way I see us getting into Louisiana to I-55 some type of way. If we don't get these two bundled, Louisiana should com first. US-49 is the closet to Memphis we can get as its the furthest East we an go to connect to Louisiana. Brinkley makes the game for the US-49 exit. The truck stop there isn't needed if we get the one in Forrest City.

Stuttgart and Harrison are known with people from Arkansas for sure but roads to them are off the main course that we know will be in the game. I give them 50/50 shots. Stuttgart would be good for rice here and here. To get the chance at a new crop, yeah I'd take Stuttgart. If its pushed away from PP and LR more, it too could be a small Tonopah type town with 1-2 depots. One of the rice plants and the Walmart perhaps is all we need.

Russellville wouldn't be too bad at all. Its has good industry. Its about 76 miles from Ft. Smith so it fits there. But its only 43 ish miles from Conway. Conway is like 25 miles from North Little Rock. That's tight. That's like Denton from DFW. Conway could get absorbed though and pull it a little closer to Little Rock/ North Little Rock. That could work and give Russellive more space. I can work with that.
angrybirdseller
Posts: 3298
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 05:16
Location: Minnesota

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

#5280 Post by angrybirdseller » 27 Jun 2021 06:53

They can sell as Texas DLC as loss leader at 11.99 and make it up with smaller maps at 11.99. Louisiana get 8-10 cities same with Arkansas. States west of Mississippi you wont get state with less than 8 cities.

After Texas it likely will be one great plains map and southeast map building staircase pattern for future DLC.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: averyc2506, DracoTorre, Einstein_1977, Google [Bot], Hoffa82, Tails, VTXcnME and 14 guests