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

[Double M]

Personally, I think there are many players who I don't think are willing to pay full price for a DLC that is smaller in size than the DLC in Colorado or Wyoming, for example. So grouping states into packages, I think it can be a good way to generate more profits and attract more users to ATS.
As development progresses and states get smaller, this is probably the best option.

[SenseFM]

Washington is smaller than Colorado and Wyoming and the smallest state in area released so far in the game, but its landscape variety, cities and road density make it one of my favorite DLCs. A more extreme case exists in ETS2: Italia DLC has about 40% of the size of Iberia (including Sicily and Sardinia), but has a denser road network and a different architectural and scenic appeal. Absolute area of a DLC is not the only thing that should count.

That said, it's obvious the smaller eastern states will have to come somehow bundled with other states. Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, Maryland... they are simply too small to be released alone, especially with a 1:20 scale.

[flight50]

Smaller can sale with a price change. Price shouldn't matter, its the content that comes. Now if 2 states equal Washington or Wyoming or Colorado, then the price can stay as one Western state. It really all depends on the new business model for the East. As long as things come in 12 months or less, people are good.

[Vinnie Terranova]

I still don't know about bundled DLCs... Why not continue releasing one state per DLC? Ofcourse more to the east of the US the states will be smaller, but also denser. And how small are those eastern states anyway?

Rhode Island is smaller than Corsica (in Europe), so there is a possibility that it comes as a free DLC.

Delaware is about the size of Corsica. It could come as a small DLC, with a low price tag, like €2,99.
Connecticut is twice as big as Delaware. Like Delaware it could come as a small DLC with a price tag of about €5,99. I mean, not all map DLCs do need a price tag of €11,99. I think Texas will cost more than €11,99, so that opens the way to release map DLCs that cost less than €11,99.

Maryland is twice as big as Connecticut, but also contains Washington DC and Baltimore. So although Maryland is still way smaller than the state of Washington, it has a lot to offer. It could come as a DLC with a price tag like €8,99.

By releasing one state per DLC we can get two, maybe three small map DLCs per year. The longer I have to wait for a map DLC to be released, the more likely I will pause playing ATS. Right now I've not played ATS for several weeks. Now that the 1.43 update has been released I will start playing ATS, although I will concentrate on creating a load order for map combos. After that it's quite likely that I will stop playing ATS again for a while until the release of Texas.
The less I have to wait for a new map DLC, the more likely I will keep playing ATS, and the more likely I will keep being interested in ATS.

So therefore I love to have frequent releases of small map DLCs instead of waiting a whole year or more for a bundled DLC.

[Tristman]

I don't think it makes much sense for states like Delaware and Rhode Island to be released as separate DLCs. It might be more work to create them as standalone DLCs than bundle them in with something else.
Making the smallest states free DLC doesn't really work, because players would need a ridiculous amount of paid DLCs to get any use out of them (I don't see Rhode Island having more than one city, and what is the added value for someone who doesn't have all the DLC to do jobs from Providence to Providence?).

In the case of ETS2, SCS seems to create bigger and bigger DLC, based on a certain amount of land covered rather than separate countries. For this reason, I don't see them keeping the 1 DLC = 1 state rule for ATS when the states become much smaller. I expect they are just going to put an amount of land into 1 DLC that is roughly equivalent to one western state.

[flight50]

I'm with Tristam. It doesn't make sense to not bundle smaller states with others to make a larger dlc. Lets put it like this.....break up all the small countries in ETS2 and see how well it goes selling those as solo dlc's. The same thing that happens in ETS2, is what needs to happen in the Eastern US. Its not worth it releasing small states in 2-4 months when people want more real estate to begin with as well as less states to buy. People would see SCS as nickel and diming people if they charged for every single state. Small price or not. Some states must be bundled. To put things in perspective....lets use Washington. Its the smallest Western state yet it fairly dense for its size. The East needs to at least equal Washington's output.

Washington = 75% of NY, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts
Washington = West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and DC
Washington = North Carolina and South Carolina

No free maps. Just combine it with another dlc. Consider free as a bonus by adding to dlc package.

[ external image ]


Washington is almost the size of Romania to put it in perspective with ETS2. Maybe 85%-90% of it.

[ external image ]

[TheAmir259]

I am partly with Vinnie but those DLCs will have to make up a pack, like how we have the PNW pack (in Steam). This could probably solve problems of people complaining over having to buy individual DLCs at a higher price. One thing I stand for is the presence of statelines and the ability to section them out, is the one thing that ATS has done all the time (and is good) compared to ETS2, so i don't mind these states being consolidated into one bundle as long as you can untick individual states within them rather than being tightly integrated, makes for better management on both sides (although players will rarely use them).

[flight50]

^That ticking is why I always say one team per state. The size of the team is based on the content. For every state, there needs to be a map team. The team members could be 5 people...it could be 12 people. Bundling just means multiple states come as a package deal. Not a blended state line. Bundle does not mean ETS2 lack of separation. Everything is by sectors though and that is how they build. When teams conflict, that is where smaller states and too large of a team goes against production as people get in the way of one another. Too many people in one state is not a good thing. They don't need to be overwhelmed but at the same time, there needs to be consistency. So one mapper to every 3-4 sectors is probably good. Size the teams according and bundles shouldn't be an issue. ETS2 has been doing it for years but ATS sets its own path. Use ETS2 as a guide/template. ATS doesn't have to be verbatim.

[Shiva]

Those small states as separate?
SCS maps are divided in sectors.
Delaware, it could basically consist of zero unique map sectors. 5map sectors in total, shared wiht neighbouring states.
Even worse with Rhode Island. 2 map sectors, all shared with neighbouring states.
Maryland? 12 map sectors in total. If Washington DC, included in Maryland DLC, then it could have 1 unique map sector?

This was checked with 1.41Beta version of backgroundmap + map sector lines. And the state borders.
I have not checked if 1.43 has changed anything.

[interstate trav]

I do wonder how Delaware will be