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

[TheAmir259]

The I-84 thing is more of a personal issue, you should know by now how i hate having to traverse strictly on the I-84 most of the time going northeast-southwest. The alternative being I-5, is still outdated especially the further down you go, and also relies on my destination being New Mexico. In a way, that is already a restricted corridor, but we're getting Montana soon so i am relieved.

Back to restricted corridors issue. I shall put forth a new argument instead, in that we can also see how Heart of Russia is also gonna have a restricted access, as if SCS really loved doing these. I can also say the same for the Road to Black Sea, as unlike the rest of the (current) ETS2 maps, they're the only ones innaccessible without the Going East DLC.

How does this relate to the current issue, and what am I trying to say? Basically that I doubt SCS would want to release Georgia first before Florida, even if both of them touches the Atlantic anyway. The issue is more of how unsightly it would be to not fill the edges and leaving holes, if you get what i mean. And when I refer to the I-10, its only the interstates' for the entrance into Florida, rather than overall road networks, surely they could add another like the US-98 or US-90 possibly, although US-90 might be a little close for comfort of mapping & detailing.

But don't get me wrong, its not that I hate or oppose Georgia, its just that it is less likely for them to do Georgia before Florida. If either one could follow suit after the other, it is for the better so that the waiting gap is reduced by a lot more (than what we've experienced so far). To me, the situation is the same as Texas and Oklahoma, and i believe it won't take that long for us to get Oklahoma (after Montana of course), but then again, it's all upto SCS, they might just decide to staircase again after reaching Florida or something, who knows.

[Tristman]

I don’t really understand how doing Georgia before Florida would create holes. Florida is south of Georgia and southeast of Alabama, so yes you would be missing that southeast corner, but not have a gap between two accessible areas.

Having the I-10 cut short is not really a problem I think, since it would temporarily terminate in Mobile, AL. From Mobile there is the I-65 going north, so no dead end there. Between Alabama and Georgia you could take two interstates and probably 1/2 US routes west-east, which means Georgia is not too bad of a corridor drive.

I agree however that regardless of whether they do Georgia or Florida first, it’s probably important that the two states follow each other in releases. Georgia should follow Florida to get rid of the single road corridor into Florida, and Florida should follow Georgia to complete the southeast and I-10 and allow SCS to focus on a different part of the US.

[flight50]

I'm with Tristam actually. I don't see the gap argument either. A gap is severing a road like Idaho was between Oregon and Utah with I-84. Same with I-90 between Idaho and Wyoming. Georgia first doesn't do that. Like Tristam stated, I-10 terminating Mobile does no harm as I-10 isn't severed. It's just not complete.

Unsightly? You have to go all the way back to 2018 and early 2019 when we got Oregon, then Washington. That was unsightly. We may never see anything like that again.

There will always be missing pieces to complete something. The trick is flow and minimizing the impact of that flow. Continuing
I-20 first allows for a lot of other connections to spread out. The Florida panhandle is like Oklahoma's or even Idaho. They wear out faster as the only routes of travel. I'd imagine more people complain about corridor if Florida was first vs if Georgia was first.

[fra_ba]

Well, east coast will be an important milestone for ATS and SCS overall. So I think Florida should be the state that gives us Atlantic ocean. They could do both though. With a Texas-size team it's possible to handle both states.

[flight50]

If I had my way, I'd still go for bundling LA/AK, MS/AL and GA/FL with that Texas sized team. Actually I think the team could be a little smaller. 15-18 people vs 20-25 could perhaps fit that bill. By the time SCS gets to lets say AL/MS, the rebuild team could be done with all non paid maps. Buttt, it really all depends on how they build the map after Texas. Will they shoot East or will they do columns South to North or both. Oklahoma is the no brainer after Montana but after that, no telling how they will build out the US.

[Shiva]

Those dual states would be nice.
+ what I sort of wanted too.

those six states in 2x tripple state packs would be possible, but that would go close to Texas size.
And in the case of a AL/GA/FL pack, it could be more work than Texas. Due to all the coastal cities of Florida.

When SCS maps Arkansas and Mississippi, then they will have to have a plan for Memphis, Tennessee.

[flight50]

The problem with Texas size team is a Texas sized wait. So those who want the huge bundles will have the huge waits. Most people will want states in that 12 month period which is one state. 2 states, 2 map teams. 3 states, 3 map teams. Until the Northeast where they must bundle, it will be intriguing to see what they do.

[Double M]

After Texas and Montana have been liberated and probably Oklahoma too.
A great way to avoid repetitive travel between Texas and Florida. It would be releasing the dlcs in packages. For example, dlcs could be released in three packages.

First Package: Arkansas DLC and Louisiana DLC.
Second package: Mississippi DLC and Alabama DLC.
Third package: Georgia DLC and Florida DLC.

In this way there would be more variety of roads when traveling in these states.And honestly knowing with the manpower that SCS has, after launching Texas. I don't think these states will take long to develop.

[flight50]

^Those packages is pretty much what I said a few post up. But its also the same packages we've talked about in this thread for months. So the concept isn't new. Its just the desire most of us share. No matter what, a full size team needs to be deployed for each state. If two states come at once, the time development is the same as getting just one state. As long as full size teams are assigned based on (x) state's needs, there shouldn't be an issue hitting that less than 12 months for release time frame for anything after Texas and Montana. If all the West (excluding Montana) came within a year's of its announcement, we good.

[angrybirdseller]

Think they won't do Texas size DLC again, but Wyoming size with Arkansas and Louisiana is doable. The bundle map will require more art asset builders think two state bundle would be ~15-20 cities. States like Florida and Georgia it's probably going to be easier to work on separately as Florida can use coastline to your advantage and Miami, Tampa, Jacksonville, Orlando will be bit of work.

Will see what Pavel says after Texas and Montana is completed. I think they want map done with 10-12 months.