Poll: Choose (3) States you would like to see next
-
- Posts: 3298
- Joined: 05 Feb 2013 05:16
- Location: Minnesota
Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next
Louisiana more distinct map, but Oklahoma after Texas is most logical choice. After Texas is complete will get hook and wink on next map dlc.
Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next
Actually after Kansas gets announced, I'm going Louisiana, Arkansas and then Nebraska.
My post are only thoughts and ideas. Don't assume it makes ATS.
Poll: Choose Next 2 ATS States
ATS Flatbed
ATS Special Transport
North American Agriculture
Poll: Out of Production Truck
Poll: Choose Next 2 ATS States
ATS Flatbed
ATS Special Transport
North American Agriculture
Poll: Out of Production Truck
- oldmanclippy
- Posts: 5379
- Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
- Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
- Contact:
Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next
Oklahoma makes the most sense by a long shot. Not to mention that it's the only unannounced state with an official pre-research thread, although that's not 100% proof that it's next.
Louisiana is the only other feasible state IMO, with North Dakota or both of the Dakotas being the only other ones within the realm of possibility, although I'd put that at <1% chance. With Oklahoma at 80% and Louisiana at 20%. But that's conservative, I don't see how Oklahoma won't be next.
After that, it's between Louisiana, Kansas, and Arkansas (Ar-kan-saw FYI for you non-Americans) I think. Probabilities in that order. Maybe Nebraska will sneak in before the last of those three. But I don't envision the next 5 ATS maps after Texas/Montana missing Oklahoma, Louisiana, Kansas, or Arkansas. Either Nebraska, Mississippi, or Missouri would round things out, coming either 4th or 5th I think.
And yet again, it all depends if they bundle or not. I'm still on team no-bundles until we get further along, as Pavel has said he wants to increase the rate of releases and smaller states get that job done.
Louisiana is the only other feasible state IMO, with North Dakota or both of the Dakotas being the only other ones within the realm of possibility, although I'd put that at <1% chance. With Oklahoma at 80% and Louisiana at 20%. But that's conservative, I don't see how Oklahoma won't be next.
After that, it's between Louisiana, Kansas, and Arkansas (Ar-kan-saw FYI for you non-Americans) I think. Probabilities in that order. Maybe Nebraska will sneak in before the last of those three. But I don't envision the next 5 ATS maps after Texas/Montana missing Oklahoma, Louisiana, Kansas, or Arkansas. Either Nebraska, Mississippi, or Missouri would round things out, coming either 4th or 5th I think.
And yet again, it all depends if they bundle or not. I'm still on team no-bundles until we get further along, as Pavel has said he wants to increase the rate of releases and smaller states get that job done.
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)
prediction maps: Greece | ATS 2024-2025 DLCs
research map: Upper Midwest (work in progress)
Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next
Good point in the pre-research thread. No point in making that if that wasn't in the mix. Getting more of I-35 and I-40 would be big. Getting from Denver to Texas would be better traveled via US-287. We need Oklahoma to do that. If we want Kansas, we need Oklahoma first. Once Oklahoma does get announced, that will mean one of 2 things. 1) Texas or Montana has release or 2) Texas or Montana is about to release. A small team can break away to start up Oklahoma. Fast forward from that, the state that didn't come first, will then have free mappers once its too is out. Louisiana and Kansas would be the best logical options for diversity.
Everyone is on the fence with bundles though. I'm still team bundle. Bundle and keep dlc's the size of Colorado...Wyoming...Washington. No price changes needed that way. If we only get half of Colorado, Wyoming......SCS would tank trying to sell those at $11.99. They'd loose a ton of players. Not only players but player respect as well. If they can kick out CO/WY within a year, anything close to that size should also be in the menu. The bigger picture is that people will feel like they actually get more with the title "bundle". If Louisiana came with Arkansas, Mississippi with Alabama and Florida with Georgia, people would be less hesitant on buying. They'd buy those soo fast. If I was SCS, I'd still price those as $11.99.
Montana is the tricky one. Its not the price of current dlc's but its also not a Texas sized dlc. Could Montana be the price of a new bundled dlc at lets say $13.99? That seems like a reasonable price. A low, mid and top price. Texas would be the only top prince unless massive areas came. I don't see SCS spending another 3+ years on a dlc in the US. Canada and Mexico, different story. I see a lot more solos states still being $11.99 too. But anything that is 2-3 states for a bundle, $13.99 is good. More than that and people just may back off. Last thing SCS wants.
Everyone is on the fence with bundles though. I'm still team bundle. Bundle and keep dlc's the size of Colorado...Wyoming...Washington. No price changes needed that way. If we only get half of Colorado, Wyoming......SCS would tank trying to sell those at $11.99. They'd loose a ton of players. Not only players but player respect as well. If they can kick out CO/WY within a year, anything close to that size should also be in the menu. The bigger picture is that people will feel like they actually get more with the title "bundle". If Louisiana came with Arkansas, Mississippi with Alabama and Florida with Georgia, people would be less hesitant on buying. They'd buy those soo fast. If I was SCS, I'd still price those as $11.99.
Montana is the tricky one. Its not the price of current dlc's but its also not a Texas sized dlc. Could Montana be the price of a new bundled dlc at lets say $13.99? That seems like a reasonable price. A low, mid and top price. Texas would be the only top prince unless massive areas came. I don't see SCS spending another 3+ years on a dlc in the US. Canada and Mexico, different story. I see a lot more solos states still being $11.99 too. But anything that is 2-3 states for a bundle, $13.99 is good. More than that and people just may back off. Last thing SCS wants.
My post are only thoughts and ideas. Don't assume it makes ATS.
Poll: Choose Next 2 ATS States
ATS Flatbed
ATS Special Transport
North American Agriculture
Poll: Out of Production Truck
Poll: Choose Next 2 ATS States
ATS Flatbed
ATS Special Transport
North American Agriculture
Poll: Out of Production Truck
Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next
I think the funniest part is every time we get a state I drive on a route in real life, I end up on a route driving to states that aren’t released yet. Rofl. So much for role-play while streaming. Lol.
Faelandaea Dravin
OTR Truck Driver
Faelandaea's Trucking Adventures
https://www.youtube.com/c/FaelandaeaDravin
DISCORD: https://discord.gg/PEm7M9HwYP
[ external image ]
OTR Truck Driver
Faelandaea's Trucking Adventures
https://www.youtube.com/c/FaelandaeaDravin
DISCORD: https://discord.gg/PEm7M9HwYP
[ external image ]
- oldmanclippy
- Posts: 5379
- Joined: 15 Jul 2020 02:23
- Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
- Contact:
Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next
@flight50 If Montana goes up to $13.99, they really need to be sure that there's no misses. Not from my sake, I think $11.99 is more than a fair price and 13.99 would be fair as well. But for the general public I mean. There will be more scrutiny with a price increase. With Texas I think it will far surpass the value implied by a 60-70% price increase. Montana needs to outshine Oregon in terms of sheer mileage to make a case for $13.99. But I am confident that Montana will be a complete DLC, especially if the list of cities tossed around is indeed what they go for. All corners of the map will be touched except the far southeast which would come with South Dakota.
@Fae I was in Wyoming (not as a trucker but as a tourist) in late August, and I'm convinced that me being there jinxed us all and the map got pushed back a couple weeks
@Fae I was in Wyoming (not as a trucker but as a tourist) in late August, and I'm convinced that me being there jinxed us all and the map got pushed back a couple weeks
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)
prediction maps: Greece | ATS 2024-2025 DLCs
research map: Upper Midwest (work in progress)
Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next
I was in Colorado for the first time in my life when it was announced in March 2020
Check out my Michigan research map!
Check out my ATS IRL map! -> Leave any feedback in my thread!
Kansas added! Up-to-date blog photo locations for upcoming states also included.
Check out my ATS IRL map! -> Leave any feedback in my thread!
Kansas added! Up-to-date blog photo locations for upcoming states also included.
-
- Posts: 3298
- Joined: 05 Feb 2013 05:16
- Location: Minnesota
Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next
Price will likely change with time, but Montana can't see price adjustment like Texas. Texas will have higher price point.
Even if Texas DLC 19.99 still dirt cheap compared to buying Xplane cessna plane cost 49.99.
Even if Texas DLC 19.99 still dirt cheap compared to buying Xplane cessna plane cost 49.99.
Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next
I expect no increase in price for Montana, it's sort of like Oregon without Portland but with more road mileage. And yeah, SCS dlcs compared to other developers are fairly priced.
Re: Poll: Choose (2) States you would like to see next
Montana is much more than just Oregon for me. It covers nearly half of Washington and all of Oregon. Both state's Western side are the busiest yes I agree. Those parts matches up with Montana's busiest areas. But East of I-15 is vast lands which are much busier than what East of I-5 Oregon brings. I think we get a lot more roads than Oregon's Eastern portion with Montana. More roads and busier network should be a focus for the Great Plains. Thinning out the Great Plains would be a mistake when you have a feature like detours. Detours is a nice feature but in ATS, in order for it to work well, we need road density. To be a team of mostly newbies, they moved thru Wyoming nicely in 10 months. Give them 12 months or so In Montana and the results will be just a good. If Montana stayed the same price, I'd be surprised but they'd sell more for less indeed. It makes up for Utah and Idaho I suppose. Pavel will have to a decision eventually though.
But I expect Montana to surpass Oregon with a lot more detail and density. Oregon is missing US-26 along with OR-126 or OR-38 to tie I-5 to the 101. It would have helped to tie Lewiston to I-84 as well. Day one Oregon didn't even have OR-140/NV-140. I see 25%-30% more density coming with day one Montana though.
But I expect Montana to surpass Oregon with a lot more detail and density. Oregon is missing US-26 along with OR-126 or OR-38 to tie I-5 to the 101. It would have helped to tie Lewiston to I-84 as well. Day one Oregon didn't even have OR-140/NV-140. I see 25%-30% more density coming with day one Montana though.
My post are only thoughts and ideas. Don't assume it makes ATS.
Poll: Choose Next 2 ATS States
ATS Flatbed
ATS Special Transport
North American Agriculture
Poll: Out of Production Truck
Poll: Choose Next 2 ATS States
ATS Flatbed
ATS Special Transport
North American Agriculture
Poll: Out of Production Truck
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: gaillard, Gasconha18, oldmanclippy, S3XT9, TheTiger and 12 guests