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

[flight50]

We all agree that Texas adds a lot. That is a given as it can be a big seller. I too am Texan but it's still not my choice currently. If we get it next great but the map will be too linear. Most of us say Utah because it A) squares off the map a little and B) it does open up routes in all directions. True that Utah doesn't have much to it, but with it not having much, it could be developed quicker. If the choices was for a bundle, Utah and Colorado should win hands down.

@Hell Raiser. Not all connections have to be Interstates. With Idaho, there is Hwy 93 leaving Jackpot. As it stands, Jackpot is by its lonesome in Nevada. With the addition of New Mexico, Oklahoma could be possible with Hwy 64. Thing is, we don't know how the map lays out in New Mexico yet to really say. Well the beta testers do but they can't speak on it right now.

Utah borders 2 existing states. New Mexico it at its Southern tip so technically 3 existing bordering states. For new states, Utah borders 3 others. There isn't a lot Utah but it is would be the first dlc that has states on all sides of it.

Although I have contributed and read all the post in the other two threads I mentioned, it is always interesting to see others views. Most would vote for their home state, but it may not be the case for us all. We can all break down states here as well as the other threads just to keep the topic going, but the poll itself.....well it speaks for itself in a single state format. Soooo Max and MandelSoft (and other SCS members if following), we hope you guys will be keeping an eye on this poll. Next company meeting, we are giving you guys something to consider, lol.

[slemarko]

I vote for Oregon, because it is time to rest eyes from yellow-orange colors. And i hope, that Scs finish all states to New Mexico - Montana line before start with Texas.

[MattoCross]

I would like to see Oregon as next map DLC.

Couple of Reasons:
It's the last non-added bordering state with first added state California!
Job maximal distance needs to be increased. Now the longest offered job are about 1200miles so long distance skill level 5 and 6 have no sence till now.
Wood harvesting/processing industry is missing in AST! Oregon is the rigth place to start it's development.

But, whatever comes in future updates is worth!

[Grafsky]

I'm for Oregon,then Washington, Idaho.

[pigbrother]

While I do agree Oregon will be a wonderful change of landscape, the road network and its connections makes it a pretty awful expansion on itself: you get I-5, so you're driving same old backbone as before only norther, you get US-101 from Eureka and a lousy US-95 from Winnemucca. Oh, and a stretch of I-84 that leads you nowhere.

Honestly, the state doesn't worth too much in game without Utah as an endpoint for I-84 and the Idaho state between them. Without this, is even lamer than Nevada, no offence, oregonians.

Later edit:

Actually, looking on the map, I really don't want to be the guy who has to take the decision(s) for future expansions. Utah and Colorado are favourites and honestly they are quite a no-brainer, but afterwards it gets pretty messy.

It's easy to say "let's pick the most interesting/beautiful/whatever state", but that state also has to integrate neatly with the road network. Imho, the next step after New Mexico, Utah and Colorado might be Wyoming because at least you can close the I-80 corridor and connect northern Colorado, northern Utah, northern Nevada and northern California. After that, it gets really ugly because both Montana and Idaho sucks: first one has only one major connection with the rest of the map (I-25) and the second one has an odd shape and brings only some major roads in the southern side and a little stretch of I-90 that doesn't really matter. Only if you manage to succesfully move on from this dilemma you can move to Oregon, then Washington

Opinions?

[Voltaire1971]

I`d opt for Utah and Colorado first. Surely, more desert, but we would get a network of north-south / east-west Interstates. And a nice part of the Rocky Mountains.

Afterward I`d vote for Oregon / Washington / Idaho. Although adding OR / WA now would add some landscape diversity, it also just prolongs the I-5 corridor. And driving it up and down will get old soon.

After that? Good question. One could go full square with Wyoming / Montana, so there would be the whole west. On the other hand it would also already be a good time to think about Texas / Oklahoma. Obviously I have no strong feelings one way or the other.

[Flemming V]

Texas, without a doubt... Let's get the fastest way to the east coast...

[old.Trucker]

... Let's get the fastest way to the east coast ...

Damn, that's my secret wish since the very first days of ATS ...

That's why I'm big admirer 'Coast to Coast' map-mod also from the first days ...

[Hell_Raiser]

@Hell Raiser. Not all connections have to be Interstates. With Idaho, there is Hwy 93 leaving Jackpot. As it stands, Jackpot is by its lonesome in Nevada. With the addition of New Mexico, Oklahoma could be possible with Hwy 64. Thing is, we don't know how the map lays out in New Mexico yet to really say. Well the beta testers do but they can't speak on it right now.

Utah borders 2 existing states. New Mexico it at its Southern tip so technically 3 existing bordering states. For new states, Utah borders 3 others. There isn't a lot Utah but it is would be the first dlc that has states on all sides of it.

The interstate highway system is the backbone of the US transportation network, adding states that can't be accessed using it, to a transportation game, doesn't make much sense.

As far as connections with Utah go, I would expect I-15, I-80 and US-50 into Nevada, and US-89 and US-191 into Arizona, not sure where you got the connection into New Mexico from, no road crosses the four corners.

None of these roads really offer any new routes between cities currently in the game, except from Page or Kayenta to Nevada or Northern California.

[flight50]

Interesting. I do know a lot of people want coast to coast even if it means a linear map right now. It would be the same corridor until Northern states are provided though. At the end of the day, I will appreciate whatever SCS gives us, so if they could give us a little insight on their thought, it would be informative for us all. Otherwise, we are doing these speculations constantly. Although entertaining and passes time, I am sure it annoys some. I know SCS mentioned prefabs and built libraries for this and that, for it factors into what they do, but in the end, each state would bring something different and new models will be needed anyways. Either they have it or they will need it, so might as well just get the models over with. Hopefully, some day the asset team can get ahead of the mappers. This way model library won't be holding up any progress.

I think if ATS adds a third team ( in due time I think they will) I believe mappers going North, Northeast and East would be ideal. This is only assume that each team will get a state. Based on MandelSoft comment, it is concluded that if too many people are working on the same sector/area, it can cause clashes. Considering that we are looking at about a year per state, SCS might as well just assign 1 team per state. The spread of the map would really start to appeal to others for 2 or even 3 team going at it. Everyone has their thoughts and opinions here so no one is wrong, we just see things differently. I am all for new scenery and the point mentioned on Oregon that I never consider is forestry. New prefabs for that would be needed for sure. The scenery would look awesome I am sure. The asset team would be very busy with vegetation. We could also get a few new trailers out this industry.

I also agree that things can get messy if Utah or Utah/Colorado was up next. Not really messy for say but things will definitely get interesting. As I mentioned, Utah would be the first dlc to have states on all its side. Whether Utah was created next or later, the same applies. SCS can really go any direction connecting to Utah. This is where a thread like this has relevance in my opinion. It just may serve a role in helping SCS determine a direction. The thought process from last year, the thought process 6 months ago or even prior to ATS's release, I am sure the thought process has changed or been altered as new ways of thinking come about. I know there is a lot to consider when determining the next state as factors from all over are present. I just hope SCS continues to take gamers thoughts in consideration.