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

[parasaurolophus67]

@Bedavd A bit. A bit of Oklahoma, Nebraska, and a third state were found in the files.

[Tristman]

There are some gas station assets that have Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska in their filenames. But they didn’t look unique or anything, might just be different prices listed on them.

[Bedavd]

Cool! Thanks. Hope Nebraska comes first (jk). That's great to see. Wonder how much work has been started on Oklahoma given it seems Montana is wrapping up.

[flight50]

^I'd imagine in order to announce Oklahoma 1-2 months after Montana releases, I'd say a few areas would have to be in the works to be able to make a blog announcement or Steam wishlist add.

Something like Boise City, Elk City, traces of Lawton or something out of Wichita Falls, Thackerville (WinStar) off I-35, Choctaw Casino off US-75....

In order to kick off Oklahoma, that hype has to be stronnnnnnng because Texas is on the verge of a release for 2022 as well and that means that ATS could only have one paid map in development. Since 2019, there has always been 2. We'll still have the California rebuild but considering the maps are about to get significantly smaller, we'll need more push. North of Texas, SCS really has to be on top of "new". Those states will have to provide a good punch to promote them. Many of us on here will buy pretty much all ATS maps. But what about people that don't follow SCS much. Its them SCS must entice.

[krmarci]

[...] Texas is on the verge of a release for 2022 as well and that means that ATS could only have one paid map in development. Since 2019, there has always been 2. [...]

[ external image ]

[Marcello Julio]

It's quite possible that a part of the Montana team may have already started work on their next project.

[Shiva]

Marcello Julio, I think you are right.

[flight50]

No reason why they shouldn't. When a dlc is about to release, it only takes a few people to finish it up. The other half or majority, should be well on their way in order to produce enough to make the announcement/wishlist on Steam possible. I'd say a 3-4 month head start is sufficient. We only need 2-3 areas to be shown as part of the next dlc in order to see development is well under way. One thing for sure is that we don't have to be concerned about what this young team does. Its 2 good looking maps they are kicking out while Texas continues to soak up a lot of time. But even it is on the menu for release soon.

Between Texas and Montana, a lot of manpower will be releasing pretty soon. That is good news for the base map rebuild. The size staff needed for both Montana and Texas is quite large I am sure. I'd bet 90% of ATS mappers are there if Jakub said that his team is down to 3 which included him. That will change soon though. 2023 could be a very good year post Montana/Texas. The Montana team moves on and the Texas team moves on.

Will 2023 be the year we get 3 maps or could 2024 be that. Or will we get 2 paid maps and 2 rebuild maps? Either way, it all has to be done. I'd be fine either way. Either split up people for Ph3/Ph4 and put several in Nevada to rebuild it or just fast track I-80 Nevada. I'd rather see I-80 and US-50 come to light before moving South of Stockton and the Bay area with Ph3. I'm assuming Stockton makes ph3. If not, fine. But if we can get the Bay Area, Stockton, US-50, Carson City tweaked, Reno and the rest of I-80 all in good quality, that really cleans up a major corridor. Get that quality to Wells, Nevada and we good. From there, the Utah dlc is higher quality. With the capacity being freed up again, lots of good things can happen in 2023. Lots to get excited for perhaps and I hope the xmas stream showcases this.

[oldmanclippy]

I could potentially see 2023 being:

Oklahoma in May or June

Kansas+Nebraska or Arkansas+Louisiana in November or December (for sale individually or bundled)

Think about it, how are they gonna break up the Texas team post-release? Will they let it be a mega team or will they break it into two independent teams that work on different areas entirely? They both have advantages and disadvantages. But, I will say that all the states surrounding Texas would require more or less a similar amount of work to complete. So if they break the Texas team into two, then they might finish their next projects at the same time anyways so it might be prudent to put them on adjacent states that complement one another. Kansas and Nebraska is one such option, as is Louisiana and Arkansas. The former would be more work than the latter but not by much I don't think. Arkansas will be trickier to map than most think and Louisiana has more complex cities, but Kansas and Nebraska should get some good road density. So they would have options.

The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that just keeping the Texas team together more or less is a good idea. Let the Montana team stay together because they clearly have a good thing going. ATS could then alternate between small releases and big releases, but the big releases could still allow individual state purchases if one so chooses. It's an option that's been discussed before here but I'm really starting to think that might be the best move.

It also depends on just how many people are working on Texas right now. It's quite possible that there are enough people to break into 3 map teams rather than 2, although I'd rather see more attention paid to the base map rebuild than to go to 4 paid teams. 3 will be fine for now I think.

Either way, I'd like to see Oklahoma announced 1-2 months after Montana with the next project being announced during the Xmas stream.

[Tristman]

I think they might break the Texas team up based on biomes. Those who have put most work into western/northern Texas might move towards the rest of the Great Plains, whereas those responsible for the big cities and the most foresty east might move to Arkansas/Louisiana.

That said, maybe they do the exact opposite and allow people to map different biomes. After all, if you've mapped desert/plains for several years, you might be wanting to map something else for a change.