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

[xXCARL1992Xx]

100€/$ and i can buy ATS + all map DLCs and some other minor DLCs at the moment, and this happens all the time

[saur44l]

How much money will spend a new player if he wants to play all of call of duty games,or if you would like to buy all Drizzt Do'Urden books?

[flight50]

As time goes on, dlc's get old. Some realllly old. At some point old bundles get bundled into larger bundles. I am willing to bet the max price for everything would never exceed $99.99. Over that and no one can expect people to buy everything. Texas is now out so I wouldn't be surprised to see the entire West go for a bundle for $49/$59. Texas is the first dlc outside the West. New regions now. Texas and Oklahoma could bundle once OK releases. They can also do regional bundles.

[John007]

flight50, those you mentioned, are the 2 state bundles I have wished for, for more than +3 years.

AR/LA, MS/AL and GA/FL. Then KY/TN, WV/VA and SC/NC.

I am also waiting for the states of the south of the USA in the game. I've come up with names for three possible additions to the game that will add all the states of the south to the game. I would like to know your opinion about the name of the add-ons. Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi can be added in one supplement. You can call this addition the "Lower Mississippi River". Alabama, Georgia and Florida can be added in one addition. You can call this addition "The Heart of the South". Tennessee, South Carolina and North Carolina can be added in one addition. You can call this addition "Southern Appalachians". These three additions will allow you to add the entire south of the USA to the game.

[oldmanclippy]

When Pavel said the direction for ATS will be the Great Lakes, I immediately like to think of it as "Road to Chicago". Come 2024 its possible SCS jumps to the next column of states to put Chicago that much closer if they go with Missouri/Iowa for 2024. If 2024 brings Nebraska and one of South Dakota, that only pushes Illinois a little further out. I think both Iowa and Missouri should be in place regardless before thinking announcing Illinois. Building from Texas to Canada first and then jump to Minnesota wouldn't be bad at all. Basically it just flips from building out the South to Florida to building out the North and the Great Lakes region. We still don't know what's going on with Nebraska in regards to when it will get announced. But following Kansas could be: NE, SD, ND, MN, IA, MO....IL. With 3 paid map teams, that is 2 full years of mapping per map team before Illinois could come.

Yeah I'd be OK with a snake-style pattern of south -> north and then north -> south (obviously I'm biased though as my state would be the main beneficiary of such a strategy ) I think it'd be better for the game to get to Chicago first though.

[Vinnie Terranova]

I don't know if I'm the only one, but I still hope we won't get bundled states for a long time. The reason is that I see a pattern in the time I spend playing ATS (and ETS2). When a map DLC just has been released, I spend a lot of time on playing ATS: discovering the cities of the new DLC, the associated event, discovering 100% of the roads and prefabs, etc. But after I have done that I spend less and less time on playing ATS. When the novelty wears off I don't play ATS much; instead I start playing other games, or no games at all.

Is this a problem? Well, not yet I guess. But to be honest ATS becomes less and less interesting for me. I certainly don't play ATS as much as I did in the early days until Colorado was released. It's not that Wyoming, Montana and Texas are bad states; it's more that I miss new gameplay features. Because not only new roads and cities from a new DLC will keep me playing, but also new gameplay features will keep me playing. But where are those new gameplay features? Because without new gameplay features ATS is aging. And it's aging a lot: there are still a lot of things missing in ATS: seasons and weather, multidrop jobs, better AI behaviour, etc. Those features would make ATS a lot more interesting than it is now, despite the new map DLCs.

If we get bundled states, there will be more time between the release of those bundles than when we get single states. So single states will draw me back to ATS more than bundled states. But in the end we are just missing important new features.

[flight50]

@Vinnie Terranova I agree with you, yet I disagree.

First off, I agree that ATS/ETS2 after a new map releases, I too tend to play a bit less. But I also don't play a ton to begin with anymore. I occupied time with other task. Not a bad thing. Its really not bad at all to play other games or nothing at all either. Its healthy actually. If everyone only plays ATS/ETS2, then nothing but frustrations happen. One should take breaks. There are some that seriously dislike what we have and come here to express it daily. My game play slows after I've had my fun with the new map. New gameplay is needed and not many can deny that. Nothing will happen until this game engine update arrives which is still w.i.p. Its repeated numerous times and nothing we can do beside wait. Its either wait it out or leave. We don't have any options. Talking about it every day does not speed up anything. Talking about it every day will not bring more attention to the devs. They already know. You can't tell someone something they already know.

Now I disagree in the fact that they shouldn't bundle for a long time. Depending on maps to return to playing will eventually repeat the pattern. So it doesn't matter if maps release as one or multiple maps. Without new features its back to square one regardless. Lets say new features come by end of this year. Should they continue to not bundle? Lack of features shouldn't determine whether or not they bundle. However, they could continue solo for the next 3-5 years......depending on if we get 3 maps a year.

[John007]

I don't know if I'm the only one, but I still hope we won't get bundled states for a long time. The reason is that I see a pattern in the time I spend playing ATS (and ETS2). When a map DLC just has been released, I spend a lot of time on playing ATS: discovering the cities of the new DLC, the associated event, discovering 100% of the roads and prefabs, etc. But after I have done that I spend less and less time on playing ATS. When the novelty wears off I don't play ATS much; instead I start playing other games, or no games at all.

Is this a problem? Well, not yet I guess. But to be honest ATS becomes less and less interesting for me. I certainly don't play ATS as much as I did in the early days until Colorado was released. It's not that Wyoming, Montana and Texas are bad states; it's more that I miss new gameplay features. Because not only new roads and cities from a new DLC will keep me playing, but also new gameplay features will keep me playing. But where are those new gameplay features? Because without new gameplay features ATS is aging. And it's aging a lot: there are still a lot of things missing in ATS: seasons and weather, multidrop jobs, better AI behaviour, etc. Those features would make ATS a lot more interesting than it is now, despite the new map DLCs.

If we get bundled states, there will be more time between the release of those bundles than when we get single states. So single states will draw me back to ATS more than bundled states. But in the end we are just missing important new features.

Of course, I would also like to add each state as a separate addition. But there are few big states left that haven't been added to the game yet. Therefore, the same additions with two states or more are inevitable in the game. But you can release an add-on with three states that will unite them according to certain characteristics, be it geographical or cultural characteristics. To get to Illinois in the game, you first need to add the states of Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi to the game. You can call this addition the "Lower Mississippi River". First, draw the southern Mississippi River in the game and then make the northern Mississippi with Illinois.

[John007]

The graphics engine of the game suits me. The picture is beautiful and picturesque. Of course, I want to see a tornado in the game, a terrible downpour so that huge puddles remain on the roads, so that there are wild animals in the game and so that there is a chance of a rattlesnake crawling into the salon or worse, the appearance of a skunk in the car))) But the question is, do the players need all these innovations? After all, even without all this, the game looks great. I will never get bored with the states that I bought in the game. I don't buy states that I'm not interested in.I'm going to drive through New Mexico and Texas and Arizona a million times and I won't get tired of these stunning beautiful landscapes. Waiting for Oklahoma, Kansas in the game) I'm still waiting for Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana to play)))

[interstate trav]

I’m hoping they keep stacking he states, from South to North and work that way until we get to the east Coast. I hope that we get all the states along the 90 and 94 before Illinois. I like the new states they announced.