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

[Grafsky]

I voted for Oregon, I believe that one state per year is very very bad!Then there is no sense to continue to play for 40 years one game!

[pigbrother]

One state every year is quite dissapointing even for the most optimistic players, but there is not too much we can do about it.

However, the Lower 48 was never a promise. Remember, even Europe is half-way done (if you want to exclude Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Caucasus region) and only one-third done if you want those too.

[Voltaire1971]

I voted for Oregon, I believe that one state per year is very very bad!Then there is no sense to continue to play for 40 years one game!

The one-state-per-year thing is not really something I worry about. What is a bit puzzling is that we now have a large corridor in the south. Sure, CA to NM is the base line one can expand northward from. But for the time being the long hauls will go down the I-5 / I-10 (alternatively I-40) corridor. I am looking forward to the next years, that will give the map more "depth" and route diversity. And Mountains. And Trees.

[DaGhost]

I voted colorado mainly because I want to haul a heavy load over the loveland pass in the continental divide.

[flight50]

There are more of us on here that agree that one state per year is not good. That point has been spread around quite well in several threads. But like pigbrother stated, what can we do. I have requested for a minimum of 2-3 states per year in all of these rant threads I have been thru. It wasn't until the " I think its time to quit ATS" thread that MandelSoft came in to explain a few things. Until SCS can get more talent, there is not much they can even do. In my opinion, having 3-4 map teams in ATS, things would work itself out and SCS can crank out more content per year. As long as we keep supporting ATS, they will keep progressing. ET2 has a much more loyal fan base. It's been out a little longer and it's their bread and butter. I too can't wait to see what is in store for the next 2-3 years.

I think the vision for ATS is huge. Sometimes to huge because the cookie is bigger than SCS perhaps though. But what will allow them to continue growing to add staff is us the gamers to purchase their content. We can't blame them for lack of content if they put it out and we don't buy. They can't grow if we don't support them. There is a balance that has to happen with us and them. ET2 is half done as mentioned but it is also an older game so it has more land mass. In due time, I believe ATS can at the least reach covering 1/3 of the U.S. Based on this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnxjTuaIDI, with SCS that Squirrel did prior to release, they would like to include both Canada and Mexico. At least parts of it. The fan base would definitely grow but SCS is years away from having that resemblance of the vision they had when even brainstorming for ATS.

Agreed that the Southern corridor is getting too linear once NM drops. We shall see if they plan to continue this corridor to Texas. I would understand the move but at the same time I wouldn't. Based on the interview Squirrel did, it was mentioned that they could include Texas without being connected to the rest of the map. I think they changed their mind on jumping around though and prefer to have connected states. This may be the sole reason they went after New Mexico.

[Frontiersman]

I think since NM is next, Utah and Colorado must be soon after, then Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. I hope they square-off the Western US before proceeding further east, so we aren't driving the same roads over and over.

[dodgerfan4eva]

I picked Utah because it makes more sense because it's the nears state to AZ. And it'll help with my OCD lol . But is SCS going to charge for the states from now on ?

[slemarko]

Yes, only money can push state development forward, it is logical.

[flight50]

Only thing that will be free are updates and perhaps trucks if they do introduce more. I wouldn't want a free state anyways. I am sure a quailty drop and corners cut would be taken, no thanks. If most are sticking around for free states, then you will be sorely disappointed. Even Wikipedia mentions that future dlc will be paid.

I am getting nervous though on SCS's next planned state. Although I will not be going anywhere based on the direction SCS goes, others may not feel the same. I hope they do understand our push for boxed style but do they care what we think is the question. To a degree I am sure they do.

[Mohegan13]

Why would there be a quality drop? A quality drop would lead to less people buying future DLC, and given that the true first free state we had (Arizona) was better quality than the base California and Nevada, they've already shown that is not the case. I doubt there is anything to worry about there, but since most, if not all, map DLC will be paid it's not really an issue anyway.