SenseFM wrote: ↑04 Jul 2022 14:26
but Wyoming was even more depopulated and smaller in area, and it took its time to release. Kudos to the devs in charge of the DLC!
Less population doesn't equal smaller cities though. Wyoming has some of the largest cities in the game simply because there is space to do so. In some cases, a few cities are too large but its all good. I wouldn't say it took its time though.
1) Yellowstone held it up an extra 1-1.5 months. It wasn't going to come at all. It was a last minute add and it was a must to come day one. Most people had no clue where Yellowstone was but they do know Yellowstone exist. If people found out YS was in Wyoming and it didn't come, all hell would have broke loose.
2) that team was predominantly newbies. They did a fantastic job under the circumstances. They got that one dlc under their belts and I had no doubt, they'd rock Montana and they are. Montana is looking great and its the perfect state to follow Wyoming for that team with 2/3 of the state being much much easier and faster to map.
Get your best terrain guys in the Western 1/3 of the state and let the slightly less experienced mappers tackle the Eastern 2/3s. With numbers, Montana has moved month 2 months faster than I thought. Montana gets this team more experience to improve on what they learned on the first project. As the ATS map team grows, hopefully we see fuller teams tackling the issue of missing roads. The less missing roads day one, the less time needed to add them later. If we don't get another map team for awhile, that is perfectly fine. We have 4 map leads now and that is enough to put a nice dent in the US map yearly...permanently as long as project ATS is alive and kicking.
@oldmanclippy I totally agree. A well connected region once Montana releases is going to be huge. Texas is a bonus but its Montana that opens up the map as it completes the West. Even better, like you said, it will all be in good quality. The best part is that even the bad quality is turning into good. Great part for ATS is that its a much much smaller portion of the map that isn't high quality. Biggest reason I think fast tracking I-80 in Nevada is a solid move before going South of I-80 in California. It does more for Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana dlc's than Nevada itself. Not everyone owns those dlc's. Completing California's rebuild doesn't connect directly to a higher quality map until New Mexico so get people supporting the higher quality maps with I-80 Nevada first or simultaneously with Ph3/Ph4.