If you were the developer, what scale would you make the map?

[Travismods]

@xXCARL1992Xx Yeah, if you work it with the exact same design principles. I am saying, as a mapper, you don't have to.

"players will object that many things are not there and could be (and it would be true) or mappers themselves will just want to use free space to have cities nicer and bigger (like bit more american)"

Really not seen much evidence of this. What players? For starters, they haven't even tried the approach I am talking about. Where is this data coming from? If anything, many players love maps like C2C with long drives, even when the quality is incredibly poor. I find C2C too poor to use but I'd gladly take SCS good quality nature scenery if the interstate corridors could be doubled in length.

I am sure a 1:10 map by SCS would still be somewhat decent quality and way beyond C2C if just a little more work went into it than the 1:20 maps. 4x is not needed. Neither is double the price. They could have given us rural areas with lots of nature really so the cities could breathe and raised the price like 1.5x. The DLCs are already too cheap honestly. In fact I'd even take the same amount of scenic towns we have now on 1:10 and just nature in and around just to give it some breathing room. Long drives are nice to many players, even if it means not hitting a scenic town or truck stop constantly. And whats wrong with leaving some space as simply nature, if a map modder wants to fill in cities? You can still have a very high quality map even though cities are a bit more sparse.

Also, could you perhaps consider using a full stop (.) sometimes? It's easier to read what you write that way.

[Trakaplex]

1:10 is definitely a yes for me. We are seeing a lot of compact areas such as SLC/Ogden, Vallejo/Sacramento, Colorado Springs/Denver. Twice the drive would improve on these compact areas and make them farther apart. More urban areas and exits. Besides, we are currently seeing an oversize of marked cities. Redding turned massive since the redo, we've all heard complaints of Wyoming's cities being "too big with the map". If you compare Redding to Sacramento, Sacramento is tiny. It yet lacks a lot of suburb, and many areas still seem unfinished. This is because they couldn't shove anything to the east, since that would block Donner Pass. And the west would simply destruct the road network and make Vallejo a neighbor city (it already is ). If it was 1:10, I'm pretty sure they can add I-505, Suisun City, Vacaville...

A Cedar City in 1:10 would provide space for Parowan or Beaver. A Redding in 1:10 could add CA-89 up to I-5 and Red Bluff to the south.

All they can do is drag the assets of all the cities in the game so far and paste them in a bigger map. I know this isn't going to happen lol, but if. After all the clock ticks too fast for me now and I've explored most of the map...

[flight50]

@Trakaplex Would you pay $23.98 for Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Washington, Oregon and New Mexico. Would you pay $35.98 for the Texas dlc?

[Travismods]

Thats not how a 1:10 scale has to work @flight50. You don’t have to have a completely linear city density identical to a 1:20 map all across it. Stretch certain corridors, add more rural areas while keeping roughly the same amount of scenery towns. You absolutely do not have to go double the price for that.

And yes, we think people would be fine with paying a little more than 12 bucks for Montana. Its a low price. Not sure where the notion comes from that people could only pay the current price. No, people might not want to pay double, but you would not have to charge double the price just because an overall 1:10 scale is achieved. It depends on how you work the map.

Wyoming is a perfect example of a state that would have benefited a lot from a 1:10 scale to make it feel like real life Wyoming. You would not have to double its city count for a 1:10 scale, what is needed is the rural space in between especially on I-80. You also would not have to double the price of Wyoming for that. Charging 17-18 bucks for a 1:10 Wyoming or Montana wouldn‘t be such a catastrophe I think.

[Optional Features]

The problem isn't totally map scale: it's how the scale is used. There are places in Montana where a player can see a road running parallel to existing roads, yet the road is behind walls and inaccessible. I can only imagine how many of these we would get with a 1:10 map.

That and all the places that could be deliveries and yet are decoration. That would certainly increase.

I would love a larger scale map as it would allow America to feel like more than a series of cities. But I don't think SCS would be the team to do that.

The current map could be twice as big if they tied together some of the unused roads and moved the walls back a bit.

And if we got some map-based features like buyable land and editable truck garages, again, the current map would seem less than a pass through experience.

The reason players are clamoring for more map (me included) isn't always that we want to drive farther, but because we cannot do anything else than drive, so far is the only way to enjoy the game. There's seemingly no measurable group of players that is hardcore into short hauls. Why? Because LTL doesn't exist; terminals require modding skill, and there's really no concept of local drops in game (gas stations, strip malls, and most small businesses in game don't take cargo for example).

There's much more that can be done with what we currently have.

[Double M]

Luckily the developers decided to change the scale to 1:20 and not stick with the 1:35 scale. Because otherwise we would now have more than half of the United States represented in the game, but it would not be realistic when traveling between the cities of the different states.

[Tristman]

Reading this topic, it's interesting how split people are between "the map needs to be bigger so we have more distance between cities" and "the map needs to be bigger so we can have bigger cities".

[angrybirdseller]

Nope, @Double M is right. In early days massive amount of posts about 1:35 scale was too small. After Arizona was released in June 2016 they mentioned in blog to increase the map scale to 1:20 scale.

New Mexico was already work in progress at that point, so they decided rescale the map and release re-scale later end of 2016.

When New Mexico released they added extension of I-15, and US-93 along with AZ-303 in Arizona

Think 1:20 scale is plenty at this point any large would require more employees and far higher dlc prices and procedural assets and design would take over and maps would lose thier uniqueness

[Trakaplex]

True, but when it comes to building, most of the work gets put in the cities. So it wouldn't make sense to charge twice for a 1:10 map. But who knows @angrybirdseller, SCS devving team is growing. There are many of us who are complaining that 1:20 is too small, and that it does not capture "long trips" anymore. By the time they reach Florida, they could do a rescale.

[Optional Features]

Reading this topic, it's interesting how split people are between "the map needs to be bigger so we have more distance between cities" and "the map needs to be bigger so we can have bigger cities".

Haha, yeah.

I'm in the more distance group. Having driven a sizable part of the map irl, the things I notice aren't the cities. It's the stuff in between. Cities have their own appeal, but it's the land that makes a place memorable.