The Dakotas (North and South) Discussion Thread

[55sixxx]

Well, I've just been to the eastmost part of I-70 currently available in ATS (Which I haven't visited for quite a while tbh) and the scenery east of Denver is what we'll get with ND, SD, NE and KS. Flat lands for miles and miles and as far as the eye can see. Which, I think, should be way easier to map than the mountainous regions... Which makes 3 states for 2023 more and more likely.

[flight50]

^Agreed. The Texas team splitting up can do that and still have leftover to go rebuild. I Texas has 20-25 mappers, each of those states won't need much more than 9 people I bet. If Utah and Idaho used 8-9, with 2 of the more similar states, I don't see them needing more than 8-9. Who ever is left can go rebuild. As long as Davidio's team can give us Oklahoma for next Summer (mid), I'd imagine Kansas could come late Summer to early Fall and then Nebraska is Winter. It could even go Q1 of 2024 if it needed to. But if we actually do get 3 for next year, that would be sweet. Catches us up for 2021.

[VTXcnME]

Personally.... and I realize my opinion means about as much as used toilet paper to SCS:

I'd be happier if they set up the new content map teams to 10-11 folks. I look at it this way: If 8 or 9 folks can do these states in a 10-12 month turn around, 10-11 per team ought be able to get em done in 8-10 months. Then-Oklahoma becomes a much easier target. Kansas, Nebraska. There'd be an easier target to say 3 states by end of 2023. It allows them to certainly bundle some of the states into combined DLC. N/S Dakota become an easier target to hit for 2024, along with possibly LA/AR.

As nice as the rebuild is, and it is very nice in northern Cali, I'd prefer they keep their teams focused on new content vs rebuild. Rebuild is a nice bonus for the older maps, but new paid content is what keeps the doors open.

[flight50]

Number of people per dlc depends on a couple factors. Its not based on months though. Its based on content needed and sectors. If there aren't enough sectors to go around, 10-11 people could be too many. There could be a rule of thumb for 4-5 sectors per mapper. Only one person can work a sector at a time.

As far as the rebuilds, its not just to refresh the map for us seasoned players. Its to gain new audiences which also helps keeps the doors open. If a new person sees Montana and then looks at Nevada, they could be like, why should I pay for this base map when it looks nothing like new content.....pass. I want it all good quality or I'm not buying. If they buy the game, people want to use the entire map, not avoid the bad areas. So the base map it just as important. Now I think it should remain phased though so that the focus can be on newer maps. Phased is the right move vs putting a whole team on it. Nevada could be an exception though. Not a lot going on with it and they could crank that one out fast.

[oldmanclippy]

I just really hope that we can get SD-79 as the main truck route around the Black Hills to the east. Especially if US-18 comes across the southern part of the state. It's a very important road IRL for connecting Rapid City with Hot Springs, well, rapidly It would also help out Chadron to Rapid City as well.

[fra_ba]

US18 is a little close to US20 in Nebraska though, and I wish to see a good representation of badlands national park even if that means no us18 at all.

[VTXcnME]

I get the rebuild attracts new folks, but like the DX12 conversation.... we can speculate all day on it. Unless there is some hard data showing a big spike in sales related specifically to a rebuild creating new customers? The idle speculation.... we're guessing at numbers here. Money keeps the doors open. New content promises money.... rebuild maybe does maybe doesn't, it might help but that's a VERY NARROW group that's going to be drawn based off that new segment market. I'd like to see some hard data who's buying because because CA was rebuilt.

I'd suggest if the "rule of thumb" as you've described is 1 mapper per 4 or 5 sectors, they knock that back to 1 mapper per 2-3 sectors, then all the sectors get done faster, right? Maps currently take about 10-12 months, from announcement to finish. I'm not trying to bog down in the details here, overall.... they take 10-12 months from announcement to finish. Because a limited number of folks work on said DLC. I'm not suggesting they sell the farm and put 40 people on one DLC map, but fleshing out the map teams to help meet SCS created deadlines of states by these time frames would help.

If 8 people split 35-40 map sectors amongst them, wouldn't splitting those same 40-ish total map sectors among more folks create that map faster? It would. It's okay to say it would. It obviously doesn't need to be 1 mapper for one sector, obviously not. But I would say a few more mappers per DLC would improve the speed it comes out, hence creating more DLC faster. The focus should be maintained on New, not redo DLC.

One mans opinion. You're welcome to agree. You're welcome to disagree. Understand it's personal opinions on both sides. Cheers.

[nautofon]

Unless there is some hard data showing a big spike in sales related specifically to ...

It's economics. There is no hard data.

[VTXcnME]

Frequently when the rebuild team gets brought up-the "They bring new money with new customers" conversation comes up. I don't think that number is high enough to justify placing more resources at rebuilding existing maps on a hope they might get a handful of new customers versus creating new DLC which the existing customer base will buy. I ask where that comment comes from, that's all. The hope and thought that someone might see an updated california and go "OOOH, I want that!" versus the million-ish people who see new DLC advertisements on their steam main launch page. Who should they really be catering to? I only ask for the justification of where that "they bring new customers" comment is based from? I doubt there's thousands of people who are out there saying "If only they'd redo california, then I'd buy the game." LOL. So yes, while I agree slowly bringing older maps up to current map quality is a good plan, I don't think spending more than minimal resources on it makes a lot of financial sense, given that by and large, it's being done free of charge to users.

Focus on keeping the money flowing, and if you get a little bonus bump by rebuilding old maps and *maybe* drawing new customers, that's great.

Hope that makes sense.

[Tristman]

Does it really matter why they do it? It's nice that they are reworking their base content and not letting it deteriorate forever as some devs would do.

There's no data to prove that the rework is pulling new customers en masse. It's just common sense to assume that reworking your base content would pull in new customers versus those new customers seeing an outdated map and not sticking around for the DLC. Personally, I think the reworks also help keeping existing customers around for new DLC. Just look at ETS2, if HoR was cancelled and Austria wasn't reworked, people would be waiting forever for some new map content in that game.

And SCS doesn't seem to be neglecting new DLC either, they are both doing reworks on two games AND developing new DLC for two games. So it's not like the reworks are draining all their resources.