Unofficial PFO Land Rush Map

[Harad Navar]

I used the blog posted land rush image to make a reduced area Unofficial PFO Land Rush Map focused solely on the Land Rush. It shows the relabeled settlement hexes and the settlements already established from Phase 1.

[Bunibuni13th]

Harad Navar wrote:

I used the blog posted land rush image to make a reduced area Unofficial PFO Land Rush Map focused solely on the Land Rush. It shows the relabeled settlement hexes and the settlements already established from Phase 1.

Thanks. so very clear once I downloaded it as a PDF.

[Lam]

In the initial map, there were forests over most of the mountains with less than 10 mountain only hexes. More recently and on all of your maps, these forests do not exist. Do we have good authority (statement by debs, for instance) that these are mountain and not forest hexes?

[Pax Morbis]

The map that this particular one is based off of is definitely the one that the Big Three got sent to decide where their settlements would be, so I think that it is the most up to date version.

[FMS Quietus]

They also have a map on the goblinworks site that you can check for reference if you want.

[RHMG Animator]

Harad Navar wrote:

I used the blog posted land rush image to make a reduced area Unofficial PFO Land Rush Map focused solely on the Land Rush. It shows the relabeled settlement hexes and the settlements already established from Phase 1.

Nice

[Pax Bringslite]

As always, great work and many thanks, Harad.

[Harad Navar]

Lam wrote:

In the initial map, there were forests over most of the mountains with less than 10 mountain only hexes. More recently and on all of your maps, these forests do not exist. Do we have good authority (statement by debs, for instance) that these are mountain and not forest hexes?

Click on the Legend bortton just under the Land Rush Map on the GW website and you will see that there is no forested mountain terrain type. The elevation may be that of the mountain terrain type, but the terrain type itself (for the purposes of resources) should be that for forests rather than mountains (unless this is corrected by a dev statement).

[Harad Navar]

FMS Quietus wrote:

They also have a map on the goblinworks site that you can check for reference if you want.

Yes they do. I downloaded that image and used it as a background (not visible in my map) to allow me to directly compare my map to theirs.

[Tyncale]

Time to update the shortcut on my desktop to your previous map!

Thanks a lot, Harad, I must click that shortcut at least 3x a day.

[Lam]

Harad Navar wrote:

Lam wrote:

In the initial map, there were forests over most of the mountains with less than 10 mountain only hexes. More recently and on all of your maps, these forests do not exist. Do we have good authority (statement by debs, for instance) that these are mountain and not forest hexes?

Click on the Legend bortton just under the Land Rush Map on the GW website and you will see that there is no forested mountain terrain type. The elevation may be that of the mountain terrain type, but the terrain type itself (for the purposes of resources) should be that for forests rather than mountains (unless this is corrected by a dev statement).

I agree with what you say. At the Highland/Forest level you do show crop and swamp hexes so there you are showing terrain not elevation. In the first roll out, much of the mountain elevation had forest terrain. Then from A More Detailed Map most of these forest terrain indications have vanished, but a few remain (one next to A, one next to B, and a few a little further north).

The question then is "Which terrain is mountain and which is forest at mountain level?" The observation that there are a few forests shown at mountain level, but none of the former forests in the mountains near Callambea, AA, of Brighthaven concerns me. If those forests are gone, mountain hexes are not rare, but W, AA, AB and Brighthaven are very food insecure.

This probably needs to be answered by the devs.

[T7V Jazzlvraz]

Tyncale wrote:

...I must click that shortcut at least 3x a day.

I've just begun downloading whenever Harad updates, then leaving it open all the time; it's that much a constant reference.

[Pax Sentath]

Big Thank-You's are in order.

[TEO ArchAnjel]

Lam, they are intended to be very food-insecure. This encourages trade with other settlements possessing a food surplus. They will have ore and likely stone in abundance to trade.

[<Magistry> Toombstone]

Is it certain that the "land rush" map is also the "EE" map or will that larger map, that expands to the river, possibly be in sometime during EE?

[T7V Jazzlvraz]

To my understanding, the Land Rush Map is Day One of EE, while the Expanded Map is Day One of OE, but I could easily be mistaken.

Thanks to the excellent Harad Navar for both maps.

[CBDunkerson]

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:

To my understanding, the Land Rush Map is Day One of EE, while the Expanded Map is Day One of OE, but I could easily be mistaken.

Ryan said: Fort Inevitable is not on the schedule for the start of Early Enrollment.

The land rush map shows Fort Inevitable, and thus that map is presumably not day 1 of EE. They have talked about the settlements being added in ~6 months while start of EE should be within 2. Thus, there will be time to expand the initial area up to that map. There was an earlier map (and corresponding region outlined on earlier versions of Harad Navar's maps) showing half a dozen hexes north and south of Mosswater road. I'm guessing that will be the map for the start of EE.

[Harad Navar]

The official Land Rush Map shows both Fort Inevitable and Land Rush Site AD. I believe that this actually is the extent of EE as shown. However, GW may not have Fort Inevitable functional as an NPC Settlement where new characters can start until later in EE.

[T7V Jazzlvraz]

Correct, folks, and thanks. They've said "No Fort Inevitable on Day One", and I'd forgotten to add that as a disclaimer.

I intended only that I believed those were the hexes bounding our exploration on Day One. Given that sites L and AD will have to be there, 'cause folks'll want to immediately visit their future home-sites, it'll be kinda fun to be able to say "I went to Inevitable before it was Inevitable".

[CBDunkerson]

Hmmmm. I assumed Ryan meant the map just wouldn't extend that far. We should be able to get a better idea once the Alpha launches and we can see how much of the world has been fully detailed.

[TEO Lone_Wolf]

Thank you for this Harad, it is an excellent resource and I (like others) consult it often!

One of my EE goals is to circumnavigate the boundaries of playable map area. I hope I can accomplish that!

[T7V Jazzlvraz]

I remember there was a more-limited Alpha map, but I think I've replaced Harad's version showing that outline.

[CBDunkerson]

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:

I remember there was a more-limited Alpha map, but I think I've replaced Harad's version showing that outline.

Right, this was the extent of the first map we got. I was thinking maybe that was what we would have at start of EE and then it would expand up to the land rush map in time for the settlements to be added (estimated at ~6 months in the future).

The alternative being suggested is that the land rush map will be present from day one, but there will be a big hole or placeholder terrain where Fort Inevitable will eventually be located. I think making temporary 'not Fort Inevitable' hexes would actually be additional work.

[T7V Jazzlvraz]

I'm afraid it might be even more work to explain to some Settlements--but not all--who win sites in the Land Rush that they can't go visit their homes right away, even though we know we won't have our basic Settlement-buildings on Day One.

[FMS Quietus]

CBDunkerson wrote:

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:

I remember there was a more-limited Alpha map, but I think I've replaced Harad's version showing that outline.

Right, this was the extent of the first map we got. I was thinking maybe that was what we would have at start of EE and then it would expand up to the land rush map in time for the settlements to be added (estimated at ~6 months in the future).

The alternative being suggested is that the land rush map will be present from day one, but there will be a big hole or placeholder terrain where Fort Inevitable will eventually be located. I think making temporary 'not Fort Inevitable' hexes would actually be additional work.

When I play tested the game last year at PaizoCon, they had some Unity Objects for placeholders to populate the world. It could be possible that there could be some of that stuff as well. Kind of a work in progress perhaps? Which I would think would be cool to see as EE goes on more and more stuff appears over there.

[Harad Navar]

The (now out of date ) Map PDF also has the estimated extent of Alpha.

[KotC Carbon D. Metric]

Dear Harad,

I know mapping can be hard, and I do not envy the task of continuous edits to the map, especially now that you now have so much work into noting the LR2 week 1 locations.

Good luck and and do try to sleep when you can.

[Harad Navar]

Greetings,
I am working on updating the Unofficial Land Rush Map to show the current proto-settlement locations to be awarded as of the current draft date. However, the guild names you used to contend for proto-settlements may not be your proto-settlement's actual name. You know who you are.

Please post here the name your group will be using for the actual name in-game. Please include the name of your group and the individual designated as the "proto-settlement leader". I hope to have a revised map before I have to go out-of-town Wednesday. It would help if you could update me as soon as possible.

Thank you for letting me be of service to this community, which I have come to admire and respect.

Brother Harad Navar of the 36th Order

[Darcnes]

Dagedai, currently led by me.

[CBDunkerson]

Harad Navar wrote:

Please post here the name your group will be using for the actual name in-game. Please include the name of your group and the individual designated as the "proto-settlement leader". I hope to have a revised map before I have to go out-of-town Wednesday. It would help if you could update me as soon as possible.

The Freevale guild will be founding a settlement named... Freevale. The guild founder, and thus de-facto settlement leader until different settlement government types are crowdforged, is 'Gpunk' on Paizo.com.

That said, 'leader' is just entirely the wrong term considering the multiple kinds of insanity currently housed at this location. :]

[T7V Jazzlvraz]

Harad, Caldeathe's *amazing* spreadsheet has quite a few names, so you can keep going while waiting to hear from some folks.

[<Magistry> Toombstone]

Harad - the settlement at "K" will be called Talonguard, and Athansor would be the proto-leader.
He'll be introducing the settlement a little more formally sometime soon but I figured I'd get you the info for the map.

Thanks again for doing this, your maps are sweet.

[Harad Navar]

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:

Harad, Caldeathe's *amazing* spreadsheet has quite a few names, so you can keep going while waiting to hear from some folks.

Thanks I have most of them. I would like the "leader" Paizo name so they can be contacted for a possible Gobocast interview. I've agreed to help Ezekial Krows with reviving that community service.

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

@ Harad

We are Ozem's Vigil, as on the leaderboard. We have not established a Mayor yet but I would go with Quietus for the nonce.

Thank You for your work on this.

[KotC Carbon D. Metric]

@ Harad

We are using Keepers Pass.

[Harad Navar]

I have created a new Unofficial Land Rush Map with an added layer for declared settlement alignments per Caldeathe's Excellent Spreadsheet. I turned off some information to make the map a little cleaner. Some settlement names are made up as I didn't find a record on the spreadsheet for them. Also, those settlements that do not have a clear settlement alignment stated in the spreadsheet were not labeled.

Good settlements are outlined in gold, evil in red, and neutral in gray. Lawful settlements have a straight line fill, chaotic have a wavy line fill, neutral have no fill.

I want to acknowledge the map work of Tinalles and Wszebur Uriev. I want others to show their mapping skills well. Maybe for a Pathfinder Society faction when factions available?

[T7V Jazzlvraz]

Thank you again, Harad! Very well done indeed.

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

Thanks Harad!

[Saiph the Fallen]

The map is quite lovely Harad! Thank you very much for donating your talents to the Pathfinder Online community!

[Fanndis Goldbraid]

Easy to read, and gives a great idea how the alignments are laid out. Well done!

(NOTE: I do notice there is only one announced evil settlement on the map....but evil has a way of always showing up.)

[Harad Navar]

Unofficial Land Rush Map 2014/06/15 showing alignments

[Kitsune Aou]

Harad Navar wrote:

Unofficial Land Rush Map 2014/06/15 showing alignments

I like the map! But I would like to point out a quick change:

Blackwood Glade should either be reported as NG or not reported (no hard-set alignment; we are waiting to see what companies we pull in. However we are leaning towards NG).

Thanks for your work! :)

[TEO Urman]

Fanndis Goldbraid wrote:

(NOTE: I do notice there is only one announced evil settlement on the map....but evil has a way of always showing up.)

I figure every -N settlement probably has some number of members that are evil. And some that are good as well. Those settlements have chosen to place themselves at that point on the continuum, to allow members those options.

I'm not surprised that the one announced evil settlement is LE; they can eventually join a LN nation. A NE settlement is very limited on the nations it could join; a LE settlement has many more potential partners.

[omnipotentseal]

Canis Castrum is True Neutral (TN). We welcome folks on all sides of the alignment chart - CN, LN, NE, NG.

Thanks for the map! :)

[Guurzak]

TEO Urman wrote:

I'm not surprised that the one announced evil settlement is LE; they can eventually join a LN nation. A NE settlement is very limited on the nations it could join; a LE settlement has many more potential partners.

I wouldn't think it's as much about alignment compatibility as it is reputation management and settlement efficiency. A NE settlement can join a TN nation just as easily as an LE settlement can join a LN nation. (For that matter, I don't remember having seen the one-step rule applied to nation formation- is there dev info to that effect?)

However, going evil means dealing with unrest, and going less lawful means dealing with corruption as well. If you're definitely evil you're already hurting your productivity with longer timers; staying lawful means at least you don't have to deal with tax inefficiency also.

And, doing evil things and doing chaotic things both cause reputation management challenges. If you want a T3 Secret Underground Murderchapel of Norgorber, you're going to have to set a high rep threshold on your settlement. LE characters are more likely to be sustain high rep evil play than NE or especially CE characters.

[T7V Jazzlvraz]

Ryan's been clear that Lawful Evil has some things going for it:

Ryan Dancey wrote:

...LAWFUL EVIL will be the place for players who want to be really powerful bad dudes.

[<Kabal> Sunnfire]

This is an excellent map, but does not have enough politically objectionable content, and therefore I object to its existence.

[T7V Jazzlvraz]

Thank you once again, Harad.

[Nihimon]

Guurzak wrote:

(For that matter, I don't remember having seen the one-step rule applied to nation formation- is there dev info to that effect?)

Put It in Writing wrote:

Settlements must be within one alignment step of the alignment defined in the charter to join the player nation.

[Guurzak]

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:

Ryan's been clear that Lawful Evil has some things going for it:

Ryan Dancey wrote:

...LAWFUL EVIL will be the place for players who want to be really powerful bad dudes.

Yep. All that stuff I just said goes to explain some of why that's the case.