Inconsistencies in zone ownerships

[Ahab]

While making myself a map of the zones to make it easier to find routes, I noticed a couple oddities.

Streets has a very minimal description. This is perfectly reasonable, since basically they are anarchic zones, with no coherent powers. But perhaps it would be useful to at least list the zones which have fallen into the anarchy of the Streets.

The descripton for Los Valentines lists "New Boston" as one of the zones it controls. There is no New Boston zone.

On the other hand, Brave Star lists River Park, Boston Core, City Hall, and Washington St. as zones it controls. It turns out they also control Downtown Gateway. I suspect that originally this was supposed to be New Boston (for Los Valentines), but it got renamed and turned over to Brave Star. This means that Brave Star is the only faction that controls five zones.

It seems to me that giving Brave Star five zones (and lots of beginner connectors, including some not in their zones) might cause some balance issues when you implement conflicts between factions. Since DownTown Gateway is on the other side of the wall, it doesn't make sense to give it to Los Valentines. Should one of Brave Star's zones be given to another corporation?

[moody]

New Boston is the name of the entire city. Just to clear up that one piece of confusion that you have.

[Cory Trese]

Thanks moody.

I will review the gang and security team intel to make sure it is consistent.

Definitely appreciate the concern about map balance and we're very focused on it as well.

Good map design theory is a critical component of any RPG, especially single player sandbox ones. Great points.

[Ahab]

Yes, New Boston is the name of the entire city. But the intel under Los Valentines Gang says: New Boston Zones Controlled: Commonwealth, The Fenns, Roxbury Crossing, New Boston.

It's good work so far!