Talk:Suburb/Archive 1

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.
  • Trying to fix the Pennville danger level to safe. I know I did it right but it won't change. what is the deal?
    • Yeah, I just changed Lerwill Heights to Very Dangerous, but this isn't reflected on the map. Is there a time lag between when a change is made and when it shows up on the map? --Duglis 19:24, 11 July 2006 (BST)
    • I believe you have to edit the Suburb page for it to update. Like, change the danger level first, then edit the Suburb page with a new entry for that suburb, and the color will update. --Vuredel 23:31, 11 July 2006 (BST)
  • I tried changing South Blythville's danger level, and succeded on getting its page to reflect the new level, but I can't get the main suburb page to show it. Is there a delay or something?--Grim44 15:04, 30 July 2006 (BST)
    • You will need to either edit the suburb page, or purge the cached version for the templates used to update. Adding a report is highly preferred, unless you are merely reverting vandalism or such. –Xoid STFU! 15:20, 30 July 2006 (BST)

New Danger Mechanic

This is currently only in discussion on this page. After consensus is reached (or approached) I will make an actual Wiki policy page for voting.

UPDATE: this version has been withdrawn. You can see the latest version below the discussion.

===Introduction=== The suburb danger mechanic is meant primarily to indicate how dangerous suburbs are for survivors. The current system suffers from two large flaws.

  • First, it is very subjective - making distinctions between "many" and "some" breakins, for example, that not all players can agree upon.
  • Second, it is difficult to gather data for the benchmarks of the danger mechanic, as the data the current danger level depends upon are spread throughout time (number of breakins in different areas) and space (number and size of zombie hordes).

Understandably, one player, or even several players in the suburb may not be able to gather representative samples of these kinds of data, or agree on what the data means.

I suggest that this mechanic be replaced by a system of data which is easy to collect and widely regarded as objective. The new system would also have the benefit that even if a player cannot collect all possible data in the suburb, he can still make an accurate estimate.

How The New System Would Work

The new system would track the status of buildings, specifically the all-important resource buildings. This is because building data is easy to collect, is objective, and is a good indirect indicator of suburb danger levels.

Dangerous Buildings

The building values would be weighted as follows:

  • Mall: 80 pts
  • Necrotech: 20 pts
  • Police, Fire, Auto, Factory: 4 pts

So, for example, a suburb with two Necrotechs and a Mall would have a total possible value (TPV) of 120 points.

Now, each building (when visited by an observer) can have a Danger Value of 1 to 4.

  • 4 Points: No survivors inside OR ransacked OR doors open for hours at a time.
  • 3 Points: Heavily Besieged: at least (100/30/15) zombies outside (Mall/NT/other).
  • 2 Points: Besieged: at least (50/15/8) zombies outside (Mall/NT/other).
  • 1 Point: Not enough zombies to be Besieged.

Since Necrotechs and Malls are worth more, you just multiply by 5 and 20 respectively. A Necrotech at Level 2 is worth 10 points for example.

Using The New System To Change The Danger Level

Evaluating the danger level of a suburb is now very simple. You simply pull up a map and find the largest concentration of resource buildings. Run around outside each in turn and record their status. Now divide your total Danger Points by the Total Possible and you will get a percentage value.

  • Example: A suburb has 3 Necrotechs (a possible 20 points each) and 2 Police Departments (four points each). The Total Possible Value is 68 points. Scouting these five buildings, you find that all the buildings are at Level 2, so the total points = 10 + 10 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 26. Twenty-six divided by sixty-eight equals 38%.

If you can't scout all the buildings - which shouldn't be hard, each suburb only has 10 or so - then scout what you can and divide by the total possible for the sample you took. Usually this will give you an accurate estimate.

The New Danger Levels

You can now color each suburb based on the percentage value you got, which will range from 25% to 100%. The higher the number, the more dangerous the suburb.

  • Safe: Higher than 25%
    • Most buildings at Level 1
  • Moderate: Higher than 40%
    • Most buildings at Level 2
  • Dangerous: Higher than 60%
    • Most buildings at Level 3
  • Very Dangerous: Higher than 85%
    • Most buildings at Level 4

The levels are slightly curved so that it's more difficult to become Safe or Very Dangerous.

Advantages Of The New Danger System

  • Easy to collect.
  • Objective.
  • All categories are mutually exclusive and can be determined at a glance.
  • Data can easily be collected by both zombie & survivor players.
  • Assesses difficulty of surviving, the availability of resources, and the pressure zombies are exerting on the suburb, in one benchmark.
  • Measures level of zombie organization in the suburb: can they ransack buildings and hold them? Are they engaging in sieges?


  • Primarily, that the survivor population in the suburb is not measured. This was necessary because I wanted data that both survivors and zombies could observe for themselves.
  • The system has some trouble discerning Safe-but-Abandoned (which would really be Dangerous) from real Safe suburbs.


Each important building in the suburb can be rated on a danger scale objectively. The more buildings there are which are high on the scale, the more dangerous the suburb. A survivor or zombie can calculate the danger quickly by visiting all, most, or some of the important buildings in a suburb.


Please discuss the suggestion here.

Thanks for reading all this!

  1. Add your comments like so.
  1. Too much math... Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 02:33, 3 August 2006 (BST)
  2. I have to say, I'd be against it if it ever came to vote. Zombies don't try to hold buildings last I checked. They only come in, rip the survivors apart, ransack them, and move on. Survivor population and barricade levels are always a horrible way of measuring a suburb's security level. One must use the zombie population for an accurate readout. --Nomader TRCDC 02:39, 3 August 2006 (BST)
    I'd disagree with you on that because survivors can barricade strafe a suburb and leave it. Because it's all barricaded up doesn't make it safe. It needs someone there to defend and maintain the high level of barricades. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 02:40, 3 August 2006 (BST)
    I'm not sure what exactly our diagreement is here... survivors and barricades don't make the suburb safe. If there's lots of zombies, a suburb's not safe. If there's lots of zombies and survivors, a suburb's not safe because there's a gigantic war going on. If there's no zombies, it's usually safe. Not very hard logic. Everything depends on the zombie population. Barricades don't determine how safe a suburb is either, for the note. If the RRF were to invade Dulston (using an example) right now, the suburb would not be safe, even though the mall there is packed with survivors and most barricades would be up to full. --Nomader TRCDC 02:55, 3 August 2006 (BST)
    I'm disagreeing that zombie numbers are the only reason for it being very dangerous. This of course is the primary reason but the secondary, and sometimes more important, reason is that buildings are empty. A suburb under attack by 400 zombies usually have them concentrated in one area and you can sleep in areas not attacked and have put maintain the barricades. In empty suburbs you can go into an EH building but find it open in an hour. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 03:00, 3 August 2006 (BST)
    Isn't danger a very easy benchmark? It's basically: If I stay here, what are the odds there will be a breakin and I will be eaten? If there are no cades AND no zombie organized groups, the suburb is STILL very dangerous because any barricaded building is so conspicuous that it will immediately be attacked by ferals. Overall zombie numbers are irrelevant because every suburb has ferals. What matters is the degree to which the suburb is safely barricaded, and the degree to which resources (ammo & syringes primarily) are available - and both of those statistics can be measured by looking at the status of the 10 or so most important buildings in a suburb. If most buildings are ransacked the area is Very Dangerous regardless of any survivor or zombie presence, imo. Similarly, if all Necrotechs in the area are ransacked, the suburb will be at least Moderate even if you can sleep in a Bank each night and not be disturbed. Rheingold 03:10, 3 August 2006 (BST)
    Zombie numbers are not irrelevant. If a Drunken Dead horde is about to blow my brains out, how is it irrelevant? However, back to what I was saying. Sonny, Rheingold, you won me over. However, I still believe that zombie numbers are a primary part of suburb safety, but not the sole point. However, because I'm admitting I'm losing, I'm also admitting that I like the new proposal. A lot. A few notes though. It'll keep some pretty bad suggestions off the page from people who are too lazy to submit them, and it'll be... much more accurate. A lot more accurate. But, a few notes:
    Factories are more common than you might think. Personally, I don't consider them a tactical resource point. People don't need generators as much as they need guns.
    Hospitals should be factored in with Police Departments and the rest, as surgery skill requires it, and first aid kits are a well-wanted item. Medics also seem to hang around there for no reason as well. Overall though, a good change. --Nomader TRCDC 07:18, 3 August 2006 (BST)
  3. Some kind of system should be in place because the current system is far too subjective. While at first the math for this seems complex, it really isn't.(It's basic arithmetic) I do agree that Hospitals should be included; I would use the 'cade levels of a burb's Malls, NTs, PDs, and Hospitals. Factories and Autos are sources too, but the resources they yeild are secondary.(adding their data would lead to greater accuracy but would be more work) FSs are NOT resource buildings IMO, since every consumable resource found in them can be found elsewhere with greater success or in addition to other useful consumables. I agree with the OP that the condition of barricades in the resource buildings reflect the cades of the other buildings in a burb, btw.
    The Barricade levels are a good measure of how safe(for survivors) a suburb is- If the cades are holding, it's relatively safe; if they are not, it's dangerous. The total numbers, ratio, and effectiveness of zombies and survivors present directly impact the barricade situation. The struggle between survivors and zombies pivots on maintaining and breaching cades. Cade levels are quantifiable, making objective observations and analysis possible.
    My only concern is with measuring(and reporting) these quantities with respect to time. 1 zed sneeking into Caiger for a few hours(when the larger situation is clearly in survivors' favor) does not suddenly make Darvell Heights unsafe. Conversely, a few temporarily caded resource buildings in Ridleybank doesn't suddenly make it safe. The danger level should reflect the current situation in a burb, but should not be effected by every ephemeral change that occurs, SO some kind of "the situation being reported must exist for X days" rule should be implemented with this.(this should have been done with the current system, too, IMO, to avoid knee-jerk edits) --Raystanwick 09:23, 3 August 2006 (BST)
    • Barricade levels fluctuate constantly. This system only measures two things. First, is it ransacked/empty/open, or is it usually barricaded? Second, if it's barricaded, is there a strong, weak, or insignificant zombie presence outside? Both of these factors are a little more "permanent" across time than cade levels. Rheingold 03:38, 4 August 2006 (BST)
  4. It is very objective. Suburbs with very few resource buildings can become very dangerous very quickly. That might not be a bad thing. Its just that the danger levels in low resource suburbs would tend to fluctuate quite a bit more rapidly than a burb with several NTs. That may very well reflect the state of danger. In high resource areas some haggling may occur over the ten most important buildings. I'll have to look at all the suburb maps again but so far I've not found too many cases where adding hospitals makes a big difference. Possibly in suburbs like Greentown, Reaganbank, Crooketon, Mornigton, Pennvile, Mockridge Heights and Wykewood which have neither NTs or Malls they might make a difference in the resource count. To test the system I did a walk through of a couple of burbs. I performed both of these as a survivor outdoors so I did not note any survivor numbers. Riddleybank: 1 Fire (not visited), 4 Factories, 2 PDs and 1 NT all open and ransacked. 44/48 = 91% = Very Dangerous. Its probably 100% but I didn't make it to the fire house ... That seems to work. East Boundwood: 3 PD, 2 Fire, 2 Auto, 1 Factory, 1 NT, 1 Mall, All at Level 1, 33/152 = 18% = Safe. That's one level lower than the current map reading but after accomplishing the scouting I agree it seems like a fair assessment. There were around 20 standing zombies in the burb and every thing seemed well barricaded. Using this system one could argue that the 300 zombies at the bank do not present a danger. I don't think that would be appropriate. If the total number of zombies in a suburb reach a certain point it should become very dangerous whether they happen to be at a resource building or not. The resource buildings will likely soon fall, but waiting till they do does not seem like the best place to draw the line. --Max Grivas JG,T,P! 09:41, 3 August 2006 (BST)
    • Thanks for doing a test run! As you can see, the new method takes fewer AP than scouting all 100 blocks in a burb, and it gives hard-data instead of "soft"/subjective data. In a suburb with 300 zeds, barricading a building is like painting a crosshairs on it - I don't think that building will last long. In the long run the data should give fair results. Rheingold 03:38, 4 August 2006 (BST)
  5. (Comment removed. They said the gist of my suggestion below but in different ways) --User:Alzuun
  6. I've got a comment and a question. First of all, you've got to make room for the number of survivors present. For instance, there are 200 zombies outside Caiger Mall right now but they don't exactly pose a threat for the 1000 survivors inside. The place isn't "very dangerous" by any means and shouldn't be reported as such. Also, what about malls that are divided between two suburbs? If there are 200 zombies on the east side of a divided mall, does it count toward the danger rating on the west side? Other than that, it sounds good! --Ron Burgundy 17:34, 3 August 2006 (BST)
    • Thanks for the question! Well, according to the old system Chudleyton-Darvall is Very Dangerous right now simply by virtue of having 150+ zombies roaming around, which I agree with you, is a flaw in the system as they still are outnumbered by survivors. But just as sheer numbers of zombies don't indicate danger, sheer numbers of humans don't indicate safety. If the survivor presence is significant & coordinated/effective, and the zombies don't pose a threat to the suburb at large, then most buildings should be barricaded and populated; if they are, then the suburb danger rating according to the new system will be low. So the survivor presence, & the survivors' contribution towards safety, are measured by looking at how well they keep the TRPs in their suburb up and running. I'd count cross-suburb malls towards both suburbs, as they are such important resource points. A siege of one corner of the mall is a siege of the whole thing, anyway ;)Rheingold 03:38, 4 August 2006 (BST)
  7. I'm not very certain how this works right now. Having no survivors inside a buildings and no zombies outside are not mutually exclusive, but one is cited as level four while the other is level one. I agree that an objective decision on how likely/long barricades hold is determinant of a suburb's danger level, but this system doesn't quite address this issue. --Kenny Matthews W! 04:58, 4 August 2006 (BST)
  1. OK, because a lot of people think it's too complex, I've pared it down to a simple survey of questions and the survey does the math for you. Remember, the simpler we make this the more people will actually use it and thus the more suburb reports we'll get.

The newest version follows below.... Rheingold 08:52, 4 August 2006 (BST)


To survey a suburb, please visit all the resource buildings in turn and record their status. It may be helpful to plan your survey on the suburb map beforehand. The following buildings must be visited:

  • Malls
  • Necrotech Offices
  • Police Departments
  • Hospitals
  • Auto Repair Shops

Now take the following survey of just six questions. Each answer is worth points. At the end of the survey you will add up all the points from the answers you gave to determine the suburb’s Danger Level.

The Suburb Danger Survey

1. What was the status of the Mall you visited in this suburb?

  • Barricaded (0 pts)
  • No Mall in this suburb (10 pts)
  • Barricaded but under siege by at least 100 zombies (15 pts)
  • Ransacked (20 pts)

Note: if this suburb has two Malls, answer for each and divide the total by two.

2. Of the Necrotechs you visited, how many were barricaded? Give the closest answer:

  • 100% (0 pts)
  • 80% (2 pts)
  • 60% (4 pts)
  • 50% (5 pts)
  • 40% (6 pts)
  • 20% (8 pts)
  • 0% (10 pts)
  • No Necrotechs in this suburb (6 pts)

3. Of the Police Departments you visited, how many were barricaded? Give the closest answer.

  • 100% (0 pts)
  • 80% (1 pt)
  • 60% (2 pts)
  • 40% (3 pts)
  • 20% (4 pts)
  • 0% (5 pts)
  • No Police Departments in this suburb (3 pts)

4. Of the Hospitals & Auto Shops you visited, how many were barricaded? Give the closest answer.

  • 100% (0 pts)
  • 80% (1 pt)
  • 60% (2 pts)
  • 40% (3 pts)
  • 20% (4 pts)
  • 0% (5 pts)
  • No buildings of either type in this suburb (3 pts)

5. In your survey of the suburb, how many groups of over 10 zombies did you spot outside any building (not road, lane or monument)?

  • None or one (4 pts)
  • Two (8 pts)
  • Three (12 pts)
  • Four (16 pts)
  • Five (20 pts)
  • More than five (30 pts)

6. In your survey of the suburb, what was the largest group of zombies you spotted?

  • Fewer than 20 zombies (2 pt)
  • At least 20 zombies (4 pts)
  • At least 40 zombies (8 pts)
  • At least 60 zombies (12 pts)
  • At least 80 zombies (16 pts)
  • At least 100 zombies (20 pts)
  • More than 100 zombies (30 pts)

Danger Survey Results

  • 0-20 Very Safe.
  • 20-40 Somewhat Safe.
  • 40-60 Moderate.
  • 60-80 Somewhat Dangerous.
  • 80-100+ Very Dangerous.

Discussion Continued

Add comments about my latest revision below, please. Is this better, worse? What changes should be made?

  1. Please add your responses like so. Rheingold 08:59, 4 August 2006 (BST)
  2. I like it. Simple, easy and thorough. Pretty much everyone can understand it. --Preasure 11:29, 4 August 2006 (BST)
  3. I'd still like to see the survivor numbers addressed. As you remember Blesley Mall in Mall Tour '06. It was cleared out by a cheating PKer. Mall Tour shows up, rips down the cades, and finds it's empty. Before that everyone thought the Mall was safe because it was barricaded. Barricades mean nothing, they go up and down. Survivor numbers behind the barricades are the important part because they're the ones that control them. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 15:32, 4 August 2006 (BST)
  4. Not a fan of adding points to the score for not having a mall or any other building. Places with barricaded malls are not safer by default than places that don't have malls but are still barricaded. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 16:25, 4 August 2006 (BST)
  5. As with Sonny, I think that the harman population in a 'burb should affect its classification. --Kiltric 19:30, 4 August 2006 (BST)
  6. I can't help but think... why not forget zombie numbers, too? If you're counting survivors in terms of how many barricades they've thrown up, why not count the zombies in terms of how many they've torn down? It'll tell you the effectiveness of either side and in that, the safety of the suburb- it'd be only as safe as its population is effective. An extremely effective small group of survivors can make the place safer than it would be and the opposite is true of zombies. I think ignoring both survivor numbers and zombie numbers levels the field and, in that way, addresses Sonny's objection (which is, I think, a powerful one). It's an extreme idea, sure, but counting survivors just isn't feasible and ignoring zombie numbers both evens things out and streamlines the process. --Ron Burgundy 00:18, 5 August 2006 (BST)
    • I'm tempted to agree with this, but then the survey would have just three data points... I need to think of something to replace the last two questions before I can remove them. Rheingold 10:00, 5 August 2006 (BST)
  7. I much prefer the previous version. There is more math in this version than the last. At least there is no long division. Suburbs with no Mall/NT/Zombies can never fall below Somewhat. I'd like to see No Mall moved to 6 pts and No NT moved to 4 or 5 pts. I also like Ron's suggestion of dropping the zombie count. It turns into a barricade report. Thats something usefull for zombies to make note of likely targets. It seems a good way to avoid conflicting with surviour numbers being unavailble to zombies in strafed suburbs. If a a tree falls in the woods zombie graaghs menacingly in an abandoned suburb and no one is there to hear them, is anyone really in danger? --Max Grivas JG,T,P! 03:52, 5 August 2006 (BST)
    • Regarding the first objection, most suburbs have only 4-6 of each resource building listed, that's hardly long division. ;P Regarding the second, you can observe for yourself on the map that the suburbs which are 20+ blocks away from a mall, or which have no Necrotech Offices, are more dangerous and more fragile vs. a zombie attack. There's actually a page somewhere on this wiki (can't find it now) that draws zombie attention to this fact. Maybe it needs to be toned down a bit, but "no Mall" should give more danger points than "Mall, and barricaded." Rheingold 10:00, 5 August 2006 (BST)
      • Here it is. As you can see from the History pages of Grigg Heights and Owsleybank, the theory has ample evidence. Rheingold 10:07, 5 August 2006 (BST)
    Sorry if I was unclear. NOT having a long division operation is the only point I find appealing about the currently presented system. The previously presented system (even with its division operation) provided a more consistent score burb to burb, and presented a realistic score that was obtainable by a single observer. Using the system you have now presented , a single player will find it impossible to produce a danger report in a single gaming session in a majority of suburbs. It is my belief that your presentation has taken a step backward by providing a more complex system instead of less. Other than its being distinctly objective, it provides no simplification to the system currently in place. Unfortunately your survey does not consider a suburbs proximity to a mall in such a thoughtful way as the guide you have pointed out. As pointed out by the guide, many suburbs are in a safer position being surrounded by malls but not having one themselves. --Max Grivas JG,T,P! 17:39, 5 August 2006 (BST)
  8. I still don't understand why Autos would be included but not Factories. The resources they yeild are very closely related; gennies and/or fuel.(Unless you're counting Spraycans as a tactical resource...) Either use them both or neither. BTW, their total numbers are about the same- about 230 of each type across Malton.(235 Autos and 232 Factories city-wide to be exact) I still say the NTs, Malls, PDs, and Hospitals are the most important building types. Gennies and Fuel from Factories and Autos are only useful for making these other buildings "better". --Raystanwick 07:27, 5 August 2006 (BST)
    • The more data the better; there are suburbs (e.g. Dentonside, Richmond Hills) which have fewer than half a dozen resource buildings if Autos/Factories are not counted. Rheingold 10:00, 5 August 2006 (BST)
  9. Well, I have to admit, although simpler, I liked the other version as it adressed zombie numbers as well. Can we somehow keep it as it was before, yet simpler math? I'm sure someone here can arrange that... --Nomader TRCDC 09:02, 6 August 2006 (BST)
  10. The lack of a total zombie count is a problem. Post-Big-Bash in Buttonville, there were ~90 zombies present. There were no big groups (except at revive points). They were evenly distributed throughout the suburb with one or two IN nearly all buildings making un-ransacking/barricading all the more difficult. Then many more outside. They made survivor activity basically impossible NOT to detect and trounced any signs of life quickly. An extremely dangerous situation. Yet, by this method, the zombie count would not have made a blip on the danger scale. I think total zombie count is a more accurate assessment of danger than number of large groups. Also, any large group factor needs to factor out revive points. SearchDerelict 20:05, 7 August 2006 (BST)
  11. I think that adding the number system is a great way to go about it, because it encourages uniformity in the system, something that everyone, survivor and undead can follow without many complications and discrepancies. I do think there needs to be some account for survivors, maybe not in every single building persay, but their does need to be a survivor presence to make a suburb safe. Thanks, --Vikermac 19:44, 10 August 2006 (BST)
  12. If the entire system was somehow automated, I would see it as doable, but this list of questions and answers is too involved to do by hand. I have no argument with how things are weighted, but the scope of the formula is complex. I think that if there was a way to manage these components seperately, it would be more useful (# of zombies is one variable, barricade levels is seperate, ect). The problem I have with the danger levels is that we are trying to boil things down too much. I still say make the Danger Level JUST about zed populations. --Kiki Lottaboobs 15:31, 11 August 2006 (BST)
  13. Tho I like the objective nature of numbers, I think it's too complex to be usable and balanced. It may need months of gameplay to produce fully accurate results and game changes can make it unrealistic at any time. Also it doesn't reflect something critical: presence or absence of organized groups. A cluster of organized survivors running revive point can be a greater difference than dozens of ferals that will be easily killed at resource buildings (and then will wait for days at the revive point). --Doc Groucho 21:33, 15 August 2006 (BST)
  14. Its a reasonable idea to overcome the problem of defining danger levels but its rather complicated. I doubt many people will want to fill in a survey continously just to adjust danger levels. If a survey was to be implemented it would need to be kept to something small like one question to resource buildings in general and another to suburb zombie count in general.--Mr yawn 20:08, 21 September 2006 (BST)
  15. Zombies are one thing, but what about humans? There are a lot of zombies in Ridleybank, but then theres the ridleybank resistance. All I'm saying is that humans can beat down a zed attack, and the more human groups you see in malls, hospitals, necrotec... the less points you should give. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alevins (talkcontribs) 10:42, 23 September 2006.
  16. This is bull. Suburbs without malls are safer than those who have them. Also, damn, who's gonna travel and check every damn hospital/NT/Police dept in the suburb! -Certified=InsaneUG 20:59, 26 September 2006 (BST)
  17. I'm new to the 'burbs, so excuse my ignorance. But why not have an auto-magic danger level thingy written into the code? Is Kevan the only one that makes code additions/changes?---Cyanosis09:45, October 23 2006 (EST)
    • It might be possible to make it a FireFox extension which updates the page when the user enters a square, without Kevan doing anything, but it would be pretty complex to code, and i don't know anyone who could do it. I doubt Kevan would waste time doing it himself.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 14:55, 23 October 2006 (BST)
  18. I am a fan. I think it works well in most burbs, and really well in the burbs where its going to matter, i.e. the ones with much activity anyway. I don't think the Math is particulary complicated, what would be nice is if someone made a print out available for download (wordpad format or something) so anyone wanting to survey the burb can do it really quick while checking off down the list of what they see. Tiger Striped Dog
  19. Its pretty good, the only problem i can see with it is that people will be too lazy to do all that. I suggest you ask them to check the map available from Necrotech buildings to assess the zombie numbers in a suburb. SamtheMan
  20. OK, there's going to be loopholes and bugs in the system that could make a suburb that is perfectly safe to be classified as Very Dangerous. I think the best way would be to scout around and go with your gut as to whether or not you think it would be a safe place to be or not.--Labine50 MHG|MEMS 23:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  21. Excellent idea, because it means the "danger level" will be evenly valued throughout Malton (as it should be.) Not a matter of perspective.. per se. Works for me, would get a Keep as is. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 16:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  22. The new system appears to be quite acceptable and well thought-out, although the values pertaining to the malls and NecroTech Facilities should be lowered as well as those of unbarricaded buildings. Definitely an improvement from the previous plan. Zombie Annihilation Faction --Zombie slay3r 09:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  23. I don't think it makes sense to have such a complex system, that at the end of the day tells you very little about the exact details of 'danger'. I like the idea of a scoring system, if implemented correctly. But I personally think it would be more sensible to have the barricading and the zombie count separate, as they effect the game in totaly differnt ways. Reaper_MonkeyGGG 03:11, 20 August 2006 (BST)

New Suburb Tag

The (Actual) New Tag Discussion

Seeing as the ransack change has altered the way the game is played and how suburbs may be reported, there is now a new suburb tag being hashed out over at UDWiki:Moderation/Policy_Discussion/New_Suburb_Tag. Could all you folk please voice your opinions? I believe that it will solve the problem(s) we are having with Red vs. Not-Red Vs. Safe suburbs at the moment. --Karlsbad 06:29, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Rehash of Existing Classififcations

OK - the current system is screwed up. As is visible with the situation in Rhodenbank. We need to go about overhauling the system so that the categories are mutually exclusive and there aren't protracted edit wars over the difference between Moderate and Safe. There has also been talk over adding a status type for places that are basically devoid of activity. Lets get the thoughts of those attached to the page. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 00:38, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Currently, I've always thought that 'safe' would mean that the suburb is essentially in human hands (as Rhodenbank is now, but I'm not getting into that). Meaning, that the zombie activity is essentially dotted, sparse, and un-coordianted. Once a group springs up, or the zombie activity centralizes and begins to attack buildings in a co-ordinated fashion, then you should change it to moderate. Once a zombie horde moves in, it should be Very Dangerous. And once you have suburbs like Ridleybank, or the number of zombies attacking the malls, then you have Red, which is by the way, highly over-used right now... --NomaderTalk 04:54, 31 July 2006 (BST)
I'll use the current state of Wykewood for an example only because I'm most familiar with its current state from a survivor perspective. We now have a significant survivor presence although every building is not currently inhabited a majority are. We've had a rough time of and really don't have the AP to flee the burb as Sonny's description of some starfed suburbs. There are some empty yet barricaded buildings. The few zombies in the suburb seem disorganized and are unable to accomplish frequent break-in as individuals. Don't get me wrong we've had people bit more than once this week. I still don't consider the burb to be on the Very Dangerous end of the spectrum. Claiming it to be so would be a disservice to survivors and zombies alike. While die hard survivors might get a tremendous sense of accomplishment by seeing the whole map green, I think that would do as great an injustice as painting the whole map red. We need to use the four (or five) colors to present as much meaningful information as possible. Doing so helps zombies as much as survivors to learn where strikes and reinforcements are needed. As hard as it may be to do by hand, some presentation of the zombie to survivor ratio should be taken into account in the burbs danger level. That ratio is tremendously difficult to learn from the perspective of even a mob of zombies who have been strafed out of buildings. I think (and I should have to say this but its only my opinion) if a burb has more barricaded buildings than zombies, it should not be considered very-dangerous. If such a suburb has more buildings unoccupied than not, that is, a majority of empty buildings I certainly would not consider it to be safe. If we continue with the current system of using four levels to present the information we need to come up with some other element to better judge where the line should be drawn for the levels of Moderate and Dangerous. I've stood shoulder to shoulder with Sonny for the past two weeks beating our claws against robot generated barricades. As a zombie who collapses and mauls every day, killing and infecting whenever possible, I know how frustrating being on the other side of the barricades can be. If I'd not found a great great strike team with which to work in concert, I'd have given up being a zombie along time ago. We really need a system generated from standards that can be reckoned from either side of the cades to determine these danger levels. The amount of barricades themselves simply are not enough. The number of zombies and bodies that don't smell strange by itself is not enough. The number of survivors has to be figured in somehow. I think this will remain difficult to determine without ZOMG zombie spies. I agree and would like to encourage Sonny to stop painting the roses red but we need some mechanic to use as the ruler for the limited amount of information we have. OK so long rant with only a few suggestions zombies/barricaded buildings, zombies/survivors, barricades/survivors ... Do any of those help us figure it out? --Max Grivas JG,T,P! 06:18, 31 July 2006 (BST)
Wow, that was long. Your ideas are interesting, but hard to determine with a single character (which is how the majority seem to be done) with AP left to play. And believe me, I know the pain of InstaCades™ that are springing up at the Morrish Building. What does everyone else think? --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 06:29, 31 July 2006 (BST)
Yeah, a suburb like Ridleybank with 66 buildings is impossible for a single survivor to survey in a day. The DoHS broke it up into 4 quadrants to help ease the matter. I think most suburbs can only effectively be surveyed by groups. crisscrossing a suburb diagonally gives a fair analysis of the standing zombie count, but a door to door census of survivors seems too hard for a survivor to accomplish let alone a poor zombie without lurching gait. Unless I've missed something completely obvious reports generated by groups are really the only thing I'm going to believe in. An area would otherwise need to become very stable to even get a reading. --Max Grivas JG,T,P! 18:15, 31 July 2006 (BST)
Personally, I believe both surivor numbers and zombie numbers should be taken into account. However, can we do that? We'll eventually have a complicated system that will become too hard for normal users to use. Although I like the current system, I believe that Moderate should be changed to "active zombie groups", and safe should stay the same. Groups should be defined unofficially as zombies working in an organized fashion - they don't have to be part of the RRF or the Pwotters to be considered one. Once we get those small discrepancies out of the way, I believe things will begin to work better. --Nomader TRCDC 20:11, 31 July 2006 (BST)
Nomader - I would change yours to "active groups of coordinated zombies". That removes ambiguity, I think. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 21:35, 31 July 2006 (BST)
I'm not going to edit my past post, but I do agree, that is a better way of putting it. Imagine I wrote it that way... --Nomader TRCDC 18:37, 1 August 2006 (BST)

I still suggest that the Danger Level should solely be about how many zombies are in a given suburb. Are there < 50, > 50 or >150? Done. Not only is it easy, but there's no argument. It is easy enought to count zombies, and even if you're off by a few, the categories are large enough so that it would barely make a difference.
Of course, it is a different metric, it does not allow for a universal level of "Danger" incorporating survivor populations, barricade levels and zed populations. The short of this is that winging it is not acceptable, and that's what we're currently doing. Some people are using their own set of definitions for existing classifications. --Kiki Lottaboobs 10:43, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Barricade Strafed Suburbs

I propose that suburbs that are broken into each day but are then barricade strafed deserve to be Very Dangerous. My reasoning? How the fuck is it safe if you must leave the suburb each day after strafing it? How the fuck is it safe that you must strafe it each day? If it was safe you wouldn't have to strafe it at all. Those barricades wouldn't even be going down. Further more this will end edit wars between those that claim empty and open buildings are dangerous and those that prove they aren't dangerous by watsing AP to give screenshots that are unrelated to the issue. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 04:00, 31 July 2006 (BST)

If every single building is being broken into and every single building has to be rebarricaded then yes, it's dangerous, it would already qualify as "Very Dangerous" simply from the number of resident zombies required to break that many barricades every day.
If you're just talking about feral zombies breaking into one or two buildings per day, and leaving the other seventy intact, then no, that doesn't sound very dangerous, and would already qualify as "Safe" simply from the fact that the suburb has "no zombie groups" and "break-ins [are] rare". --Censustaker 04:24, 31 July 2006 (BST)
But the break-ins are not rare. Everyday buildings are broken into. That does not make them rare. If they must be barricade strafed that tells you right off the bat they're being broken into. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 04:27, 31 July 2006 (BST)
Every day buildings are being broken into in every suburb - a single, lucky zombie can bring a barricade down by themselves. It's the number of buildings being broken into that matters. A handful of ferals bringing down one or two barricades a day and leaving seventy intact is as "rare" as break-ins can ever hope to get. --Censustaker 04:32, 31 July 2006 (BST)
I'm talking the resource buildings being torn down each day. That's 13 in Brooksville attacked each day. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 04:52, 31 July 2006 (BST)
Personally, I believe both surivor numbers and zombie numbers should be taken into account. However, can we do that? We'll eventually have a complicated system that will become too hard for normal users to use. Although I like the current system, I believe that Moderate should be changed to "active zombie groups", and safe should stay the same. Groups should be defined unofficially as zombies working in an organized fashion - they don't have to be part of the RRF or the Pwotters to be considered one. Once we get those small discrepancies out of the way, I believe things will begin to work better. --Nomader TRCDC 20:11, 31 July 2006 (BST)
I agree that there should be another color and, as it has been suggested before, that color would be grey to signify a low presense of organized survivor/zombie activity and/or few suffecient barricaded buildings--Mercsenary 10:28, 2 August 2006 (BST)

New Tag

I have noticed that the Very Dangerous tag is quite useful but is currently being used incorrectly; it notes situations in which there is not an organized and threatening zombie horde in the area but the suburb is still in a semi-ransacked, dark, and barricade-less state.

Therefore I submit that there should be a fifth suburb color, most likely a grey with black border, to represent suburbs in which a majority of suburb buildings are open and ransacked and lack power yet still do not have any more than 25 zombies that are not peacefully waiting at a suburb's revive point. --Karlsbad 02:59, 18 July 2006 (BST)

I'd support it. But right now I just love the Red all over the map. Sonny Corleone WTF 01:58, 19 July 2006 (BST)
So basically have a Tag for an Abandoned Suburb? Sounds good, but I also enjoy the Red. In Soviet Malton, Suburbs tag you. -- Tirion529 02:02, 19 July 2006 (BST)
Thats what we need! Communist RP zombies! "Grab Brar-gzra-Za1!". But seriously, It is not only an abandoned but a majority-ransacked suburb; same difference, except there doesn't have to be "no zombies" or "a whole bunch of zombies", only a good ammount of ransacked buildings. --Karlsbad 02:54, 19 July 2006 (BST)
1Oh, why don't you try making a zombic for Bourgeois?
I support this change. Seeing all that red makes me think that there arent that many zombie players.--Mercsenary 07:10, 25 July 2006 (BST)
Me too. As it stands the map isn't very clear. And clarity is good. --Preasure 10:47, 25 July 2006 (BST)
Shouldn't a suburb that is completely cracked open, but has almost no zombies also get this classification? –Xoid STFU! 10:54, 25 July 2006 (BST)
Yes. But I think we should do this like next month and hold a vote. Just placing it out of order without a community vote would cause quite a few stirs. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS CoL 15:36, 25 July 2006 (BST)
I was going to suggest something like this myself, as it seems people are overreacting just a tiny bit to the recent zombie events. I've been to a few of the suburbs and alot of them are just empty ghost towns with a few zombies and humans here and there. EMAG TRESNI 18:30, 25 July 2006 (BST)
Sorry I missed this section. I think we definitely need this, and sooner than "like next month", with the map as exaggerated as it is. Nobody would object to the map having better data, would they? Grey suburbs would just be a subset of red, so we wouldn't be losing anything. --Censustaker 05:26, 30 July 2006 (BST)
Upon going through the SW a lot of suburbs are Red. I was dragged from an EH building in only an hour after signing out. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 05:29, 30 July 2006 (BST)
Is this somehow an argument against adding grey suburbs without a vote? --Censustaker 05:38, 30 July 2006 (BST)
No. I support Grey. It's just that a lot of suburbs in the SW would not be Grey like this is intended for. This would work for other suburbs. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 05:42, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Suburb Category Guidelines


Listen, when I got on it was all messed up, I've tried everything even Copy\Pasted the orginal one to fix it, what the hell is wrong with it. No matter what I do it's still stuck on CYossarain's edit--Rogue 22:08, 21 June 2006 (BST)

Fixed. Sonny Corleone WTF 22:20, 21 June 2006 (BST)


The danger level has changed on the dulston page, but not the main suburb map. I've tried it twice and it's still the same, but the danger level has been changed in the last few days at least once. --Preasure 10:40, 27 June 2006 (BST)

Other questions

Claiming 'suburbs'

Do 'claims' belong in the urband dead wiki? I mean any one can say they claim some thing. But that dosen't make it true.

The claim is true. DARIS most definitely claims Shearbank. Whether they control it is another issue. --Stankow 02:37, 12 Sep 2005 (BST)

Another Question

I'm just trying to create generic pages for each suburb at this point, with the format of "X is a suburb of Malton, located at [rough location].

X contains # police departments, # fire stations and # hospitals. (Would also include malls, forts, power plants or other special buildings here.)"

Recommend we not cite number of NecroTech facilities. --Stankow 15:55, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

Would it not be more useful to only list the "interesting" suburbs, rather than have them buried away in a list of 100 mostly-empty entries? The world map is fine if you're trying to find a block with particular buildings. --Spiro 14:57, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

Completeness is a virtue. --Stankow 15:17, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

Are the really rare buildings (I'm thinking forts, zoo, power plant) important enough to promote the suburbs containing them to notable status? Morlock 15:37, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

Sure, if you feel like it. I've put together basic pages on 11 suburbs (the top row plus Pescodside), using the above format and linkifying large buildings. --Stankow 15:39, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

I say we make articles on any notable suburb, ie any suburb with a notable building, or any suburb where notable events took place. While Oram Walk is recognizable by many, and therefore its suburb deserves an article; a place called Crate Auto Repair is just another buidling in the city, and less notable (I picked a random building, hopefully empty), so its suburb does not need a separate article, though I'm not stopping anyone. -Daranz 15:53, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

Intent of individual articles on each suburb is so we have a stepping-off point when major things happen. Instead of having a batch of randomly written articles, there's a format already in place. --Stankow 16:19, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

Thanks be to Morlock, who did eighty suburbs in less than five hours today, completing the city. --Stankow 18:19, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

Heh. I need a life. But 'tis done. I wikified Oram Walk Police Department when I got to the appropriate suburb, anyone care to get the article started? Morlock 19:41, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

What colour should empty suburbs be?

I was about to update Reganbank to green ("Break-ins rare, no zombie groups.") because it's peaceful and virtually empty, apart from strong safehouses and a few minor groups of zombies (no more than three per block, maybe 25 total). But reading lower comments, someone upgraded it to red for the same reason: "Every building is open, No signs of survivor activity. Just like the old days. Upgraded to red."

I guess this fits the "most buildings wide open or zombie-infested" criteria of red, but does this really make Reganbank "very dangerous"? It seems weird to have a single criteria that means both "overrun with huge angry hordes" and "empty and ready to be recolonised". Is this why the map is so red at the moment? --Censustaker 15:31, 29 July 2006 (BST)

It's red. Red is for places with a lot of zombies, zombies outnumbering survivors, and almost all buildings open. I passed through Reganbank two days ago and it is indeed Red. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 16:08, 29 July 2006 (BST)
Why don't we make a new color for this, Black (Or white). Signifiying that it is a relatively Dead suburb? It could be used for quite a few suburbs now, Like Dunnell Hills. This actually brings up a new point, Should there be different colors depending on survivor numbers in an area?--Canuhearmenow 16:18, 29 July 2006 (BST)
Look under New Tag on this page. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 17:55, 29 July 2006 (BST)

Editing Suburb Backstories

Who can do that? I've noticed some have interesting ones, but most seem pretty empty, and I'd love to add some BZ (Before Zombie) histories and descriptions. But would I be allowed as long as it was within reason? Or would it be considered unfriendly or vandalism? --Luigi Galleani MAC | BB 01:30, 23 August 2006 (BST)

It depends. They need to be politically correct, short, and nothing about groups. So if you're thinking of saying a suburb was home to the biggest anarchist group you can count it being reverted. Saying "Was once a big industrial area" that's cool. --Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt! 01:36, 23 August 2006 (BST)
Well sure. I mean, within reason. Like, if there is a group, especially that is created of survivors after the outbreak, it wouldn't be mentioned. And there wouldn't be slurs or other non-PC stuff. And of course it couldn't be humorless. But is there a wiki-backstory code of conduct? --Luigi Galleani MAC | BB 01:40, 23 August 2006 (BST)
No but we like to keep things truthful. Made up stuff are allowed as long as they're in reason. --Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt! 01:49, 23 August 2006 (BST)
There, I tried it out with a little backstory for Gibsonton. Tell me if that was alright. --Luigi Galleani MAC | BB 02:00, 23 August 2006 (BST)
Cool. --Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt! 02:04, 23 August 2006 (BST)

Zombie numbers

It has been brought up that zombie numbers that are just shy of 150 do not count as Very Dangerous. This is complete bullshit since it's a significant amount more than 50. Can someone please do something about this? Sonny Corleone WTF 03:10, 19 June 2006 (BST)

  • True, if there are "mobs" of 50+ undead wandering a suburb, there ain't going to be too many "safe" houses in that burb. You shouldn't use how many total numbers of undead are in a suburb as a guideline since many undead are looking for revives, esp after the suburb was ransacked by an undead horde.
I am using the amount of cracked buildings as a guildline. Anything over 50% cracked and it's dangerous. 75% and it's very dangerous. The number of undead "mobs" should not carry as much weight as the number of open buildings. Alot of the undead are ferals or dead survivors hanging out at the revive point.
Systematic clearing of safehouses in a suburb by an organized horde. Now that's very dangerous.--Doc smith 14:41, 14 July 2006 (BST)

It's not an exact science, dude. If there are 130 zombies and 400 survivors spread throughout a suburb and if the survivors have just about everything barricaded, it's not a "very dangerous" suburb. Don't overlook the number of open buildings requirement. All and all, if a suburb isn't very dangerous, it's not "very dangerous." --Ron Burgundy 01:54, 18 July 2006 (BST)

I see what you are saying Burgandy, and I've submitted a change in policy for the page to allievate some of those issues. --Karlsbad 02:59, 18 July 2006 (BST)
This was about Stanbury Village where break-ins were common with 130 zombies. And harmanz wanted it to be Moderate. My ass! Sonny Corleone WTF 03:33, 18 July 2006 (BST)
Where's this change you've submitted? I'd like to help out, if I can! --Ron Burgundy 01:58, 22 July 2006 (BST)
I agree with Ron Burgundy. Here is an example. A month before the last siege at Caiger Mall had finished, I had a scientist in Darvall Heights that used to sleep in one of the three hospitals of the suburb. He got his first 6 levels there, healing survivors. Although there were ~400 zombies in the suburb (with other ~400 in Chudleyton), he was _never_ killed. It's clear that to determine the danger level in a suburb, it's not sufficient to only consider the number of zombies. Ideally, one would have to be there for some time, to see how the events are being developed. --Tico 02:01, 17 August 2006 (BST)
Oh blow it out your ass. Survivors only want barricade levels, survivor numbers, and zombie numbers to ocunt when it's in their favor. Too much zombies? Only barricades count.Not enough survivors? Only barricades count. All buildings open? Only zombie numbers count. Cry me a fucking river. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 05:17, 17 August 2006 (BST)

Danger Levels Excessive?

Guys, half of the map has been coded red. And I know for a FACT that its not THAT damn bad out there, and Yagoton isn't at code yellow. Either someone is being a spaz, or we need to re-evaluate our use of the color coding. --MorthBabid 01:52, 26 July 2006 (BST)

No. The SW is that bad. Try going down there yourself. It sucks. And Yagoton is Yellow because there are...zombies...and they're not at revive points. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS CoL 02:02, 26 July 2006 (BST)
And you have to remember... There doesn't have to be a horde in the area for it to be considered red. Hostile groups of 150+ zombies OR Most buildings opened and ransacked. Some of the Suburbs may fall under the last catagory. -- BeefSteak WTF 03:48, 27 July 2006 (BST)

It is that bad in some areas, true. However, since the coding system is based primarily on numbers, and Malton has an ever-growing population, isn't it just a matter of time before the entire city is coded red? I agree, we do need to rethink the criteria by which we code the cities. --Kiltric 00:28, 28 July 2006 (BST)

Ever-growing? Zuh? The game's population peaked back at the beginning of 2006 and has dropped significantly since then. I've always thought that safehouse status was a better indicator than population, though. --Sindai 19:48, 28 July 2006 (BST)

I've been having issues with this as of late myself. Apparently, a suburb is red if it has a horde of 150+ zombies, or if most buildings are open (or zombie infested), or if buildings are closed and barricaded, but there aren't lots of people in them. I am not sure, but I get the sneaking suspicion that since 1 person has been the last guy to change over 25% of the suburbs in Malton to red, he has an agenda. Just a hunch. --Kiki Lottaboobs 05:05, 31 July 2006 (BST)

But Kiki! If I don't have red suburbs I'll die. Please Kiki, don't kill me. You have to look into your heart. Please don't do it. I need those red suburbs. It's all part of my plan to live. I'm begging you Kiki. You and your powers to not comprehend English and take irrelevent screenshots will kill me. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 05:07, 31 July 2006 (BST)
Don't worry Sonny, you'll alway's have Ridleybank. [/Casablanca] --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 05:09, 31 July 2006 (BST)
I must have more red suburbs. If I don't what ever will I do? I may actually have to stoop down to Kiki's level and lie about Danger Reports. If she won't let the truth to be spread then I must lie to have the red suburbs. Woe is me. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 05:13, 31 July 2006 (BST)
Methinks he doth protest too much. --Kiki Lottaboobs 05:15, 31 July 2006 (BST)
When I told you to speak English I didn't mean Ye Olde English. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 05:23, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Another Ridleybank Argument

Pretty quiet - most buildings secure, occasional break-ins. A quite large horde of zombies hanging around outside The Blackmore Building, but nothing threatening. (It's not safe out in the streets, though - lots of zombies there.) --Funt Solo 09:07, 20 September 2006 (BST)
Not quiet at all. Multiple hordes ranging from 20 to 150+ zombies and frequent break-ins. I don't know where you are sleeping but this is definitely Very Dangerous --Jono loves Enrique 16:20, 20 September 2006 (BST)
I beg to differ. There are currently 138 zombies outside the Blackmore Building, plus smaller groups scattered throughout the suburb. With most buildings secure (although there are frequent break-ins) that clearly matches the description for Dangerous. For Very Dangerous, you'd need to have most of the barricades down or a horde of 150+, according to the definitions given above, which is what I'm going on. --Funt Solo 16:28, 20 September 2006 (BST)
There's no need to be pedantic over the precise number of zombies gathered on one particular block. There is a "hostile zombie mob" which quite easily surpasses 150. The fact is the suburb is very dangerous. No doubt you will disagree with me and switch it back straight away --Jono loves Enrique 17:22, 20 September 2006 (BST)
Could we not have another edit war over this, please? It's only a danger level. --Preasure 17:27, 20 September 2006 (BST)
I'm willing to leave it alone. One thing, though: I've sat right in the heart of this battle for four weeks, I've been killed once, and was revived within the hour. Do you really call that Very Dangerous? We ALL know that Ridleybank gets painted red because of it's reputation, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation on the ground. --Funt Solo 17:56, 20 September 2006 (BST)

New Noteworthy Suburbs

North Blythville

I'm asking that North Blythville earns the a right to being a Noteworthy Suburb. It is the home of Team Zombie Hardcore which is made of incorporated groups including TZH - Bravo Squad. This group is one of the most influential survivor organizations in the SW quadrant. As of late the group has been responsible for helping maintain and rebuild the only two malls in the area as well as reviving members from other organizations. The most important aspect of the team is our leader Mark Whalberg, this guy is the sultan of Hardcore. It's because of leaders like this guy that we have maintained to stay alive bruise much zombie ass. I understand that we just can't start giving suburbs noteworthy status just because a group is claiming it home, but this group, TZH are something Malton should be aware of. Balls to the Whalls! --Duke cage 20:19, 17 April 2007 (BST)

No offense, but I've never heard of you guys. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 06:21, 20 April 2007 (BST)
None taken, bud... but you will! Duke cage 22:12, 22 April 2007 (BST)

New Map

Special Suburbs do not show up on the new map. That means they're not in bold lettering. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 05:18, 4 August 2006 (BST)

I blame hammero on that! He used fonts so small that they dont have a bold face available. I reverted for the old map a few days ago when i noticed this problem (and some others). --hagnat mod 02:09, 17 August 2006 (BST)


Id like to submit Shackelville as it was the location of two large pker up risings in which many were killed and virtually put the DEM onto their knee's,It was called to a halt by the rebellion leader before the DEM gave into the demands.Many raids took place and both pkers,Bounty Hunters,Anti-Rebellion and Innocent people died.--Seloth 02:16, 11 April 2007 (BST)

Pitneybank & Peppardville

I submit that Pitneybank and Peppardville be added. Pitneybank's current entry should be edited to include the CDF's presence, and Peppardville's to include similar information - as these two suburbs are the home of what is arguably the most effective survivor group in Malton. Cyberbob  Talk  11:14, 22 June 2006 (BST)

Old but I'll comment. The CDF can be written down as "A Human Group that spends more time dead than alive." Seriously, Pitneybank is important for winning 3 sieges against zombies. Peppardville ain't got shit. Ft. Creedy falls more often than a slut's panties. Sonny Corleone WTF 03:31, 18 July 2006 (BST)
But it always gets taken back within a few days, you got to admit that takes guts to continue to hold a single building and take it again and again against all odds. --Rogue 07:43, 18 July 2006 (BST)
Then it should get a medal attached to its Special Safety Helmet, not put into a list where it doesn't belong. Pepperdardville has no historical battle that directly impacted the game or continues to directly impact the game. Its a PD surrounded by blank squares: let it go. --Karlsbad 07:47, 18 July 2006 (BST)

OK, then, just Pitneybank. *shrugs* Cyberbob  Talk  16:31, 22 July 2006 (BST)


I submit that, as the home of the city's only Zoo and the number 11 group in the game, Ketchelbank be classified as a noteworthy location. --Lo Meng 21:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I also feel that ketchelbank should be noteworthy. please comment so we can get this passed.
I think it is not noteworthy since nothing important ever happened there. No Mall siege, nolarge zombie group trashing the area, no PK massacre, no important groups. You got the one and only worthless Zoo. Congrats, Idaho has potatoes...but who cares? --Sir Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 00:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
First off i think any group in the top 15 of the stats page should be consided important, but thats beside the case, yes the main reason ketchelbank should be noted is because of the zoo, it is the only one of it's kind "building" in malton. there are plenty malls two forts and a copuple of stadiums, but only one zoo.--Blood Panther 23:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Top Anyway, having the one and only worthless Zoo doesn't mean anything. It does nothing, it's not even a building. It takes up space and is worthless. It has no importants. Suburbs have power stations that do nothing, should we care? Mansions? Stadiums? Hey, I heard Pole Mall has 3 corners, let's give it noteworthy status. Penny Heights has two Malls. Stanbury Village has a Mall and a Mansion. So does other suburbs. If Ketchelbank get's it for a Zoo then every suburb is going to need noteworthy status. Ketchelbank sucks. That's why it got the Zoo. It sucks so much that it needed a Zoo so people wouldn't say "There's a Ketchelbank?" when asked about it. --Sir Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 23:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well then maybe we should have some kind of half-noteworthy status for the suburbs you mentioned.--Blood Panther 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
No we shouldn't because they're also worthless. I don't reward mediocrity. You do, which is why you're in Ketchelbank. --Sir Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
If they are so worthless then why did Keven even put them in? They add flavor to the game, and a surbub with a fort or a zoo is more memorable then suburbs that have nothing. now let's try and keep this are clear for other people to agree or disagree.--Blood Panther 00:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Why'd he put the suburb there? Well he needed 10x10 so...I'm gonna guess he needed to place a suburb there instead of leaving an empty space. He put a zoo in because he was bored. And here's something to add injury to insult.
<Sonny> Xyu...can we kill Ketchelbank?
<xyu> Ketchelbank?
--Sir Sonny Corleone RRF CRF DORIS Hunt! 00:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, that discussion wasn't very constructive. Let's start again. Yagoton is a suburb of note because it contains a revive point. A damn good one, but still just a revive point. Ridleybank is a suburn of note because it has zombies in it. Often many of them, but you only have to step outside anywhere else in Malton to see zombies. Ketchelbank is home to the zoo. The single largest structure (or zoned area if you prefer) in Malton and there is only one of them. There are no other single-shot structures in Malton - stadiums, malls, forts, etc. exist in duplicate. Futhermore, the zoo is home to The Malton Zookeepers who, at the current time are the second largest group known to occupy a single geographical location in Malton. The largest such group at the current time is Caiger Mall Survivors (who periodically dip below The Malton Zookeepers in numbers). Just because the zoo doesn't appear in Sonny's world view doesn't mean that it isn't important, geographically and culturally to the inhabitants of Ketchelbank and all its surrounding suburbs, with the single notable exception of Ridleybank. --Belmondzoo 07:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that Ketchelbank should be a noteworthy suburb because there hasn't been any large or significant occurrences in the suburb. Ridleybank is known for the RRF and the large sieges at the Blackmore Building along with being traditionally extremely dangerous like Barrville. Stanbury Village is also known for its occupation by the RRF, being the birthplace of the Pwotters, and being home to the Strike. Yagoton is home to the YRC, a well-known and significant revival group, and the Valentine's Day Massacre. Ketchelbank is home to the only zoo in Malton and is occupied by The Malton Zookeepers, a large and interesting group. My point is that nothing really big has happened in the suburb; no sieges, massacres, huge revive points, ruthless totalitarian rule, no group that has had an impact on the whole city of Malton or many of its suburbs. Say, if the zookeepers were able to defend themselves successfully against a week-long siege against a massive horde of zombies at the zoo, then the suburb should be of note. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 22:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
while i understand your point i would like to disagree on the "huge revive point" part of your comment, ketchelbank is home to two extremely fast revive points and we have recived many comments from users saying as such.--Blood Panther 01:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, I (un)fortunately haven't received a revive in the suburb. Did the users mean fast as they got a revive in say, less than 2 hours, or that it took less time than other revive points, or both? --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 20:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Our vet staff are extremely quick in reviving guests. most of the users do say a mixture of the both. A good example of this is in recent days ketchelbank came under attack by a new zombie group, and the revive points got stacked up. around 30 zombies in each. it took us only 2 days to get most of these Mrh? zombies back among the living.--Blood Panther 22:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I should add to that that this was under severe conditions with all NT buildings in the local area down and a number of zookeepers among the dead. 60 revives in two days would be rather a lot on the slow side under normal conditions at the zoo. --Belmondzoo 06:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The prohlem with the zoo is... nothing ever happened there... no zombie horde ever attacked the zoo or the suburb because they were there. If ketchelbank ever were a target of any zombie horde or marauding pker group, it was because they were simply in the way for one of the other hot spots in the neighbourhood (ridleybank, yagoton, caigar). The fact that no one cares about the zoo, beyond the malton zookeepers, is the only, and most important, reason why the burb should not be called notheworthy. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:12, 26 March 2007 (BST) I think he has a point, though you ketchelbank does have large revive points, nothing ever happened to make the suburb create a revival point. Sure you've had your share of zombie infestations, but so has everybody else! If your revive points are so effective how come your suburb isn't safe? In fact I've barely even HEARD of ketchelbank until now, even though its in the middle where that huge hot spot is, its just in the way, like it was already said. You weren't even hit by the mall tour! Lots of suburbs were hit by that but they dont get a little note on the urban dead page. Tell me when the zoo gets hit with 100 zombies, then come back and ask me for my vote. --Alevins 17:08, 7 June 2007 (BST)


The greenest of the green, the friendliest of the friendly, the most active of active, this suburb is almost pre-opacolypse. As far as I know only three zombie groups are minorly active with only one actualy lives here. Necrotechs always have 50+ people in them along with police departments. 16 groups and growing are part of the Dulston allience, keeping your beer safe since the the apocolypse! =P

I have no clue when this was made due to no timestamp so I'm gonna comment. I really think you should wait a little longer and see how long Dulston can hold out and against what. I don't remember hearing anything about you actually holding the suburb against any type of conflict what-so-ever. But hey, I might be wrong.--karek 11:14, 10 June 2007 (BST)


I'd like to nominate Q'bank as a noteworthy suburb. Obviously I don't expect loads to agree, but I feel it has been a very well battled area and has had some good tales come from various survivor encounters. Plus the fact it is Lord Pitman's home burb. Links can be seen also with one of the games major survivor groups including 'The Fortress' which has a very good back story linking to the burb. Plus it will soon be onew of the only burbs to have every building described lol.

--LP 23:08 23 May 2007 (GMT)

Those aren't very good reasons. I actually had to go look for that suburb, as I've never heard of I mock your idea for noteworthy-ness! Mock mock!--Lachryma 23:13, 23 May 2007 (BST)
You could say that about a couple of the noted burbs though ;) The fact that it is known by one of the largest active human groups and is usually a hive of activity. Will there ever be a way off polling for noteworthy burbs instead of the current 'moderation' selection'? --LP 00:38 26 May 2007 (GMT)

Suburb Revamp

I think every suburb should be switched to Safe Green since survivors already make false reports to jerk off to in Caiger. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 22:57, 16 August 2006 (BST)

You're an editor. Be bold. I promise I won't report you to Vandal Banning. But yeah... a lot of it can be over the top. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 23:03, 16 August 2006 (BST)

Danger map

I think I know why {{DangerMap2}} doesn't appear to show the special suburbs in bold for some people, while it does for others (e.g. me): font preferences. Will Hagnat, Sonny, or anyone else who doesn't see DangerMap2 as showing special suburbs do me a favor please and edit the font size in that template (it is set at 75% right now) until it does show the bold? Just increment by 5% at a time, please; I'd like to keep it small if possible. Thanks. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 06:24, 22 August 2006 (BST)

Reordering Danger Reports

Does anyone have any objections to reodering the suburb danger reports on the main page into alphabetical order, and splitting them up under headings for easier editing? -- boxy T L PA DA 13:29, 28 August 2006 (BST)

Yes its hard to figure out the most recent report for the suburbs map--Jattern3434 00:41, 31 August 2006 (BST)

Personally, I thought it was a vast improvement over the unorganized jumble it once was, but if people would rather it be the old way, I'll live. --Nomader TRCDC 05:50, 5 September 2006 (BST)

It's more confusing now than it was in the past. At least with the old system, I could clean out old reports (current date - 14 days) fairly quickly, so only those relatively fresh reports could stay up until the next cycle. I'm gonna remove any "old" reports now. --Winnan 18:38, 19 September 2006 (BST)

Alphabetization of the reports makes absolutely no sense. I'm interested in new data, not scrolling through everything and examining timestamps to see what's current. The "new" method doesn't help me to grasp the current status of Malton. --Jorm 09:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

To all survivors

Hey it's me again...the guy who made that prediction here last month about the Bash moving North. I got a new prediction now. I say the Bash is going to move to Ridleybank and help the RRF, after what happened to them at the Blackmore Building. So I suggest survivors in Ridley to prepare for enemy reinforcements. And I hope this time people will listen to me. --Axe Hack 03:56, 20 September 2006 (BST)
I do hope the RRF is sporting about things. Getting just about every zombie group in the game to bail them out after having effectively lost the Battle of Blackmore isn't too Classy. Either way, we've already seen the beginnings of this at Nichols Mall and are stocking up on Tridents. --Ron Burgundy 05:21, 20 September 2006 (BST)
Actually I think The Big Bash IS every zombie group in the game by now; its just pointless not to use the advantages zeds have by splitting up, especially with Ransack making it so that enough zombies sweeping an area can make a normal suburb Red in a day. --Karlsbad 06:38, 20 September 2006 (BST)
If survivor groups aren't working as well together as the zombie groups, then humanity deserves to suffer. My point, work together if/when you can.MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 16:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
This is true. The only reason zombies are able to cause this sort of devastation is because they are a lot more organized than survivors. If the survivors aren't as organized as the zombies, then they need to die so that they can learn how to communicate. Fast. --Reaper with no name 18:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Suburb Map Composite Danger Level

  1. This entry didn't belong on the report page, so I moved it here. It's a proposed danger point system for all of Malton, not just a suburb.
Proposed metric (delete this entry or move to appropriate location if deemed improper) For each neighborhood, Safe = 0, Moderate = 1, Ghost Town = 2, Dangerous = 3, Very Dangerous = 4. Currently (14x0)+(32x1)+(0x2)+(31x3)+(23x4)= 217 Max danger = 400, max safety = 0. Midpoint =200. Composite of 217 implies Zeds are winning (slightly) --cyanosis 16:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The composite is now 176. That means the Humans are winning barely. --Fireman22 4:22 PM January 27, 2007 (EST)
Thanks for moving it. I wasn't sure where to put it.--cyanosis 17:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

NT Status Map

The above map / template uses the same danger reports (I stole the entire DangerMap template code) and adds a second set of templates that hold / display information about Necrotech Building status in each suburb. I started this project with Salt the Land Policy users in mind, but anybody else is free to use it. Its a pretty good modification to the DangerMap, and the NT information could be an interesting verification / counterpoint to the danger level information, so it might be nice to use as the general Suburb map. --S.Wiers X:00x-mas tree dead pool 17:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


There's going to be a tendency for this map to portray Malton as more dangerous than it actually is, because it's easier to find out if a horde is present than absent. In the first case, you need to see only the one square with the large group, in the second case, you need to see 100 squares to be sure no square in the suburb has the group. --Toejam 16:59, 21 April 2007 (BST)

On the other hand, maybe this is already compensated by the high numbers of zombies (150+) required to make a suburb appear Very Dangerous - a suburb can be v. dangerous with a lot fewer zombies than that. Oh and future commenters, please, no tirades about how all the bias is on the opposite side from yourself, it's wearisome. --Toejam 16:59, 21 April 2007 (BST)

Bias Take 2

Weird how things change. I know this is old but I really don't believe that there are that many suburbs with no zombie groups, Yellow mabey but Green can't possibly be that wide spread. Want specific areas of mislabeling. Well for one Ruddlebank, Extinction is currently active there. Better yet the Feral Undead list on their public boards(much like Extinction) recemt hits on multiple Green suburbs, which indicates presence of an organized zombie group, thus Yellow not Green, I just clicked a few random suburbs and did a little back checking on zombie groups and this is what I find, It assuredly doesn't bode well for the wave of Green which is, most likely, complete bullshit and selective following of criteria. Just because your suburb doesn't get broken into daily and you don't die or witness someone die does not make the suburb Green. Obviously zombies have a grip, or at least a better one, on what makes a suburb red these days(3 red suburbs, wtf?), now it's the other sides' turn. And I am most definitely sending someone to check out some of these "Green" suburbs. --karek 11:50, 10 June 2007 (BST)
To an extent, the NT Status Map (described above) is designed to highlight these contradictions. If a green suburb has multiple red NT's, or vice vers, chances are that either there is a rapid reversal underway (shown as NTs changing hands) or one of the two reports (suburb danger level vas NT Status) is out of date. 16:21, 16 June 2007 (BST)