# Talk:Suburb/Color System Discussion

### Color System Discussion

Consider the following situation. This happens. . . far more often than you would think.:

A suburb is, say, "yellow" (this means that there are maybe 10 zombies in the entire area, because, unless someone is trying to be butch, no one goes to green because that's like asking zombies to go there). Then the Militant Order of Barhah comes in and trashes the place.

And I mean trashes. 80, 90% of the buildings open and probably ransacked, with younglings opening them every day again to find food. Maybe two or three buildings have a group in them - a "stronghold" if you will, but those holds get attacked nightly, with anywhere from 15 to 35 deaths.

And yet, there aren't many zombies on the streets. There certainly can't be a "mobs of 150+" because the MOB is only about 70-75 in number. But if you walk around, you don't see any.

Because we're all indoors. And scattered around in small groups. Watching you.

This theoretical suburb is obviously very dangerous. You are more likely to be dead in the morning than not. It's a simple, pure fact. And yet, because the way the criteria are written, the "150+" number is used like a trump card, and I've almost gotten into edit wars with gung-ho survivors who want to think that they are "winning".

Certainly, if there are 150+ zombies in a square, that one particular square is possibly very dangerous. Obviously. But it's a stupid, shitty, retarded way to calculate danger for a suburb . For a long time, 150 zombies outside of Caiger wasn't "very dangerous". It was "normal." And the entire area, with the exception of that one square, was as calm as a Hindu cow.

I use a general rule of thumb:

• If a survivor has better than 30% odds of not being alive in the morning or of having his safehouse cracked overnight, the suburb is very dangerous
• If those odds drop to 10%, the suburb is dangerous.
• If the suburb is relatively clear, but you wouldn't sleep in the street, it's moderate
• If a burb has a couple survivors sleeping outdoors - and they aren't torn apart within five hours - it's safe

(I also think of a ghost town area being "no zombies, no nothing". There is another non-existent color that should probably go in for areas where there are lots of zombies but no humans; some sort of "bloodbath" zone).

Anyways. These number criteria are just plain stupid. They're stupid because they don't reflect the reality of the way the game is played in ANY WAY. They're even more stupid because there are only two hordes who can even reach 150+ (three, now, I guess). They're stupid because they don't scale with the number of players in the game.

Some people wanted to declare Ridleybank "green" because they'd 'cades strafed the place (all buildings were empty, mind you) but there were 200 or so people in Blackmore "bravely" defending against 40 zombies. There were another 40 or 50 going around the 'burb, cracking those buildings, and killing the 2 or three people per day. But because some twinks 'strafed the 'bank every ten hours or so, "everything was barricaded". It was empty, but it was barricaded. Bear in mind that if you were *not* inside Blackmore, you were still very likely to end up dead. You were just very likely to end up dumped by whoever came through to barricade the building your corpse was in (if you were lucky) or you'd be barricaded around (if you were unlucky).

So how do we fix this?--Jorm 17:04, 28 June 2007 (BST)

like i said when asked about the danger colors, the currently in use system i developed when the game was young was usefull and easy to use since there was plenty of players, and the most elaborate tactic a zombie group had was stay in the lower left corner of the mall and simply kill everything that was inside and harmans would simply kill, heal and cade (in this order). Since new tactics have been formed by both sides, a new system is needed to help identify the danger level for a burb. my best advice for it is: follow jorm's idea. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:01, 28 June 2007 (BST)
Only problem with Jorm's idea is it's too easy to lie about or fake. Mabey if we went off of ratio of zombies to blocks or zombies to humans, only problem is zombies to humans only matters in a small condensed area.
Oh and well on the topic of new colors, there needs to be something for suburbs that haven't been reported on for a prolonged period of time, something like 1-2 weeks would be good. Cause that causes a lot of colorization issues in the smaller less visited suburbs. No one reports so they stay VD, Ghost, or Safe for way too long and make the game look safer or more dangerous than it actually is.--karek 18:06, 28 June 2007 (BST)
5 colors is already too much. Add one more and it would be a rainbow in there. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:17, 28 June 2007 (BST)
How about no background color for suburbs lacking reports? --Evan Cord 21:39, 28 June 2007 (BST)
I personally would prefer fewer arcane rules and formulae and more non-dumbassery. It would cause my heart to grow four sizes if such a thing would happen.--Jorm 18:20, 28 June 2007 (BST)
Unfortunately, people are dumbasses. There has to be some way to quantitatively say, "the __________ suburb is dangerous/safe/etc/etc". Otherwise, you have idiots running all over the place, changing the danger report, based on what they think is safe or dangerous. Have you read the Suggestions page in awhile? Have you seen what kind of stuff some newbies come up with? This isn't to rag on them, but there has to be a system, or otherwise, you'll end up with zero arcane rules and formulae, and gigantic beyond possible imagination dumbassery. Danger Report Colors would change like the variable timed lights on a Christmas Tree. There has to be a system to determine the danger level of a particular suburb.
Whether or not the system in place currently is a reflection of the truth is not what I'm commenting on. If it isn't the truth, then it should be changed. But we can't just say, "use your best judgement", or say "30% chance of death". Because how do you get that 30% chance? Is there an algorithm that you are running to determine that? Is it based on a number of zombies to humans? Or is it your interpretation of how dangerous it is outside? Some dunce might just come along and say, "Hey, my character is still alive in this safehouse. Must be a pretty safe suburb... I'll update the pages," when 20 other buildings just got ransacked and survivors had their manbagz fed to them bananarama style.
And the problem with people lieing will always be there... griefers are a part of the game, and wiki as well. --Ryiis 19:22, 28 June 2007 (BST)
It amuses me sometimes. A while back, we were hitting this really packed NT building. Every night, for two hours, we'd have it open, and kill 30+ people inside. But then they'd clear and cade when we AP'd out. But because the building was 'caded 22 hours out of 24, they kept declaring it "safe" when the truth of the matter was, if you were in there, you were highly likely to be killed.
The 30% number is based on observations I've made as a human and a zombie over the 20 months or so that I've been playing this game. It's actually an incredible threshold in "real world" terms: people think of driving 100MPH on a highway as "very dangerous" but your chances of death are a lot lower than 30% when you do that (it's more like 30% over a long enough period of time - but given a large enough timeline, all odds in these cases turn to 100%).--Jorm 19:57, 28 June 2007 (BST)
I hate to say it, but maybe there should be a set of designated people who can be trusted to set the danger levels. Something you apply for. It would certainly cut down on the drama. Suburb *reports* could still be filed by anyone, but the colors and status would only be changable by this group. It *adds* an arcane complexity, but removes a bunch of others (replacing them with trust).--Jorm 20:07, 28 June 2007 (BST)
Yeah, but there also needs to be some way to check that the reports are valid, too few people doing it and that becomes a problem. Oh and anything involving % or the thought of the word algorithm is way to complicated for use, gotta keep it simple, the problem with a lot of the old intended changes to the system was they were way to complicated.--karek 20:14, 28 June 2007 (BST)
I think Jorm is at least right that the numerical measures should be adjusted to more appropriate levels. That, or the names for the categories should be changed: e.g., "Moderate" may include multiple 20-zombie building sieges, but it sounds fairly safe to many people. It's a zombie apocalypse, after all -- is anyplace truly "safe"? --Evan Cord 21:39, 28 June 2007 (BST)

good points. new arkham is a good example of a place listed as a ghost town, but, if reports from the wiki page are to believed, actually a extinction hotbed that is dangerous for low level survivors. eugenie.de.franval 2:08 28 June 2007 [PST]

I like Jorm's idea. I'd have to say that a 1/3 chance of death is fairly high and dangerous. Being able to sleep outside is pretty safe. It's a good continuum. --Secruss 01:20, 29 June 2007 (BST)

It's not bad, But I would say simpilifying everything would be just increasing those numbers, Because 15 months ago there were not this many zombies, And I don't like his idea, Because You could NEVER sleep outside without being torn to pieces withing 3 hours. I would say VERY DANGEROUS should be changed to mobs of 250+, Or a higher number of zombies ect. --Kaynex 17:49, 3 September 2007 (BST)

#### What's Right with the old system

Before we get too carried away with reform fever, we should take a look at what the current system gets right. The advantages of basing the map on zombie numbers are that...

• it's simple,
• it's easy: to research a suburb only takes one or two day's AP;
• it's check-able: if a suburb's colour was based on opinion rather than facts, there'd be endless disputes;
• anyone can do it, which means there's more reports made and so more up-to-date information;
• it doesn't depend on hearsay and rumour, which would obviously vary from person to person, which again would lead to disputes;
• And, in general, it achieves what it sets out to do, which is to give a rough indication of the risk of a suburb. Yes, there are exceptions and it doesn't give the complete picture, but, for the most part, it works well.

I don't think we should bring down the current system unless we're sure that any new system is going to be better than the current one. --Toejam 02:10, 29 June 2007 (BST) (Although there are a few small changes I'd like to see, like a disclaimer saying that the map should only be taken as a guide and is not definitive.)

I agree with Toejam here - I don't think that we should completely tear down the old system unless the new one is going to be simpler and more streamlined. Or maybe not simpler, but easier to use. The current system is already pretty arcane and subjective. Our recent drama in the admin area has shown us that. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 03:07, 29 June 2007 (BST)
Toejam and Dux Ducis are right -- the point of changing the system should be to improve the system, not to change it for change's sake. What improvements do people want to see in a new or altered system? --Evan Cord 22:14, 30 June 2007 (BST)
There's one neat feature of the bic & mic that would be nice to incorporate, but I don't know of a good way to adapt it to this map. In those systems, there's a fixed procedure for selecting the status, but since the procedure can't account for every situation, there's a comment section that can be used to describe any special circumstances. So that way the danger status can accurately reflect the current danger level, but any potential threats can be mentioned in the comments. --Toejam 05:32, 3 July 2007 (BST)
The bic & mic have the exact same problems. Just last month we were in Roftwood and cleared an NT. Updated to "in zombie hands". We got picked off one by one over six hours; it got 'caded, and marked "safe." We then *cleared it again*, and were picked off one by one over six hours. This process continued for a week, with the dumbasses claiming that the building was "safe" even though we regularly killed everyone inside ever 6 or 8 hours (it was an NT and part of our plan). How is that even remotely safe, if the chances are close to 95% that you will be killed within the next 5 hours?--Jorm 16:26, 3 July 2007 (BST)

I must say, the idea of a "bloodbath" colour is very appealing. It'd give zombies a rally point, rather than showing where it's dangerous for citizens to be.--DrBowman 10:59, 29 June 2007 (BST)

Agreed. Also, I have to say ... is a % sign or an algorithm REALLY all that "complex"? I don't think so, and I've failed every math class I've ever taken. Come on, now. You really shouldn't be designing the system based on the capacity of the lowest common denominator, IMO. Though, FWIW, I don't really have a problem with the Suburb Map as-is. I've never assumed the word "horde" was intended to refer to a specific, coherent group of zeds; I took it as a collective term, nothing more, the same way you might say 'There are crowds of survivors here' without meaning actual, organised, named groups thereof. I've also always assumed there was a time lag involved, and adjusted my expectations based on the report, et cetera. And so the Suburb Map has thus always served me pretty well. It's never lead me into a bloodbath when I didn't intend to go there, anyhow, though more than once I've gone looking for a mess and found the aforementioned Hindu cow instead. Maybe much of what needs to be done to improve it would just involve clarification on the intent and meaning of terms? (It's been YEARS, sorry if I didn't do this edit/comment right. x.x) --J Lurhstaap R 20:38, 29 July 2007 (BST)

I gave this some thought a while ago, and IMO neither the number of zombies, nor your chance of dying, indicates hoe dangerous a suburb is for survivors.
What makes a suburb safe is revives. If you can get revived in under 12 hours average time, you never really need to spend any AP as a zombie if you don't want to, or even go past 50 AP and loose possible actions as a survivor because you are waiting in line as a zombie.
If it takes 24 hours to be revived, its getting dangerous, even if there aren't any attacks.
If it takes longer than 36 hours to get revived, survivors are loosing a lot of AP they could spend as survivors. The suburb is red, no doubt about it.
Now, the question is, how do you measure this? DEM's revive request tool measures it, but only for those who use the tool. And its the places where people aren;t using the tool, and revives are slow, that are (by this standard) dangerous.
Honestly, this whole can of worms is on of the things Iwitness is designed to eventually help address. . . . swiers 06:13, 30 June 2007 (BST)

This could get very silly very quickly. Recently, someone went round marking suburbs empty of survivors (clear, or white, or whatever) when they were blatantly not. Well barricaded, whether done by about 5 people or not, does mean safer than, as happens, very little barricading. This all looks like a zombie player wanting things to look more hazardous than they are. We reckon the ratings should stay as they are. --Crabappleslegalteam 03:15, 1 July 2007 (BST)

Actually, not to rain on your parade, but if there are only 5 people in the suburb and they are strafing everything the color should be gray.--karek 15:09, 1 July 2007 (BST)
Oh aye! Oh, you know, the main point still stands. The whole thing still looks like someone trying to skew the stats to suit whichever side they want to win--Crabappleslegalteam 12:30, 6 July 2007 (BST)

I think Swiers is onto something there, although I think that the number of zombies present and the likelihood of death are also important factors. The current tiny blurbs for each safety level definitely need amending, but should probably still be keep short. Maybe a reference table with an expanded list of things likely to be happening at each danger level could be compiled? Since there seem to be 3 basic factors that indicate how dangerous a suburb is, and 2 are already considered in the small blurbs, we really only need to add one more: Likelihood of getting a revive/Average waiting time for a revive/size of revive queues, or something similar. armareum 02:42, 2 July 2007 (BST)

The interesting part is that such a rating system could in theory be semi-automated. Just make a piece of software that regularly checks the profile of characters who are regestered as designated "safety samplers" for specific suburbs. The software can see whether they are alive or dead and build the statistical results for the suburbs the characters represent. Of course, this means you need to have trusted people manning those characters. But since the safety rating would be based on the amount of time they spend dead, not how often they die, its not quite so bad; you just need people who make a sincere attempt to get revived, but don't get "special treatment". . . . swiers 02:53, 2 July 2007 (BST)
As you state, using designated players in your system can still be abused. And it'd sorta tie them to one suburb without them ever leaving. And some players already get "special treament", as in a siege you'd rather revive your lvl 41 player on your contact list than a lvl 1 newbie. The "Average waiting time for a revive time" stat should also consider the level of the players being revived. If a suburb can afford to revive newbies, then it's bound to be safer than a suburb that concentrates on survivors with higher levels. Maybe if Kevan produced stats for each suburb on survivors/zombies/revivifying/dead bodies we could use that. You'd certainly get definitive numbers for either side! And by tracking changes over time, you could calculate the safety level dynamically. He doesn't have to do the hard work, just release the stats to us. armareum 03:07, 2 July 2007 (BST)
With the direction iwitness is developing, I'm working on letting players collect those stats themselves. It would still be a self selected sample, but the current system is also. Give me a few months, and I may be able to give you those stats, or an interactive, self updating database that lets you find them for yourself. . . . swiers 03:48, 2 July 2007 (BST)
Perhaps a quick email/message to Kevan to enquire as to whether it'd be possible to get data broken down by suburb? If available it'd certainly be the best data to use. Not to knock your iwitness. armareum 04:26, 2 July 2007 (BST)

And the newest suburb report, this time for Tollyton, goes to show Jorm's point. Why do they not see the OR in the decription for Very Dangerous. Actually, I might just go bold the or. 'arm. 21:49, 2 July 2007 (BST)

Ors are a problem, but that's not all, people take everything on danger reports selectively. Ignoring the green requirement for no active zombie groups, viewing mobs and hordes as the same thing, ignoring one met requirement in an or case because another one isn't met. There were volumes on the old suburb talk page about these things. The danger reporting needs to have a better way to be done, but also someone needs to be able to make the final say too otherwise the problems that were the worst in the last system will carry over into the new one. That being said Danger reports are about danger, not readiness of revives. A suburb could have a great revive system and a mall holding out against zombies and still be very dangerous, even impossible to survive in outside of a select area, but revives still running fine. It's still dangerous, you still die. If someone wants to view ease of revives set up another map like the NT one that functions based off of revives, but it shouldn't be considered in Danger Level, same thing goes for standing barricades, Only time barricades matter is when they are down, them being up doesn't mean the suburb is any more safe, but them being down does mean it is more dangerous. I'll put it in a list for ease of rereading.
• Absence of Barricades does matter
• Revives/Revive Rate doesn't matter
• Mobs != Hordes, they are different Mobs can be multiple hordes
• Define terminology(Horde vs Mob), link the two/one on the Danger Report
• # of zombies only matters if it is absurdly large or absurdly low(100+ or 8-) in any one block.
• Multiple small groups are more dangerous than 1 large

Those would be my views on this, Also requirements for a news update for any danger level changes and possibly one that provides for proof, say Iwrecords. That would be especially useful if a group of people are set in charge of monitoring the validity of the suburb update.--karek 22:09, 2 July 2007 (BST)

Karek, would something like a simple count of deaths per suburb (for some time period) be a decent approximation of what you have in mind for a danger level? 300 deaths in the past seven days in suburb A, 1500 in suburb B, 60 in suburb C? Getting actual death counts would require Kevan, I presume, but it would cleanly separate "danger level" from "danger reports". --Evan Cord 23:34, 2 July 2007 (BST)
I agree that death count is more indicative of danger than revive count. However, I will also point out that, from the position of a tactical horde-master, revive count also plays a significant role in determining "victory." It's a tough call. More deaths == more danger, but faster revives == more conflict.
In the MOB, we have a yardstick. Pretty much, once we see that the revive queue reaches a certain point (and it varies suburb to suburb) we know that we have "broken the back" of the resistance. After that, we enter "scorched earth" mode and kill the remaining ones. Now, the Danger Level is tied to this: obviously, if we're in "scorched earth" mode, it's VERY dangerous. No building is left uncracked, normally, and no one is left alive. But it can also be successfully argued that it is VERY dangerous even before that.
(After "scorched earth" mode is "bejesus" mode, from "okay, everyone is dead, we've got to get the bejesus out of here.")--Jorm 23:42, 2 July 2007 (BST)
That's pretty much the flipside of what I said. Zombies are doing well when survivors can't get revived fast enough that they can die and know they will come back and play a survivor again the next day. Sure, you might die a lot in a "dangerous" suburb, but death isn't really that dangerous in Malton, in and of itself. A "survivor deaths per day" system would give a very similar benchmark, and might be easier to measure, but is less direct than "speed of revive". Also, a suburb with nothing in it but zombies would be VERY dangerous, but would have very few survivor deaths each day... . . . swiers 00:35, 3 July 2007 (BST)
But survivors could be revived in other suburbs. Thit would mean that Yagoton would remain Safe for 80% of the time, only at dangerous when both their revive clinics are under attack. I think that a ratio of deaths would serve a better purpose for that, since death is local: your death in Barrvile wont change the danger of Ketchelbank, for example. You may die in Darval Heights and get revived at Yagoton, which one is the safer burb ?
I think we could ask kevan something to measure the danger levels of a burb, stored in a csv file updated every 24h, like the stats and xmas-tree csv files we already have. But then we would need to think on a well developed formulae for that. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 03:28, 3 July 2007 (BST)
Zombies aren't doing well when survivors have problems getting revived, zombies are doing well when lots of people die. Zombie groups and zombies as whole are separate, speed of revive measures something completely different. You must remember the whole point to this is to watch and monitor the outbreak/spread of the infection. Danger levels show where it is the most dangerous for survivors, and thus where it is best for zombies. Revive rates don't show that and would cause problems if that was the tool for measurement, the worst ones being survivors wandering into zombie held suburbs because it's reported green or yellow or zombies wandering into survivor held suburbs for the same reason or because pkers cause false reports in zombie favor even if there are no zombies in the area. --karek 04:22, 3 July 2007 (BST)
The same happens if you base it off ratio of deaths or how often you die. The issue is measuring how likely a survivor is to survive in said area, not how likely they are to comeback or how many times they've died. --karek 04:23, 3 July 2007 (BST)
Like big sieges? in blackmore I,II and some of the early ciager battles, i was killed and revived sometimes three or four times a day. I agree with a lot of jorms points. but the system in place does work. It just needs some improvement. and hordes need feral zombies. look how well shacknews did at rallying feral zeds to their causes. by themselves they were bad. but with 200 or more banging on the cades with them they made our defensives almost non existent.----Sexualharrison MR ה T 13:58, 3 July 2007 (BST)

If a suburb cannot supply revives, then surely that *does* add to the danger. Ie. a certain danger level can be supported by fewer zombies. Of course, the ability to get a revive just over the border should be taken into account. So the time it take for a survivor who dies to get a revive would contribute to how dangerous a suburb is (not define it all by itself) - it's an indication of how effective the zombies have been in stopping revives against how effective the survivors have been in keeping revives going.
In any Dangerous or Very Dangerous suburb, deaths are clearly likely. And that's when average revive time should be taken into account, I would argue.
Karek, you say "zombies aren't doing well when survivors have problems getting revived, zombies are doing well when lots of people die", however stopping revives is the whole point of the Salt The Land Policy - a strategy to benefit zombies. If survivors can easily get revives, zombies can kill as many as they want - they aren't going to be left with a suburb barren of survivors any time soon.
I realise you are trying to make a distinction between "How well the zombies are doing" and "Likelihood of Death" in relation to suburb safety/danger level, however my point the Suburb Danger level *should* indicate how well the zombies are doing, and hence revives should be taken into account at some level. (Because of the possibility of getting revives in an adjoining suburb, perhaps stats wouldn't be the best way to measure it.) 'arm. 18:43, 3 July 2007 (BST)

Zombies don't come to suburbs for the purpose of stopping revives, they come to kill humans.Extinction being the exception that proves the rule. It again comes to the problem of confusing zombies and zombie groups. Zombies as a whole couldn't care less about how often or when people get revived, Zombie groups however have a purpose, a purpose hindered by the revive process. That purpose is to kill large groups of survivors, it's hindered because Revives lead to defenses which leads to difficulty in killing those large groups and their feeding. Say one corner of a mall were ransacked and survivors were in every other corner, that would be a case where zombies would love revives, possibly even encourage them, that is unless their goal is to kill the mall and not the humans. Zombies want to kill humans, Zombie groups want to kill locations. Revives keep the location alive but not safe, it just means more people(whoever is revived) are in danger in the area.It should be noted that the group that developed Salt the Land are also the only ones that follow it, at least to my knowledge. My point, if it isn't clear, is that Danger Levels are based on the game not the metagame, revives only matter to the metagame.--karek 21:58, 3 July 2007 (BST)

I see what you are saying, I just disagree with you.
The Danger Map isn't just for feral zombies and feral survivors. The metagame is just as significant (if not more so) to UD as the normal game, so I don't see why it should be discounted out of hand. You say

 Karek said: Revives keep the location alive but not safe, it just means more people (whoever is revived) are in danger in the area.

That isn't true. Revives also give more survivors to barricade the suburb, FAK injured players (and set up generators and finding guns and ammo to deliver headshots). It stands to reason that to reduce the revives in a suburb makes it easier for a zombie to kill a survivor (and leave them more AP to do so). A zombie not participating in metagaming can still realise/read about this and endeavour to help impede revives.

 Karek said: Zombies don't come to suburbs for the purpose of stopping revives, they come to kill humans.

The way you talk about zombies, it as if you think they should be grateful or happy for revives, as it means more brainz to eat. Less survivors, means less opportunity for survivors to barricade according to their barricade plan and have empty buildings barricaded to EHB. Which for even a non-metagaming zombie means a higher likelihood of a brain-feast when/if the knock down barricades.
If the barricades on a suburbs buildings are a poor match to the barricade plan, I think any survivor would agree that that would increase the danger of a suburb - more likely to die! 'arm. 00:43, 4 July 2007 (BST)

i like that this has been brought up.

i was always thinking of doing it as a human to zombie ratio, but coordinated zombies can be much more troublesome then random ferels. 100 humans against 20 zeds is normaly a safe situation if the zeds dont work together, humans have a much easier time cooperating with each other (after all, its nessesary for them to rely on each other to survive and get revived).

at the same time im rather familiar with meta-gaming and small scale coordinated zombie strikes, and 20 zeds communicating through the same forum page can wreak havoc like you wouldnt believe. but that gives me an idea.

on a completely different note if there are only 35-45 humans in an entire suburb you wouldnt need 150 zeds to make it a "very dangerous" place, would you?

the server monitors corpse's, reviving bodies, total # of survivors and zombies. if you cross referance the zombie to survivor ratio, and then number of corpses to pop up in the last X amount of days with the number of revives in x days as a second ratio, then you end up knowwith a preety good picture of what life is like in an area.

35% zed/human 35% corpses/reviving bodies 30% barracade status

of corse as of this time information about corpses and reviving bodies are only available in a game total, not on a burb by burb basis. i dont know much about programing so i dont know how much work that would entail. sorry if its a pain in the arse. i know poeple want to keep it simple but give my idea some thought. i think by measuring the ratios insted of compairing predetermined numbers to population population levels, you get a much more flexable and accurate depiction of the actual level of danger in an area for the survivors in it. --Bebopking 19:23, 3 July 2007 (BST)

RE: I do partilly program, That would be very easy compared to some of the other things in this game. Someone like Kevan would figure that out, And put it down, within short hours.

I think they should make a revive chart like the suburb colour chart, But the number is people that revived a zombie in the last 3 days. Then they count towards the number and the suburb is colour coded to what that number is. Lots of revives (Green) 5000? Good revives (Yellow) 3000? Few revives (Orange) 1000? Bad revives (Red) 500? No Revives (White) 250? (People could change these numbers) --Kaynex 18:00, 3 September 2007 (BST)

#### "Here's an alternative that was made earlier"

Last year Rheingold presented two systems that were followed by similar debate. The first system presented solved the first two concerns Jorm raised. Both the situations (where a suburb is ransacked beyond two to three strongholds AND where 150 zombies present little danger to a single block.) are avoided using this system. You have to know the type of buildings in a suburb and their barricade levels. Those are the only objective elements used but the way they are combined by a few arcane rules, allow zombies and survivors both to produce accurate reports in a single walk around the burb. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 23:45, 3 July 2007 (BST)

So, what's the purpose of the Suburb Status Report? Is it to communicate helpful information to all players (meta-gaming)? Or just helpful info to survivors? Is it to record "who's winning" in the battle between survivors and zombies? What about PKers/griefers? What about population counts?

I think if most of us could agree on the purpose, finding a better way to implement reporting would be much easier. --Sexy Rexy Grossman 21:32, 4 July 2007 (BST)

Exactly. I would consider it a chart on zombie winning vs survivor winning, via the statuses of Safe through to Very Dangerous. Zombies would consider Very Dangerous a success, whereas survivors would consider Safe a success. They both might agree that those states aren't the most fun to play in, but it's not a fun chart, it's a Danger chart. 'arm. 21:38, 4 July 2007 (BST)
Well, as it stands the current system works fairly well, we still think. Interesting to bring up Pkers, though, which seem to be proliferating: On the other hand, the main focus of the game is on live vs dead, so it's probably best not to complicate the scheme with factors such as these--Crabappleslegalteam 12:30, 6 July 2007 (BST)
No, it really doesn't considering that Yellow is meant to show that survivors are in control but zombies are still around, Green to show Survivors are in control and there are just about no zombies, Orange to show that there are very effective zombies that are forcing survivors to run and hide, Red to show that no where is safe for more than a few minutes, and Gray to show that no one is there. A suburb could have zombies scaring survivors into hiding and break-ins daily and still be legitimately reported yellow, even though survivors most definitely not in control. Green and Yellow means survivors are largely safe and zombies are a minor threat, Orange and Red Means zombies are in control and a very real threat, and Gray to show nothing is happening at all and everyone is gone. The point of the system isn't really to show who is winning at all, the point is to show where zombies are and how likely either player type is to get attacked, which means revives shouldn't count, the biggest reason being they aren't measurable, especially not by zombie players. That is also why barricades do/should only matter when they aren't there, standing barricades show nothing.
 Armareum said: That isn't true. Revives also give more survivors to barricade the suburb, FAK injured players (and set up generators and finding guns and ammo to deliver headshots). It stands to reason that to reduce the revives in a suburb makes it easier for a zombie to kill a survivor (and leave them more AP to do so).
In theory yes, in practice no. Trenchcoaters are one example of why that theory doesn't pan out, danger reports shouldn't be based on potential safety/danger but actual safety/danger in the area. And yes, I understand that I'm saying it is and isn't about potential dangers, but obviously I mean different types of potentials, 20 zombies breaking into every resource building in a suburb and you sleeping in a resource building means that there is a very real potential danger, reviving a pker or a trenchcoater and expecting him to man barricades and pass out FAKs isn't, you can't predict what a survivor will do they have too many options, but zombies pretty much have three things they do, destroy barricades, kill survivors, attack/kill zombies, all but the last one make a suburb more dangerous for survivors, the last one doesn't slow the zombies down at all or effect how they interact with humans in the slightest(ankle grab anyone?)--karek 11:27, 7 July 2007 (BST)
 Karek said: Yellow is meant to show that survivors are in control but zombies are still around, Green to show Survivors are in control and there are just about no zombies, Orange to show that there are very effective zombies that are forcing survivors to run and hide, Red to show that no where is safe for more than a few minutes, and Gray to show that no one is there
I actually agree with that statement. Although being safe for only a few minutes in Red might be putting it a bit strong. Basically you've summarised the existing policy, which (indirectly) refers to the barricade state of a suburb (break-ins rare/often/permanent) and and to zombie numbers (high zombie numbers are danger whatever the state of the barricades). That makes me happier with the current rating system. If some of this info could be written succinctly where it could be referenced, then it'd save an argument every time there is a disagreement over how the once sentence of each danger level is applied.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Armareum (talkcontribs) at an unknown time.

#### A Proposal

My proposal is firstly to nominate or elect a group that is active and trustworthy in administering that suburb in-game and on the wiki (such as the Dribbling Beavers in Santlerville or the RFF in Ridleybank) to be solely responible for giving daily status updates to their danger level to a moderator or sysop who has exclusive editing priveledges to update the map. As these groups are usually well co-ordinated in their areas with regard to attacks/defences/revives/barricading/etc they usually have a good idea of how the suburb is going and are respected as wiki contributors.

Danger level would be based solely on survivability NOT zed levels, as some suburbs for numerous reasons can cope with high zed levels better than others (A 'burb with no NTs or Hospitals or PDs and no organised group with 50 zombies is more dangerous to individuals than a 'burb with 6 hospitals, 2 malls nearby and 3 organised survior factions and 150 zombies). The drawbacks to this system is that as it is very subjective and not reliant on arcane rules, it's flexibility does give ay to innnacuracy and abuse, and so relies solely on the trust, reputations and good judgement of those providing the reports.

Ghost Town should imply an almost empty suburb (Survivors AND Zeds). Red, a suburb where organised survivor activity and survivability for any reasonable period has been destroyed or is currently innefective. Green the ability to sleep on the streets uninjured, yellow the ability to safely sleep in barricaded buildings and orange should be suburbs currently under an effective Zed assault. --Ulysses Black 00:30, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Slight issue with assigning groups Ulysses, it leads to more false reports than anything else. I love Ridleybank and the RRF but we do have a tendency to report things a little redder than usual at times, while survivors report is greener than usual there for no reason other than to start another Ridleybank danger level argument and draw the RRF back when they are away. Multiple other sububrs have and do have the same problems with groups viewing danger levels as a marker and indicator of how well they are doing there and so they report them wrong. Ketchelbank, Ridleybank, Ackland, Darvall Heights, Dunnell Hills, New Arkham. You name it, if there is a resident group it has been falsely reported with some consistency. The one with the final say should be neutral on the suburb and possibly the groups in the suburb, impartiality is very important with something like this in many cases, the outsiders should probably get the final say more than the residents.--karek 03:23, 10 July 2007 (BST)
The problem is, is that withoug raw data, it's all going to be subjective anyway, so the argument of overhauling the sytsem seems pretty moot without it.
I think then the only real solution is to attempt to get raw data from or through Kevan and base the colours a formula that takes into account survivor deaths/revives within each suburb, with only moderator/sysop editing priviledges for the map to maintain accuracy. The problem here though is as I said earlier, some suburbs due to stronger resident groups, higher populations and resource buildings can absorb greater casualties than others and stay safe.
Each suburb could be rated a base score due to functioning resource buildings (EG: Malls = 25 per corner, Necrotechs = 80, PDs and Hospitals = 60, Factories and Auto Repairs = 40, etc) + 25% of each surrounding suburb's current base score (for proximity resources) Then survivor population, average survivor level, zombie population, average zombie level, survivor deaths and zombie revives could all be assigned a numerical value, adding and subtracting points and be worked into a balanced formula that automatically gives a value (when entered in Excel or another spreadsheet table) which corresponds to a colour. In this way weaker suburbs such as Reganbank with 1 Hospital, no Mall, PDs or NTs, would turn Red much, much sooner than say Edgecombe, with 5 Hospitals, 4 PDs, 3 NTs and adjacent to 2 Malls.
In leiu of getting raw data, I believe giving each suburb an intrinsic survivability scores based on resources, independant of what's going on in the ground, then weighting survivor reports/raw data against this to gauge the danger rating is the only real improvement that can be made to the system. After all, i'd argue Reganbank is much more dangerous with 50 zombies than Edgecombe is with 100. --Ulysses Black 04:02, 10 July 2007 (BST)
(I have edited the indenting above to reflect what I think is the proper threading. Ulysses would know for sure.)
Allowing all kinds of people to edit the danger levels uses argument or consensus as a substitute for real objectivity. As multiple people have suggested above, real objectivity would have to come through Kevan's hands -- populations, ratios, events, building status, etc. are all locked up in a database somewhere. Instead of going into explanations of how we might pull out the current system by the roots and replace it with a new formula, let's see what we can do to improve the current system while preserving the sort of "news and breaking events" feel that we get at the bottom of the page. We can haggle over formulas from now until the zombies come home. --Evan Cord 04:23, 10 July 2007 (BST)
Biggest issue with the current system is the criteria for each rank are kinda retarded. There should be criteria for going up AND down. When dropping a suburb from Orange to Yellow Survivors should be forced to show that they actually do control resource buildings and most other buildings by sleeping in them in large numbers(anything greater than at least 4 would do if the zombies outside aren't over 10 in the 9 block area). Green from Yellow should require no zombie stacks over 3 zombies, and no more than 3 zombies in a 9 block area or 15 zombies in the whole suburb(unless there are at least 6 survivors in every building and less than 8 open/ransacked buildings). Red to Orange should require survivors to show that a decent amount of survivor population is underway(something like at lest 8 barricaded and inhabited(at least 10 surviors) buildings grouped near eachother.). Zombie numbers should be more reasonable, 20 zombies is enough to make a block Very Dangerous, two groups of 10 zombies could destroy a suburb in a few days unless there is a large number of survivors, especially if they coordinate. Zombie numbers shouldn't be an issue as long as there are more than 20+ and at least a few more than 4+ stacks, Zombies inside should count for more than zombies outside, and a single stack of 50+ zombies should automatically qualify a suburb for Dangerous or Very Dangerous because it pretty much means any non-mall building is screwed.--karek 10:53, 10 July 2007 (BST)
And that is where a problem comes in, 20 zombies can tear up a suburb. But only if they work together. A group of 20 non-affiliated ferals spread out in two groups might cause some trouble, but are not likely to destroy a whole suburb. So I disagree with the numbers you give. The problem is that organization matters a great deal to if a group of zombies are dangerous or not. Is this about potential danger or actual danger, that is something we would have to decide first. - Whitehouse 13:27, 10 July 2007 (BST)

The solution is simple. Leave the colors as they are, on the bottom, but on top of each square crosshatch with color representing a "general danger estimate", that includes factors such as organization. So, base color is the simple number of zombies, while the crosshatching on top represents organization and anything else that would make the suburb more dangerous (for example: if all the supply buildings contained zombies, ready for ambush). Get what I'm saying? --Roger Thirnell 21:50, 12 July 2007 (BST)

I'm not an expert on Wiki code or anything, but would there be a way to assign danger reports according to how many are turned in? If three people in one neighbourhood report that it's dangerous, and one reports it safe, could there be an amalgamated danger level somewhere between the two, closer to the majority? It would help with unbiasing results from people who intentionally goof it. Just a suggestion.--KGaijin 01:53, 13 July 2007 (BST)

If someone was determined, they could just bombard the thing with different logins on different computers. We reckon if you do anything new, how about just coming up with a 'zombie controlled, no survivors' code, different to the 'pretty much empty of anyone' code. Otherwise, this all comes back to the whole KISS principle. No, not the cheesy rock band.... and, incidentally, 50+ zombies doesn't mean every building is screwed if there are 30+ survivors in each building....--Crabappleslegalteam 02:11, 16 July 2007 (BST)

I think the entire notion of the danger reports is flawed. What you people are arguing over is essentially, "how do we determine what "dangerous" is? The argument seems to revolve around zombie number and organization, predominantly. Problem is, I'm not sure how much we can rely on that data to determine how "dangerous" a place is. That relies on scouts sweeping through the suburb, block by block, room by room, and getting an idea of how many zeds are hanging around. Given the size of a suburb and what is likely a low number of scouts, it seems to me to be a bad idea to base our estimates on danger on the zeds alone. Besides, I'm not interested in where the zombies are, so much as I am about what they are doing. Could we possibly move to a system that monitors the resource buildings in a suburb? I mean, if the suburb is safe (or faces relatively disorganized or weak zed presence), then a lot of the tactical resource points are going to be occupied by survivors. If, say, more than 80% of the TRP's in a district are human-controlled, then we assume that the situation there is stable (not that I have any particular attraction to 80%...I just tossed the number out there for discussion's sake). Since resource points are usually visited by survivors on a daily basis, we'd have a lot more eyes on the ground seeing what precisely is going on.--Tarumigan 03:11, 17 July 2007

I've been tinkering with my own "dashboard" for Roftwood at User:Evan_Cord/Roftwood_Information_Center. If all the various building danger deport templates were present and up to date, would this be the kind of thing you'd like to see for a suburb? I don't know how you might go about generating overall suburb danger levels from the individual building templates, and I don't know that you'd want to. In any case, this could provide more details about the security/danger level in a suburb for those who want them. --Evan Cord 22:55, 17 July 2007 (BST)

#### A 2nd Proposal

Well, I think the point is, the hazard level of a suburb isn't fully represented by the number of zombies there. I think that the idea of basing danger level on one variable alone is hopeless. Can we develop a formula like, "number of zombies x number of human deaths", or something? I think variables to be considered should be: the size of the largest horde, the barricade status of generic buildings, the barricade status of supply points, the total number of zombies, and the number of overbarricaded buildings. Also, we might consider presenting the output in a "safe adventuring" format, like that of KOLwiki http://kol.coldfront.net/thekolwiki/index.php/Safe_adventuring , that recommends a level the player should be at before entering a suburb.--Roger Thirnell 21:10, 19 July 2007 (BST)

I is a shitty way of coculating that. Mebbe, we could just wing it?BoboTalkClown 23:34, 24 July 2007 (BST)

Did you mean "It is a shitty way of calculating that."? And how is "Mebbe, we could just wing it?" a construcitve addition to this conversation. It's not even on topic, considering the context of the discussion. 'arm. 01:21, 27 July 2007 (BST)
Don't put a titles on my topic like that again, please. And if you do, at least spell it correctly. Now, as you haven't articulated what way you think is a shitty way of calculating, or why that way is shitty, I have no way of improving the method or of knowing which method you think needs improving. Your suggestion that we just "wing it", as in, setting the colors manually with no objective criteria, based on individual impressions, would be great if it worked, but the problem is that if it stops working we have no way of fixing it. --Roger Thirnell 01:17, 1 August 2007 (BST)
Who are you replying to? I didn't say your proposal was shitty, BoboTalkClown did. And how on earth did I spell Kingdom of Loathing incorrectly by using "KoL"? And I didn't arbitrarily put a title on your 'topic', I was dividing up the MASSIVE block of text into manageable chunks by adding Headers at points where the conversation changed. Editing large blocks of text is unnecessary. 'arm. 03:56, 31 July 2007 (BST)
Dude, not talking to you! I thought the other guy did the header. Gee whiz!--Roger Thirnell 01:17, 1 August 2007 (BST)
Okay. But check the edit history next time, it'll tell you who did what. And use the correct indentation - you should have just used one ":". Putting two made it look like you were replying to me. Small difference, but significant in meaning. 'arm. 02:05, 1 August 2007 (BST)
Ok, I'm sorry, spelling is my weak point. So sue me. I honestly diddn't know that "Winging it" is a bad idea. I though "Gee, soemtimes criteria is just a bad idea, because it gets abused" so I though that editors could just edit the color, then justify why they did it. It doesn't seem like a great idea now, but it did then. BoboTalkClown 23:26, 24 August 2007 (BST)

Make uninhabited buildings count as much as un-barricaded buildings and only slightly less than zombie held buildings, it only just sense.--Karekmaps?! 14:12, 31 July 2007 (BST)

But barricaded, but empty buildings do make an area much safer than unbarricaded buildings The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talkcontribs) at 14:17 31 July 2007 (BST)
Bigger fool theory has a history of failing to be true in Urban Dead, barricade strafing does not make suburbs safer just makes survivors more deluded.--Karekmaps?! 14:24, 31 July 2007 (BST)
The bigger fool theory entry, as seen on the Barricade Strafing page, is pretty much irrelevant to all but a few strafers. The main point of strafing isn't to make the horde spend AP, but rather to confuse the horde as to the position of survivors and demoralise them by making them repeatedly knock down barricades for a low chance of finding their prey. The point of strafing is, first and foremost, to provide cover (as in "covering fire" or strafing) , not waste opposition AP The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talkcontribs) at 03:31 1 August 2007 (BST)
That would mean zombies wouldn't be able to make suburb reports, which is a pretty big loss for the system. I can see the logic in your idea, but if we put it into practice, it would mean we'd get fewer reports, and all of the reports we do get would come from survivors. --  T   21:37, 31 July 2007 (BST)
Make it an OR thing and zombies can still make reports fine. --Karekmaps?! 00:37, 1 August 2007 (BST)

Barricade strafing Ridleybank does not make it any safer than it was without barricades. Barricade strafing should not be counted. Number of buildings with a significant sumber of harmanz should. That means Blackmore EH with 2 survivors does not make it safe. --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS CRF pr0n 00:42, 1 August 2007 (BST)

Yes, well Ridleybank is a special case. That's the zombie homeland, you're not going to get them to move on to greener pastures by strafing there, you're just going to piss them off :) The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talkcontribs) at 03:35 1 August 2007 (BST)
So it shouldn't be allowed any where. Unless buildings are inhabited they should count as empty/ransacked. --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS CRF pr0n 04:07, 1 August 2007 (BST)
Blah. I know I'd rather stay in a strafed suburb than a ransacked one. They're not comprable The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talkcontribs) at 04:12 1 August 2007 (BST)
This is a foolish position. If my horde sees a barricaded building, we open it. Always. But we might just pass by an open building without spending the AP to go inside.--Jorm 04:28, 1 August 2007 (BST)
Boxy obviously doesn't understand what a strafed building is. If it is strafed it has no one inside it. So, as you said, sleeping in it rather than a ransacked one, would no longer be strafed but now inhabited. Inhabited buildings are ok. Strafed buildings are not. They are empty. They're like M&M shells without the chocolate inside. Just a hard candy shell that melts in your mouth...not your hand. --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS CRF pr0n 04:33, 1 August 2007 (BST)
Jorm, nothing short of a very well organised mall stands in the path of either of your groups, when you guys come to my suburb, it very quickly turns to red, occupied buildings or not. I'm not trying to make out that strafing guards against the organised zombie groups, it doesn't. But in rebuilding after you've left, it does indeed make a suburb safer for repopulating. If I'm sitting in a safehouse surrounded by 10 strafted (empty but caded!) buildings, I'm much safer than sitting in the lone barricaded building (remembering I'm not talking about your mega-groups, but feral/resident zombies), now arn't I! The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talkcontribs) at 07:13 1 August 2007 (BST)
One zombie with a scent skill screws you over, one survivor trying to gain experience off of zombie interaction, one low level survivor without full gun skills. Barricade strafing doesn't make things safer it just deludes survivors and new players into thinking that is infact the case. Smaller hordes care as much about strafing as the bigger ones same goes for the less organized ones(why not ask the FU how many times they have problems finding food when survivors barricade everything). It is extremely easy to find food when you want it and barricade strafing doesn't help that matter it just makes the few break-ins that do occur that much more dangerous.--Karekmaps?! 09:04, 1 August 2007 (BST)

Barricading uninhabited buildings does make the suburb safer for survivors. Except when the zombies know where the survivors are hiding. In Ridleybank and RRF's case they know that they are hiding in the Blackmore. In the NW of Malton where Extinction operate, zombies spies find out where the survivors are hiding, negating nearly all of the benefit of barricade strafing. In most other suburbs, barricade policies have the positive effect that is intended - to obfuscate knowledge of where survivors are hiding. This makes finding survivors harder for zombies, and hence the suburb is safer for survivors. 'arm. 02:11, 1 August 2007 (BST)

Actually it usually makes it more dangerous, it's a flag to ferals and zombie groups that there is food here and it feels secure enough that it is defending useless buildings. It tells the zombies that the resource buildings are, 4/5 times, inhabited and that they will be easy pickings because they waste AP searching to check buildings other than the one they are in. It is extremely easy to find harmanz, especially when they strafe.--Karekmaps?! 09:04, 1 August 2007 (BST)
Barricades make things more dangerous... weeeeeeee!!!! You guys are starting to believe your own propaganda The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talkcontribs) at 13:58 1 August 2007 (BST)

#### Removal of Subgroups

Subgroups should not be listed on suburb pages. That's just annoying and whorish. That means the DEM should not list every single little group they have in every single little suburb they visit. They alone stretch a group listing from say 1 to 11. Also, large groups that span all over the city should not list themselves on suburbs if they only have 1-3 members in the suburb as "officers" or other trenchie BS. The RRF and LUE does not add itself to every suburb they visit. A third problem. Groups should not be listed on a suburb if they are in an adjacent suburb. An example would be DA groups listing themselves on Santlerville because they operate in Dulston. --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS CRF pr0n 19:01, 4 August 2007 (BST)

Thank you, Sonny!!! I don't agree with everything you said, but overall you're dead on. As for the DEM, aren't the sub-groups technically seperate? I don't know, I never interact with them, but if they're all centrally coordinated then they're subgroups and thus don't need seperate listings. As for the next two points, I think what it comes down to is whether you have an active presence in a suburb. There are groups that are, in fact, quite active in more than one sururb and they should be listed appropriately. And then there are groups that "spam" suburbs with 1 or 2 people ("officers" as you say) and claim a presense in that burb. That's ridiculous, and an insult to the groups that actually ARE present and active. Clean up the group spam, yes, PLEASE. --WanYao 09:02, 11 August 2007 (BST)
I completely agree. You have the likes of the Mercenaries. Two members but they claim to be active in nine suburbs. The madness must end.--Nuabreed 23:29, 27 August 2007 (BST)

#### No Longer News?

It's the second thing in June. The main page should only show the 5 most recent news things.--Karekmaps?! 10:55, 6 August 2007 (BST)
Ahh. I didn't know it was started in June. Wow. How much closer are we to coming to a conclusion?

#### Conclusions and New Variable

Ok kids, it's time to wrap this thing up. What conclusion has the council reached? Are the problems with Danger Colors severe enough to merit changing the system? If so, how will we change it, and who will do the actual tinkering?

I am now completely sure that the system needs changing, if only because of the new factor of ruined buildings that came with this month's update. I suggest we agree on a formula-based solution.--Roger Thirnell 18:24, 17 August 2007 (BST)

Three words: fog of war.
There can be no objective algorithm to describe danger levels -- and there ought not to be. In fact, fog of war... even debates on danger levels (propaganda vs. counter-propaganda) is part of the fun... Nothing is certain in Malton, not life, not death, not even taxes... ;P
So please give up any pretensions to "objectivity" and work on functionality and descriptive value, instead. It's going to subjective, no matter what you do... just accept that fact... Just get rid of fixed zed numbers in the criteria... And start requiring screenshots as evidence for assesments. That's really all you need to do to make the system better. Which is why I didn't even bother reading and responding to the esoteric novella above, sorry... --WanYao 10:30, 21 August 2007 (BST)
We have no pretensions to objectivity, nobody gives a damn about objectivity. We're looking for accuracy, so you can know, when you enter a green suburb, that you will probably live through the night.
One way or another, the danger colors have to be set. How could they be set subjectively? Are you suggesting the colors are set manually by individual players? Can just one person or a couple people per suburb set the colors, or can anybody? Either way, isn't what color you set, your impression of the danger level, subjective to your location? For example, in Danversbank right now, there are fifty zombies outside Voss Lane PD. Now, if you're a survivor in the PD, you're going to think that suburb is pretty friggin' dangerous. But if you're anywhere outside that three by three square, you'll think the suburb is safe. If anybody can change the danger color, can you imagine the revert wars between somebody in Fort Perryn and somebody five blocks away? Even if only a few decided upon suburb leaders can set the Color, what if they go on holiday? And what if they're all holed up in Perryn?
Or the colors could be set by vote. An efficient and accurate method, except that you'd have to be able to make the voting facilities available to non-registered users. And what if you encounter low participation? And wouldn't such a system be easily manipulated? Imagine, for example, Ridleybank. Most players in Ridleybank are zombies. Most zombies want more survivors in their suburb. Wouldn't it be easy enough for all the zombies to vote the suburb completely safe?
As for screenshots, what the heck does that have to do with anything? This is what you get when you don't read any of the "esoteric novella" you're not even bothering responding to.
To wrap it up, you've used a bunch of fancy words to fluff around your ridiculous solution, to "get rid of the fixed zed numbers in the criteria", which is baloney because right now, the zombie headcount is the criteria, plain and simple. If you'd like to supplant that suggestion with a substitute for the "fixed zed numbers", I'm all ears.--Roger Thirnell 02:44, 23 August 2007 (BST)
It's really quite simple... By rejecting fixed numbers, I was meaning to say that it's possible for a suburb to be, say, very dangerous with far less numbers than are currently part of the criteria. For example, a well organised stike team of 20 zombies plus another 20 ferals be led by then can be MUCH more dangerous than more than twice that number of random, unassociated ferals. Thus, basing danger levels on a rigid zombie numbers is inaccurate. From everything I have read, here and elsewhere, there is a pretty general consensus that the current fixed horde numbers are broken...
"Are you suggesting the colors are set manually by individual players? Can just one person or a couple people per suburb set the colors, or can anybody?" -- well that's exactly how it works now... But, anyway, there most certainly IS a push in this page to create some sort of algorithm or equation of safety. Literally. I READ these ideas, they're up there, I didn't make them up. And they won't achieve what you desire...
And, screenshots DO demonstrate something. They provide concrete evidence of zombie numbers and activities, and a general idea of building status and survival levels. And, no, not conclusive proof, but evidence -- evidence that is more than simply one person's word vs. another's.
In any event, overall, I tend to believe in most users' good faith and desire for a healthy sense of objectivity -- thus, the examples and situations of subjectivity that you gave are for the most part absurd and not worth responding to. Or, if they're not absurd, then that says something about the maturity level of the community... something a new danger system won't really fix...
Anyway, have yourself a nice day... --WanYao 16:18, 23 August 2007 (BST)
I don't understand. You say that an objective algorithm can't possibly be accurate, and then you ask for screenshots as objective proof. You say we should accept that the danger level of the suburb can't be represented objectively, but then base your criticism of my examples on a belief in "most users'... desire for a healthy sense of objectivity". To wrap it all up, you finish with the most ironic ad-hominem I've ever heard.
Your complaint has been noted and you are on the list. Good day.--Roger Thirnell 02:14, 28 August 2007 (BST)

I have a different idea. A major factor that keeps zombies from finding and killing all humans every night is the number of available buildings they have to search. A zombie sees 5 EHB buildings side by side and knows there are people in probably only 1 or 2. The more places survivors have to hide the more places the zombies have to AP out to tear down barricades. Ruined buildings have been instigated. You can see them from the street. They are buildings survivors cannot survive in. Just make your rating system based on how many buildings are ruined and powered. When you see lots of powered buildings, the area is pretty safe. When you see lots of ruined buildings, the area really isn't safe. This information is available on the 3x3 grid as well so one person could case an entire suburub in pretty much one day without going through every individual block (merely every 3rd or 4th.) The suburb im in is fairly safe. Ive been there for 3 months and never died. When I log in a good third of the map is lit up. I've seen one ruined building ever and it was fixed, EHB, and powered when I logged in the next day and has remained so the last week. I'm sure if I went to Ridley bank I'd see tons of ruined buildings. You guys with more experience in the game figure out a ratio of powered to ruined buildings to explain the safetly level, and you'll have a good easy measure of safety. --Imp 5:10, 21 August 2007 (BST)

Seems like a good idea, but I'm sort of wary of any system that decides the color on any one variable.--Roger Thirnell 02:14, 28 August 2007 (BST)
Many groups are encouraging Zeds to now sleep in open / ruined buildings. Survivors tend to judge the safty of a suburb by the zeds they see walking the streets. So Zed tactics have changed to fool them. So just like the brains, the zeds are now hiding out of plain sight. Plus brains are changing as well. Some of them are repairing ruins and building strong cades, and doing this for a couple buildings before hiding in ruins. This is under the theory that the zeds will be attracted to the potentially weak cades, and use up their AP breaking them down and ruining the building (leaving them safe). Overall these tactic changes are still on going and it makes judging the condition of a suburb very hard to do. Someone running through without entering every ruin or building gets a very incomplete picture of the burb. How can someone judge a Ghost Town where the condition is < 60 Zeds or no groups over 10 Zeds? They would have to enter every building and count the zeds to be sure. Most folks would never do this making this a useless rating (except for those who want to try and convince survivors to move back to an area .. basically by lying). --Wke235 04:29, 7 September 2007 (BST)

Why not make suburb names in the list level 3 headers? --~~~~T''' 10:01, 29 August 2007 (BST)

As there is already "NO TOC" it would have little impact beyond ease of use. Go for it. But leave suburbs of note alone to discourage editing. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 06:09, 7 September 2007 (BST)
Well poop. It turns out it did not help as much as I think we had hoped. New entries need to be sorted to the top of the list and the level 3's kind of end up discouraging that behavior. It does not make it any harder to cut and move or copy and paste so I'm gonna leave it as it is now and watch it for a while. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 02:48, 12 September 2007 (BST)
The level 3's look ugly.--Karekmaps?! 04:10, 12 September 2007 (BST)
If by ugly you meant larger, yes. They were actually fours so I made them fives. Now short of the square denoting a list they are identical to before. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 04:35, 12 September 2007 (BST)

#### Colour Tweek For Colourblind Users?

I originally (and wrongly) put this through as a suggestion so appologies if it looks familar.

This suggestion is to change the colours on the Wiki Dangermap to make it more accessible to colourblind users. About 1 in 12 people are colourblind, and 8% of men are colourblind. That means there are approximately 65,000 UrbanDead users who are colourblind if we assume most have only one character.

The wiki Suburb Dangermap is a very useful tool, and one that I'm sure we've all used at one point or another. Unfortunatly, for myself and I'm sure many others who have the most common red/green type of colourblindness, "Safe" and "Moderate" zones are virtually indistinguishable from each other. I know a lot of players once they become higher levels will rarely be interested in entering areas below "Dangerous" levels, but for new players the information is very useful. The fix is simple: Tweak the colour scheme slightly (while leaving them tasteful of course, no one likes neon eye-bleeding brightness) so that it can be seen and appreciated by a higher percentage of users.

Any thoughts? --McWaffle 22:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the green to red system because those colours are naturally associated with safety and danger respectively but I can see your point. What colours do you suggest?Studoku 23:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I like green and red too. Can you have it so that a user hits a button to toggle the colors from colorblind to the non-colorblind version? Not much at website coding, but seems like something that would work. What colors do color blind people have trouble with anyway? Would blue (a different shade than the text, obviously) for safe zones and purple for zombie-ville work? And leave the other colors as they already are? --Ms.Panes 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Just make a link to a color-blind friendly version. You could have all of the danger reports that are color-blind friendly there. --Amanu Jaku 00:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
In the same way that people have had to adjust certain things for me because of my autism then we should also adjust things to help others with a disability. --Xan2020 22:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Xan2020 23:00, 18 December 2007
I liked your idea Amanu, and i guess that could solve this problem without changing the current system. I'll try to work on this during the weekend, as i am going to bed now and have tons of work to due before xmas vacation arrives. If one of the interested in this could message me in my talk page about this, it would greatly improve your chances to get this implemented before xmas. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's a website that shows how the suburb map appears to people with various forms of colour blindness. --Toejam 02:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You've got the figures wrong. At the moment there are 34,357 active characters (not idled out). Please note that not all players have only 1 character and not all UD players are Wiki users. I suppose we have people who have some form of colorblindness among Wiki users, but that would be dozens (at most), not thousands. -- John RubinT! ZG 09:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I just used the figure on the front page. It's still around 2800 characters, say hundreds of users. Dozens of users is still enough to warrant help though surely? Thanks for the input everyone. --McWaffle 18:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm one of those mildly colour blind users, and the safe and moderate areas are indeed indistinguishable to me, which is why I've come here for my first post. Isn't this a no-brainer? Is there a reason why another colour couldn't be used? Most are colour blind to red and green. Most can tell the difference if there is a significant tonal shift between them (ie if one is dark). Yellow and green or grey or cream - all within the same tonal range - are very challenging to tell apart. Toner Low 15:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This would be a very simple tweak, and I have no idea why it hasn't just been done already. I am not colour blind, but I still have a very hard time distinguishing 'Safe' from 'Moderate'. Would someone please just make the 'Safe' colour a dark, distinguishable shade of green, the 'Moderate' colour a nice, light shade of orange and the 'Dangerous' colour a much darker shade of orange? That shouldn't be too hard, and it would benefit everyone and harm no one! --Themanwhocares4 23:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You sure you don't have eye problems? Moderate should be a light shade of yellow currently and Dangerous is a somewhat dark shade of orange, roughly similar to the color of an orange peel.--Karekmaps?! 02:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)