User talk:DangerReport/Ketchelbank

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Where are these zombies?

(Moved from Donathins talk page, 00:15, 9 July 2007 (BST))

Where is this mob of 40-50 zombies in close proximity? Last time I was outdoors there were no more than groups of 10 or 12 spread across any 9 block area. If I can find such a mob I will change it back to dangerous -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 14:05, 7 July 2007 (BST)

Ketchelbank 07 07 07.png
Modern hordes don't stand outside, waiting to be killed. We do not.--Jorm 03:24, 9 July 2007 (BST)
Just went for a jaunt around the suburb... took my time, didn't get bitten once... even had time to break open a supply crate I found lying around -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 15:09, 7 July 2007 (BST)
Hey Boxy, is that image a composite or a Necronet scan?--karek 15:32, 7 July 2007 (BST)
Oh and if it is a composite, could you do the same thing for indoors. I could make use off it, at least somewhat.--karek 15:33, 7 July 2007 (BST)
It's a composite of 9 blocks as I zig-zagged the suburb. No, I don't want to do it very often, and I'm not going to give away player positions by doing it indoors (although I will say that BP was in Edson Bank last time I saw him, he ;)) -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 16:18, 7 July 2007 (BST)
That's ok, I just wanted if for the danger reports page I'm building. Any record helps, personally though I'd prefer as many zombie made reports as possible, cause then it is not as much of an issue.--karek 16:23, 7 July 2007 (BST)
According to your own map, there are over 50 zombies within three moves of Riddel Way Fire Station, not counting the zombies on the inside of broken into buildings. Milling around and not getting bitten just suggests that you moved during zombie downtime. The cade strafing that is going on does not secure the buildings - did you try to count howmany buildings kept their cades up for longer than a day? Or howmany buildings had running power or more than a couple of survivors (usually soon to be eaten) on the inside? The center of the suburb, where the bulk of the resource buildings and activity exist, has over 50 zombies in it. I just don't see how you could call the danger moderate if the resource buildings are useless, survivors are far outnumbered by zombies, and murders and breakins are constant. I'd agree that it is not a red danger area (as some have suggested in previous debate), but it is as dangerous as any of the orange suburbs surrounding it. Mobs do not have to be all in one room - if they are spread a few rooms apart, they are far more capable of continually razing a suburb, which is, and has been, the status quo in Ketchelbank for the better part of a month. Does that convince you? :p—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donathin (talkcontribs) at an unknown time.
Very nice catch, I would say that most definitely is a 50+ mob, and better yet they are concentrated in the most important part of the suburb, the resource building district/area. Looking at Riddle Way Fire Station and both of the NTs next to it there are well over 50 zombies within 1-2 moves and even broken up into groups of 10 so that they are doing a more damage than a single group would be. It is obviously the most important part of the suburb and it's full of zombies(and their placement speaks of organization, notice 7 at the powered factory, 10 at the hospital, 6 at the firestation, 7 at the unpowered NT, 5 at the powered NT, across the suburb there are 8 at the other unpowered NT, and to the south there are 7 zombies on cade duty(last I was in the suburb that area right where the 7 were was almost all of the remaining survivor resitance.)) Most definitely a mob, and close enough together that they can all come and focus their power with ease, and they are all at resource buildings.--karek 23:53, 7 July 2007 (BST)
The area covered by "within three moves of Riddel Way Fire Station" is 49 blocks! That's half the suburb... and it includes the revive point, mrh-cows. You can't say that that sized area is a mob of zombies.
Of course I can't cover everything, or know exactly how many building get broken into daily, or how many survivors are killed. But I do know that my last couple of free runs through the suburb didn't find many empty, yet barricaded building, and no significant numbers of zombies inside. In fact I was quite surprised at the lack of zombies "defending" ransacked buildings. All that data is on User talk:DangerReport/Ketchelbank, the only ransacked building I came across was completely empty -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 01:29, 8 July 2007 (BST)
Better way to say it is within 2 blocks of Russel NT Building, which means they can all see that central horde, at Riddelway Firestation you can see 28 zombies on your nineblock screen. They just seem coordinated because of how they are placed in the suburb .--karek 02:15, 8 July 2007 (BST)
On my last trip, through central Ketchelbank, the hospital and one of the NT's were being heavily attacked (lowbarricades, but only 1 zombie inside) so the danger report is at mapdanger -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 06:59, 8 July 2007 (BST)
understandable. and i agree with that. however once all the recource buildings are back up would it be moderate again?--'BPTmz 07:02, 8 July 2007 (BST)
No, it wouldn't you'd need to show safety in them, by having survivors populating them(more than 3 at the very least.) Otherwise it shows that the buildings are under constant attack and consistently inhabited by zeds. And I'm sure Boxy will agree with me on that, otherwise danger reports and danger levels would yo-yo back and forth needlessly.--karek 19:48, 8 July 2007 (BST)
i have alread said. following the current guidelines, buildings do not have to have survivors inside to be considered moderate.. this is why we need to change them.--'BPTmz 20:27, 8 July 2007 (BST)
Don't assume I'll agree with either one of you. I see no problem with the danger level yo-yoing. As far as I'm concerned the suburb is on the border between dangerous and moderate, although the the survivor position seems to be on the decline ATM. If the TRPs come back under survivor control, and the rest of the suburb stays relatively stable, then it probably will change back, but it's not a matter of just cading up the NT's and thinking that's the job done. And it's not just a matter of the zombies emptying those buildings. You've got ransack these days, try holding them. Not only is it a clear indication that the suburb is dangerous, it also significantly weakens the survivor population in the medium term by denying them revives -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 00:14, 9 July 2007 (BST)
The Zoo itself is now sacked as well. The barricade strafing hid the problem in Ketchelbank for a few days (enough to cause a huge argument), but the vast, vast, vast majority of the suburb is once again demolished. Orange is the right place for it to be right now - it is zombie controlled, but without the huge 100-150 mobs suggested for "red" zones.--Donathin 16:17, 9 July 2007 (BST)
and yet still many high-leveled survivors can stay alive with ease. I myself have been in horder motel, right next to a resource building for a few days with only one zombie break in.(no one but that zombie died) still until the resource buildings are saved it's "dangerous" for now.--'BPTmz 18:58, 9 July 2007 (BST)
Yes, it is dangerous. Correct. Three to four days ago, the others who were viewing this discussion were saying that they thought the suburb was RED/VERY DANGEROUS. The suburb's situation has only gotten worse for the survivors since then. I'd say it is teetering between orange and red, right now (based not only on my own daily observations, but also other, more experienced opinions). If I weren't only a month or so old at UB, then I'd really preach making Ketchelbank RED just like the other trashed suburbs around it. Barrville and many of the other RED suburbs in that very dangerous Central Malton area are in the exact same shape as Ketchelbank, and they are not having these arguments. Why? Because when 1/4th to 1/2 of the living survivors in a suburb are dying on a daily basis, most people recognize that the situation is pretty dangerous.--Donathin 21:24, 9 July 2007 (BST)
what i'd like to know is how "you" one player can know that "1/4th to 1/2 of the living survivors in a suburb are dying on a daily basis". even counting your "group" of two people that mean you could be a two places at once max. how do you know whats going on? and why havent i died yet? i'v been inside ketchelbank since the first argument we had and havent been eaten yet. as long as you have free-running the suburb is not that dangerous. some of the resource buildings are now caded with 1-2 survivors but i'm sure they'll be open by the time someone reads this.--'BPTmz 21:40, 9 July 2007 (BST)
Well, if you count the very small number of living survivors found in Ketchelbank, and you divide the number of deaths I and other members of the Mmm Braanz Tahr count while travelling around Ketchelbank (and through Ketchelbank, since I play characters in the surrounding suburbs also), then you get a percentage. It's just math - not that difficult. It's not hard to kill off 1/4th of a suburb's population when the zombies easily outnumber the humans and you have a couple of people orchestrating the mob and aiming attacks at the safehouses. I'm pretty sure I'd just call it strategy. :/ --Donathin 21:49, 9 July 2007 (BST)

Again how do you know how small numbers survivors have? your "group" has two members. not that many eyes by my count.--'BPTmz 00:34, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Can we cease even the subtle personal attacks and stick to the suburb? There's an entire group of IRL friends who have started the Mmm Braanz Tahr (not two), and the local zombies have taken direction very well - as you can see by the change in the suburb in the past month. It's called metagaming. We've been keeping an increasingly close eye on the suburb since the arbitration business, just so we can make sure we have our facts straight before calling out anyone who provided falsities. Also, as of a few days ago , Boxy was providing survivor statistics for the suburb. We've been following the trends. We know how small the survivor group in Ketchelbank is, and thanks to Boxy/Karek/my group, so should everyone else who reads the wikis. --Donathin 02:24, 10 July 2007 (BST)

there was nothing subtle about my personal attack.--'BPTmz 04:56, 10 July 2007 (BST)
You two clowns would fight about anything. FFS you both agree that orange is the appropriate colour right now -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 10:02, 10 July 2007 (BST)
It would be more funny if I thought they weren't serious. Orange seems about right, I'll be stopping by again sooner or later to check up on it.--karek 10:12, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Noteworthy?

if you feel that ketchelbank should be noteworthy please comment on the suburb talk page.

Upgraded Danger Level

Changed the danger level to VeryDangerous. All but two resource building are completely overrun, the only remaining Necrotech holds less then 3 survivors. Most every non resource building is open to the street and contains 2-5 zombies in residence. If this suburb isn't Very Dangerous I don't know what is. --karek 05:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

most of the resource buildings are now caded with 3-6 survivors inside, with the execption of St Eusebius's Hospital.--'BPTmz 06:14, 4 July 2007 (BST)
Produce proof, iwitness is a simple noninvasive way to do so.--karek 09:27, 4 July 2007 (BST)
i couldnt figure out how to get that working so i just took screen shots. things have changed, it just may be dangerous now, but here ya go...

--'BPTmz 23:06, 4 July 2007 (BST)

To use it you just click the link/open the bookmark when on ud, it does the work for the rest. Those are useful because they give location, date, etc. Oh, and you reports show obviously strafed buildings with survivors hiding in 1 building, barricades are up in some cases but they are obviously not safe, and only serve to screw with danger reports. Strafing != safe. Those buildings could easily fall in less than an hour to 1 or two zombies.--karek 03:19, 5 July 2007 (BST)
but until the dangerlevels are changed it's technicly moderate. if they do fall in less then an hour, then they'd get changed right?--'BPTmz 03:29, 5 July 2007 (BST)
Barricades being there don't matter, them being absent however does. But notice in more than one of his images there are zombie barricaded inside the buildings, in some of them more zombies are barricaded in than survivors. And only one of them is obviously inhabited by any significant amount of survivors, which looks like they have 1, mabey 2 safe houses from which they are strafing, etc. the rest of the suburb. The fact that they would focus the majority of their people in one place, a nonresource place, shows that they are at the very least hiding from a perceived danger. Odds are however that it is probably more.--karek 03:40, 5 July 2007 (BST)

Observations at 03:56, 5 July 2007 (BST)

  • aquarium 43,33 wide open
  • edson bank 42,34 EH
  • warehouse 43,34 EH
  • factory 43,35 wide open
  • Trick Museum 44,35 EH
  • junkyard 44,36 VS
  • Russell Building (NT) 45,35 wide open
  • Telfer Building (NT) 46,34 VH
  • riddell way FS 46,34 Light
  • st eusebius's hosp 47,36 H
  • club mothersele 47,37 H
  • st jude's church 48,38 VS
  • the keeffe building 48,39 wide open
  • arscott road FS 49,38 Loose
  • mickleburgh way school 48,35 VS
  • St Matthias's Church 46,33 wide open (RP)

-- boxy T Nuts2U DA 03:56, 5 July 2007 (BST)

I'd say that is Danger, borderline Very Danger. Are the insides of the EH buildings inhabited or strafed? If they are strafed then it is truly not EH since no one is there to protect it. Making it Very Dangerous. --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS Hunt! 03:58, 5 July 2007 (BST)
I'm going to go have a look in a bit. I was zombified when I did that lot. Got to give them points for prompt revival though, got one while posting here -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 04:01, 5 July 2007 (BST)
According to the images Blood Panther posted here the answer would be no, not really.--karek 04:02, 5 July 2007 (BST)
but the fact is. it does not matter if there are survivors inside the buildings or not, if you follow the current guidelines. yes it's bullshit, but until they're changed we have to follow them do we not?--'BPTmz 04:45, 5 July 2007 (BST)
No, we don't. We have to do the *right* thing, not the *lawyerly weasel* thing. The Color guidelines are just that: *guidelines*. They are not law. They are meant to provide a general target.
Everything I've read and seen here says to me that this burb is VERY dangerous. I don't understand why you're so intent on making it seem otherwise. Just roll with it; it's not like a personal attack on you that the 'burb is trashed. It happens to *all* suburbs at some point or another.--Jorm 04:57, 5 July 2007 (BST)
if we dont follow the guidelines then why cant someone keep a suburb on safe 24-7? ketchelbank at this moment is caded. survivors inside to keep up the cades? no, but caded. once zombies open the cades up we could cange it but until then the guidelines are there for a reason. follow them completly or not at all.--'BPTmz 05:27, 5 July 2007 (BST)
Harmanz don't follow the guidelines anyway. It's when a zombie stretches it a little bit, not the current situation however, that people put up a shit fit. It's discrimination against the minority really. Not many zombies are here to defend themselves but a fuckton amount of survivors to argue against logic. --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS Hunt! 05:48, 5 July 2007 (BST)
The guidelines are pointless and everyone knows it. You're trying to weasel out for no purpose. I mean, why? Is your honor at stake on this? A rule of thumb: If you have about a 30% chance of NOT WAKING UP ALIVE, then your suburb is red. If you have about a 5% chance of that, it's ORANGE. If you have to sleep inside, but are otherwise safe, it's yellow. If you can sleep on the street, it's green. Everything I'm reading about this says that you're really red but because of kindness people are leaving it orange.
Sure, sure, you can argue that "in this specific moment, it's safe" but that's a fiction and everyone knows it. It's a lie. As in "falsehood." And it will get people *killed*, which is only going to make the suburb *more dangerous*.
I've played this game for almost two years now and been on both sides. I've got the honor of having been a member of one of the most successful survivor groups, ever. I'm also the leader of what is arguably the "Deadliest Horde in Malton", pound-for-pound, and I can tell you: the number of barricades don't make you safe. At all.--Jorm 07:20, 5 July 2007 (BST)

Observations 06:28, 5 July 2007 (BST), all from inside giving 'cade level - survivor #'s and zombie #'s

  • VH 3S
  • VS 3S 4Z
  • H 0
  • H 0
  • VH 5S
  • L 1S
  • O
  • L 3
  • EH 10S
  • EH 1S
  • EH 4S
  • H 1S
  • H 1S
  • EH 2S
  • VH 1S
  • O
  • VS 2S
  • EH 2S
  • QS 1S 1Z
  • EH 0
  • EH 7

I passed through 2 NT's and a hospital, one of these was open, one caded but empty, and one populated -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 06:28, 5 July 2007 (BST)

50 people to defend the suburb and most not even in large numbers? I think a breeze could knock them over. --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS Hunt! 06:33, 5 July 2007 (BST)
Well yes. Still, if there isn't a breeze come through, they're safe for the minute. BTW, that's less than half the buildings in the suburb, so (assuming a random sampling) lets say 100 survivors for the suburb, and I estimated 100 standing zombies for the suburb earlier (around 10 per 9 block view on average). Things are pretty finely balanced, but I wouldn't want to be a newbie there ATM, only one VS or less building could be described as safe when I went through, the others were at lightly, loosely, or had zombies inside feasting. IMO the suburb is on the brink between moderate and dangerous, but will leave it at dangerous for the moment. Will scope the rest of the 'burb tommorow -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 06:50, 5 July 2007 (BST)
If these are real numbers, I could take this burb with 30 soldiers in two days. And I mean "ghost town" dead. Those are paper-thin barricades; by my count it's a total of 21 soldiers for all the barricades you've listed - that's all that would be required to debarricade the entire suburb. That's . . . very dangerous. Very.--Jorm 07:24, 5 July 2007 (BST)
Yes well, we cant really set the danger report based on what you could do, Jorm. I have no doubt that the suburb could be taken relatively easily by a decent sized, organised attack group, but that's no reason to designate it very dangerous unless one actually arrives and does it -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 09:09, 5 July 2007 (BST)

Boxy and Blood Panther, both of you need to realise that samplings of standing barricades is a temporal thing. It shows absolutely nothing about the suburb other than one or two people had enough time to run around to trashed buildings and up barricades. It doesn't matter from a changing danger level perspective. Empty buildings are zombie held, that's how it does and should work, otherwise there would be survivors inside holding them. An empty resource building is as useful to a suburb and safety as a dead and ransacked one. One survivor is as useful as 0 survivors when it comes to said buildings.

As for word of law etc, remember that decreasing a danger level should always be harder than increasing it. For many reasons but the biggest being the ease of barricading and false safety reports. It's hard to fake ransacked buildings and zombie numbers to a survivor, but it's easy to fake survivor numbers to a zombie because of how barricades are done among other things. To lower a danger level you need to show actual improvement to the state of the suburb. This is not improvement. You want to show the suburb(downgrade to) as Yellow, show that most every building is in survivor hands. Want to downgrade from Red to Orange show that survivors control most everything but resource buildings(with screen shots and survivor numbers in said buildings etc.), Want to downgrade from Yellow to Green then show that there are few to no zombies in the area and no midsized hordes(10 zombies in one block really isn't Green, it's Yellow unless the block is an RP or a non-building block.). But Downgrading requires showing improvement in the suburb's safety, the results here show that it hasn't improved and that and possibly at periods of the day everything is exactly the way it was before, show that the survivors have retaken the Resource buildings, not just barricaded them up, and then you can downgrade to Yellow, if not this is most definitely still Orange, and possibly Red(survivors don't actually control the other buildings in the suburb either, barricades != control.)--karek 09:52, 5 July 2007 (BST)

I think you need to realise that I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm just here to observe with an old abandoned character. And from what I've seen so far, it's a line ball situation. Zombies are quite safe standing around outside, pointing to the fact that survivors have little spare AP with which to knock them down, that points to dangerous to me. However there seems to be a stable, but injured population in the area concentrating on barricading and reviving, and so far holding the zombies at bay, more or less. I got a revive within an hour of standing at the revive point, and all the bodies laying there (6 or more, I forget) were similarly revived, pointing to an active and organised revive process. I've left the suburb red exactly because I realise that a snapshot in time doesn't prove anything.
I disagree with you saying that empty, but barricaded, resource buildings are useless. That's simply not true. As long as the building is not ransacked, it still provides supplies -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 10:15, 5 July 2007 (BST)
My point wasn't that they were useless, ransacked zombie populated buildings are still useful and still provide supplies, it's that they aren't survivor controlled which means they are either abandoned or zombie controlled. Neither of those would mean the suburb danger level has changed. Openness is good, I misinterpreted your statement before(to Jorm) it seems, sorry about that.--karek 10:41, 5 July 2007 (BST)
Well there ya go, learn something new every day. I didn't know that you could still search, at a reduced rate, in ransacked building (pretty much kills off the extinction premise, eh)... or that it doesn't work in junkyards. Regardless though, many higher level survivors use the tactic of barricading (and sometimes powering) a resource building, but sleeping elsewhere, leaving the building as a less attractive target for zombies. This does not mean that it's under zombie control. Ransacked, or wide open (or constantly at lower cade levels) does -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 11:12, 5 July 2007 (BST)
in all honesty, the only reason i'm trying so hard here is to point out the big flaws with the current system.--'BPTmz 01:55, 6 July 2007 (BST)

Observations from 07:28, 6 July 2007 (BST):

  • O
  • VH 3S
  • VS 4S (powered)
  • EH 5S
  • O 1S
  • VH 1S
  • VH 3S
  • O 1S 3Z 1B
  • EH 1S
  • VH
  • EH 3S
  • EH 7S
  • EH 1S
  • VH
  • VS 1S
  • O
  • EH 1S
  • O
  • VH
  • EH 1S
  • VS 1S
  • H
  • EH 2S
  • EH 4S
  • O (ransacked)
  • EH 1S
  • H 1S
  • EH 12S
  • H 1S
  • EH 3S
  • VS 1S
  • VS 1S (powered)
  • O 1Z (RP) 5revived bodies
  • QS
  • VS 3

I think this points to low, but evenly balanced populations of both survivors and zombies. Moderate -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 07:28, 6 July 2007 (BST)

Personal tools
project wonderful
column-okay