August 15 For the first time in months, my hunting trip through Ridleybank was a failure. Humans have destroyed the natural habitat with barricades, with every building I visited being secured. Gone are the hordes of zombie. The few undead still calling Ridleybank home only had the horde-strength to open one or two safe-houses at most. Lower the danger level. Shackleville Jones 2:57, PM, 15 August (BST)
- Blah blah blah. Barricade strafed. Harman BS like that doesn't work here. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 16:05, 15 August 2006 (BST)
Ok. I sent my two alts to ridley to see what is the status there. As i walked my way trough ridley with ma zamba, i was scared (as a ridley) to see ALL buldings barricaded very strongly or more and just a few fellow brothers outside in the streets. Now, iith ma harman, i managed to see these buildings from inside, and what i found made me hate survivorkind more. At least half those barricaded buildings were empty! When someone was inside, it was one or two lost souls.
So, if the RRF dont move to its homeland and do something to change this situation, or i have to say that we need to change Ridley status to Dangerous, nearly getting into a moderate status. --hagnat mod 18:27, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- It cannot be moderate with it being 50+ zombies. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 18:39, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- well, i did said nearly --hagnat mod 18:47, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- Agreed then? I'll change it to Dangerous: change it again if you feel like I couldn't do it because of another special, biased, weak, double standarized reason. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 19:29, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- well, i did said nearly --hagnat mod 18:47, 16 August 2006 (BST)
I don't know how Ridleybank stands now, but if what I heard is right Dangerous, almost Moderate fits the suburb a lot more than the current Very Dangerous. To have it at "Very dangerous" just because the reputation of a group depends on it doesn't take in consideration the tons of other groups that are filling a role in Ridleybank more so than their self appointed defenders. The RRF asks for too much being elsewhere on Malton and trying to keep the suburb at Very Dangerous at all times, no matter how far they are or how true this status is. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 03:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Status conflict, again
Here's the definition of status from suburb page
|Suburb Danger Level Colors|
Structurally intact and inhabited by survivors, with numerous lit buildings, and few to no zombies.
Active zombies and break-ins, but no major hordes.
Structurally intact with few zombies, but a very low survivor population and few to no lit buildings.
Zombies inside many resource buildings and/or significant hostile mobs.
||A Ghost Town
Mostly or entirely ruined, and devoid of significant survivor or zombie populations.
Most buildings wide open or zombie-infested and/or massive hostile zombie mobs.
Suburbs listed in boldface contain notable locations, groups, or events.
here's the ridleybank status 
Now there certanly isnt' any horde of 150 zombies in Ridleybank, heck there aren't even 100 zombies in ridleybank. All resource buildings are baricaded and largest horde is at 39 that quilifies it as Modarate, I do acknowledge special status of ridleybank and thus probably the dangerous level might be ok, but Very Dangerous is just desinformation.. --Brom Armostrong 17:18, 24 April 2007 (BST)
Ridleybank's history was the reason I opted for the downgrade to orange instead of yellow. The suburb map should accurately reflect the current status of the suburb not its history. Otherwise Darvall/Chudley or Dunell Hills would still be green regardless of the dozens or hundreds of zeds in the area. And if we treated every suburb in terms of its myths the entire suburb map would have to be changed. No one is ever going to stop thinking of Ridleybank as anything but RIDLEYBANK. Let the suburb map fulfill its purpose as a guide for players on both sides and have it reflect accurate and unbiased information (downgrade to dangerous/orange). Tyler Whitney0 19:54, 24 April 2007 (BST)
Really this is just petty, Ridleybank's danger level should obviously be moderate or at the very least dangerous. Like its been said above this is disinformation, why don't I go say Caiger is in survivor hands and Darvall Heights is green again? Because its not true, now someone downgrade Ridleybank to the Dangerous level.--Lord Wulfgar 23:32, 24 April 2007 (BST)
Well... unless someone has something to say against the switch to Dangerous, i'll do the change tomorrow. If i fail to do so, ask another sysop or message me in my talk page. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:47, 25 April 2007 (BST)
Basically, Ridleybank is currently 'unoccupied' because most of the RRF is out of the suburb on Excursion II and various smaller operations. Lowering the danger level, as Jorm indicated, just means that newbies will assume a safety there that really only exists until the RRF returns home. And trust; they will! Plus, why would you want to deny zombies a homeland? It's game history, and something that adds to the flavour of Malton. Excuse me if i'm stating the obvious here. --Keith Drudgely 09:32, 25 April 2007 (BST)
- Yes, Ridleybank is currently unoccupied by the RRF. And yes, if the RRF return to Ridleybank, the suburb will no longer be safe for newbies. However, isn't the "calm before the storm" the same with any suburb? Few to no zombies, suburb is Safe/Moderate. When many zombies move in, suburb is now Dangerous/Very Dangerous. Using your argument, shouldn't we put every suburb that has some significance*, regardless of how safe it is currently, at Very Dangerous, due to the fact that a horde will eventually roll through? (*I would define significance as having a noteworthy building, like a mall or the zoo, or having historical significance)
- Also, putting Ridleybank at Moderate would not be denying Ridleybank as the homeland of zombies, since the Ridleybank suburb page talks all about the RRF being formed in Ridley. --Antipathy 08:09, 25 April 2007 (BST)
Those who want to downgrade the suburb only wish to do so out of trenchcoater machismo and not out of any "higher calling" of service or accuracy. The fact is that the RRF or another horde WILL return (and probably very soon) - so changing the level serves only as a newbie trap. The suburb is and always has been extremely dangerous if only because of the ever-present and always looming threat of the RRF. While I'm all for having more food in the 'burb, I'm staunchly against actions that harm new players to the game. The 'bank may very well be in the midst of a "calm" within the zombie apocalypse but such things are always transient in Ridleybank - always. That's why it's a "special" suburb. This isn't "petty"; it's realistic.
Further, barricaded buildings mean nothing when there aren't any people in them, and Necronet is not and has never been a good indicator of zombie population - only of scanned and non-rotter zombies (and let's be honest: you're in Ridleybank, so there aren't many non-rotters).
So what this is is just another group who wants to play like they're the "Grand Liberators" - just like the Blackmore Bastard Brigade (dead) and countless other groups before them (the Gingerbread Men, Paradox, the CDF, the Crossman Defense Force, the Ridleybank Resistance Resistance Front, the Ridleybank ZKers, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.) Everyone wants to make a mark and they all fail because the shadow of the RRF is longer and larger than anything the Keanu-wannas can accomplish.
Comparisons with Caiger are crap and are straw men: the area around Caiger is a wasteland (and has been for months). Survivors there are lucky to stay alive for two days. Maybe the estimated-time-to-death is longer than normal in RB right now, but it will return to lower levels.--Jorm 10:33, 25 April 2007 (BST)
- Yes, barricaded buildings mean nothing when there aren't any people in them. However, when I free-run from building to building in Ridleybank most of the buildings contain at least one or two survivors. And, when my 50 AP is run out, I sleep in Ridleybank. Why? Because I am 95% sure that the next day I will still be alive.
- Oh, and to explain my "trenchcoater machismo" :D, see my reply to Keith. --Antipathy 08:09, 25 April 2007 (BST)
If the map changes colour, then Ridleybank will become a newbie death trap. I don't care if there are less than 100 zombies in that area. Every single Zombie Horde looks at Ridleybank as a safe haven. If the RRF doesn't return from Excursion at some point in the near future, then obviously another horde will move in temporarily. Changing the Status colour would be disaster of Epic Proportions.
Besides! That's only a Necrotech scan. What about unscanned zombies? Or the fact that NO ONE OCCUPIES OR HAS BARRICADED A BUILDING THERE. Ridleybank should ONLY change colour when ALL zombies are eliminated in it's area, and even then it should be an automatic deserted Grey colour. Dangerous MAYBE if all zombies were gone and a few places barricaded. But NEVER Moderate or Safe.
And comparing it to Caiger is ridiculous! Heck, the entire North-West corner of Malton is a dead-zone. You probably haven't even been up there! It's a really life death trap and has been for the past 4-5 months! High level players can barely last a few days in that region, let alone NEWBIES. Both the Caiger region and Ridleybank are on equal terms due to their situations. Caiger Region because the Survivors up there have their heads too far up their arses to make a decent retrieval effort (and don't tell me I don't know, because I was there when Caiger fell and the organization was shitty*). And Ridleybank because of the looming threat of the RRF's return and/or Zombie Hordes moving in.
Don't mess with the Map Colours, dammit --Heiki 11:13, 25 April 2007 (BST)
- And those who want to keep it at VD are just using noob excuse for their hurt pride, you are completely right, Necrnoet Access is not an exact indicator of zombie activity, there are even less zombies then shown on that scan. Here's a shot around Blackmore . I say we take it down to dangerous ( altough it's moderate ) Also by keeping it on VD you give false impression that Stanbury village is safer then Ridleybank, which is just false, you have higher chance of dying in Stanbury than you have in Ridleybank.--Brom Armostrong 11:20, 25 April 2007 (BST)
- Heiki, do you right now have a human free-running character in Ridleybank? Because I can guarantee when you wrote that message, you didn't. Practically all the buildings are currently barricaded, most buildings contain at least 1-2 survivors (and some have more), and there are no hordes of 50+ zombies. By the standards set for determining suburb status, Ridleybank is at moderate. --Antipathy 08:09, 25 April 2007 (BST)
- You must also consider the reason behind the way it is done though people. Danger levels are there to show how dangerous it is for a survivor or a zombie and while ridleybank may be slightly more dangerous for a zombie right now staying there as a survivior is just impending death. Everyone knows it will happen like it always does and the RRF will come and wipe the suburb clean of life, especially if it is 1-2 survivors per building, two zombies could easily kill 2 survivors barricaded in a building. But the point is it is actually Very Dangerous to inhabit Ridleybank even though you can't see it now, you may die more in Stanbury now than in Ridleybank but staying in Ridleybank is guaranteed death Stanbury isn't. Ridleybank is Very Dangerous, Dangerous at the very least, so keep barricading the buildings if you think it will help snack, you're still gonna die and I pray to zombie baby jesus that I'm the one who eats you.--karek 15:24, 25 April 2007 (BST)
- If the zombies don't like it not being very dangerous, then COME BACK AND MAKE IT SO YOURSELVES. Otherwise a status report is a representation of current status - not historical significance. When the zombies come back and try to re-take it the report will be adjusted accordingly. Why don't you people understand this?--Benigno SSZ RCC 16:13, 25 April 2007 (BST)
- Mabey people will take you survivors more seriously when you stop using Necronet scans as evidence.--karek 16:31, 25 April 2007 (BST)
- I walked the streets and saw that there are no more then 80 zombies in the area. Now if you want to keep all this bias crap up I'm sure the mods will enjoy getting involved in this. Ridleybank is NOT very dangerous. I can sleep there over night in key buildings. The map shows the current status of the suburb and should not show any bias from the suburs history. Now STOP being bias on this subject. --RAF Lt.G Deathnut RAF 19:43, 25 April 2007 (BST)
There are 120 zombies outside of Blackmore alone. Update the stutus. -- Murray Jay Suskind 19:37, 22 May 2007 (BST)
- but no 150+ Z hostile mob. other buildings around Blackmore? safe, caded, etc. IMHO, Dangerous is ok at this moment --Duke GarlandTLCD SSZ 19:47, 22 May 2007 (BST)
- Both PD's are open and ransacked with zombies inside. There are at least 30 other zombies in the suburb and many more dead bodies about half of whom will soon be zombies again. I've seen no evidence that any buildings except Blackmore and a small handful of surrounding buildings are actually inhabited, although the RRF and Militant Order of Barhah have just arrived and will gladly confirm that the accounts of survivors "reclaiming" Ridleybank are lamely exaggerated.
Here's me aspiring to a civil rebuttal. Lower the danger rating and it could lure the trenchcoats and end up getting people killed. And the suburb does have a history of zombie residence. I would say "occupation" but its been that way so long the zeds have practically settled down and put their pink flamingos on their lawns. The suburb map should show the current, objective viewpoint status of the suburb. There's no saying when or in what numbers the RRF would return and if it's not for three months or three weeks the suburb should be orange during that period. Until it happens an unbiased view would have the suburb as less than Very Dangerous.
It's not as if anyone could miss its character as a "zombie suburb." It's right there on the suburb map where its listed as historically noteworthy for that reason. And practically every mention both within the suburb page and anywhere else has that status in mind. But history is distinct from current events. The point of the map is to at least aspire for it to be an apolitical "zombie weather report." That was the reason specific criteria for danger levels were created instead of it being based on anyone's suppositions. And besides, this isn't the first time it's gone orange. Those other times were under similar circumstances too (bulk of the hordes on a working holiday, crazy/stupid types taking advantage, etc.). And I'm sure you know how each and every one of those times ended ("burp"). It's not the suburb map's responsibility to look out for the rookies but only to be accurate. Let the rookies have their fun and let the suburb map function as it's supposed to.
And regardless of the "machismo" motivation of some the suburb is less dangerous than usual with the zeds touring. It should be presented as such as long as that's the case. The suburb danger level in all other suburbs and all other cases is not determined by the suburb's past and certainly not by anyone's expectations for its future. If anyone wants to keep it red they should call some friends and devote the time to make it so. Any mention of the suburb's history and the excellent odds of a massive zed return should be made in the comments section when justifying the change (that's what that section is for). In the meantime: (orange/dangerous), as keeping track of they city's current status is what the map is for. Tyler Whitney0 13:07, 25 April 2007 (BST)
most of buildings in Ridleybank are right now barricaded and populated. resources - EHB and powered and populated. Blackmore hadn't any serious breaches for a week. here's the recent scan: . Now how could this be Very Dangerous? If you say that RRF will return there and massacre - let it be, we'll change it properly when they come. but right now they are not and status should represent current situation which is Moderate --Duke GarlandLCD 12:56, 25 April 2007 (BST)
- Gotta love the survivors. Pretty much trying to lure new players and potential allies into a death trap that'll probably make them angry and quit the game. "HOORAY FOR US! WE TOOK BLACKMORE! RIDLEYBANK IS SAFE!" Also, I must concur with Jorm that that Necronet scans mean nothing as far as suburb safety goes. 1. They don't register rotters (which there are a lot of in Ridleybank). 2. Not ALL of the zombies in Ridleybank have been scanned. 3. It implies that suburbs where trenchies go outside and kill zombies are safer than suburbs where the survivors are playing it smart and letting the zombies stand whilst outside. By "upgrading" Ridleybank's status, all you're doing is ensuring a quicker return of the RRF, which kind of makes the suburb rather dangerous. -- Murray Jay Suskind 13:52, 25 April 2007 (BST)
- Gotta love the politicians. It just turns out that a direct count was conducted shortly after and it gave the same numbers within a few percents. I hope you have some dignity left to retract 1. and 2. above. While at that, you can also retract 3. as you probably realize that 'trenchies' will be able to conduct outside runs only if they are not busy barricading or limping to the nearest revive point, and this happens when zombies are not a serious danger. I'm seriously dissapointed, I wasn't expecting you to get this low. Bluetigers 03:56, 27 April 2007 (BST)
Are the zombie players listening to the survivor players? Let me put this as succinctly as possible: the map tells everyone in the game what the current status of the suburb is. If the zombie players want the suburb to be more dangerous, they should move in and make it dangerous. When it becomes dangerous, we set the danger level back to the appropriate level (Dangerous or Very Dangerous, depending on how large the hordes grow).
Setting the suburb status to Moderate does not make it a newbie trap because newbies tend to stay in the green suburbs. They should only leave the green areas if they are expecting to take risks. If they aren't but come out anyway, that's their problem; it's how the game works. Furthermore, when the hordes return, the newbies can simply leave the suburb. If they don't, again, that's their problem.
Besides, most newbies don't even look at the Wiki.
--Dathgale 14:17, 25 April 2007 (BST)
- Actually, a lot do use the suburb page, at the very least for a map and usually to scope out what's going on. Also, newbs should experience the fun of a suburb dying at least once, so if Ridleybank is decently safe, then lower its danger report, and let the survivors look out for themselves. Maybe if a bunch cluster in there, some new hordes will show up and make everybody's life more interesting.--Lachryma☭ 16:39, 25 April 2007 (BST)
I'm really sick of all you zombie players talking about how you care about newbies. You just don't care, all you care about is your precious danger level. If newbies do come to Ridleybank, there will be no disaster. Even when the hordes come back they can flee, or get revived in the adjacent suburbs, so there is no argument there. Come on, Ridleybank is clearly moderate now and you are arguing about weather it should be dangerous or very dangerous. Forget it, if you want it to be very dangerous come and eat everyones brains, if not, shut up. You are ruining the fun of everyone who is involved in taking Ridleybank. Will it not be more fun, for the zombie players, when they finally come, and kill and ransack the entire suburb? And why do you presume that the players doing this are newbs? There are major groups involved in this, like USSR and LCD. So the only thing you are doing is insulting these experienced players. Thats like if survivors said that all the zombies holding Ridleybank are newbies who got nothing better to do. We, the survivors, are very aware that when the RRF and other hordes come back we are zombie food, but can you understand that we are having fun doing this? We deserve moderate or in the VERY LEAST dangerous level. By keeping it at very dangerous you are denying that we are doing anything in this game, as well as hiding the truth, just because you don't want to face the facts!
The bottom line is the suburb map is for accuracy, not historical significance or newb protection. You don't trust the Necronet scans? Well walk through the suburb and see for yourself, the place is barely at the moderate level. I'm not trying to piss off the RRF or some how tarnish their reputation, I love those guys. Not a better zombie group in the game, and my zombah hasn't gone hungry since I began following their Excursion around Malton. But while the RRF is away the survivors will play and the simple fact is right now no matter how you look at it Ridleybank is safe. This isn't a big deal really, no one is going to forget that Ridleybank is the zombie homeland, we all know it'll eventually be wiped out and returned to its blood red state. But until that happens the map should represent the suburbs real and current status.--Lord Wulfgar 17:37, 25 April 2007 (BST)
- Of all the suburbs on the map it is most defenite that a major suburb like Ridleybank requires some level of evidence beyond Necronet scans and generally it would be usefull if someone opposed or neutral agreed with you instead of just the people in the suburb. I remember back before last September when people went to the suburb and were barely defending against the Home Guard(I know because I was one of them) but claimed the suburb was completely safe because they strafed every night then claimed there was 1-5 survivors in each building when they were only in really about 4 buildings. Back when RAT radio was running and lying to the whole suburb and everyone was beleiveing them. If people are asking you for some better form of evidence it would only be because this has happenned multiple times in the past and out of all the suburbs in the map Ridleybank is probably one of the suburbs reported safe when it is completely uncalled for. Stop complaining about no one beleiveing you when all you can say is "Well Necronet says there aren't it must be true!"
- As for your noobieness level, I would say it is very high because instead of helping hold currently contested malls or spots where you could actually be usefull to other players you go for Ridleybank and let everyone else die just so you can suicide and say "We barricaded Ridleybank". Caiger at least meant something because no one thought taking it was possible, but people strafe Ridlebank and claim it safe everyweek, you are all wasting everyones time and screwing other survivors in the process, to some of us that matters because it's no fun when no one puts up a challange because everyone thinks they can strafe the map or Ridlebank and it will bring everyone in the malls back to life.--karek 18:00, 25 April 2007 (BST)
There you go again. Karek it has already been said that saying newbs are holding Ridleybank is offending people, so you are insulting players ON PURPOSE. Btw the malls around the SSZ are holding, and since Blackmore has been occupied Nichols Mall is actually having an easier time then before. So far for that argument, do you have any more, or are you just going to repeat your selves again, because that is not a discussion. --Jack Taner 18:15, 25 April 2007 (BST)
So how do we solve the situation like this ? Do we vote ? Can some admin check the suburb and set it according to the current status? This discussion is pointless, there can't be negotiation when noone's listening and just repeating ther pointless views. It's just flamewar.--Brom Armostrong 18:34, 25 April 2007 (BST)
Just to add, you claiming Ridleybank should be red is the same as we claiming that Chudleyton and Darvall Heights should be green, because survivors will come back there. Would you like that, after all the zombie effort to bring down Caiger? The FACT is we took Ridleybank and you did nothing about it yet, so once again, UNTIL you do, stop saying how you are going to return one day and slaughter everyone. I think we are all very aware of that, but as many people so far pointed our, the map represents the PRESENT danger level, not the future one. Get over it. --Jack Taner 18:45, 25 April 2007 (BST)
If we can all agree that the level should be lowered if that's the actual current (present/temporary) status of the suburb all we should need is one or two firsthand accounts from reliable sources. Not necronets. First hand scouting. Dead bodies should not count as those could be reviving survivors, shot zeds, or sleeping characters. Number one criteria should be number of break-ins followed equally by survivor/zed populations. Then thirdly by number of resource buildings barricaded and occupied. These are the hard evidence, everything else is speculation. Once that's done, and if it's unlocked, the level can be set to the appropriate level. Sound good? Tyler Whitney0 19:59, 25 April 2007 (BST)
- Sounds perfect, now who's gonna do the deed ? --Brom Armostrong 20:34, 25 April 2007 (BST)
I had a dead alt in Yagoton I brought down for purely census purposes (he'll move back north once this is resolved). He just did a quick sweep through Northern Ridley, and couldn't get into any buildings. Most were barricaded, survivor populations are obviously unknown then and they might be empty, but this is what was seen at the resource buildings visited:
Moggridge PD: barricaded, lights on, 5 dead bodies, no standing zeds there or in surrounding blocks.
St. Jude’s Hospital: barricaded, 6 zeds standing, 1 more standing zed 1 block west at Elphick walk.
6 Zombies standing at Dufferin Park, 3 at Owens Crescent School, 3 at Club Vaughan. Owens school barricaded, no lights on, one dead body.
5 zombies at Blomfield with 6 bodies, PD is barricaded with lights on, 1 Zombie at Adalbert Hospital, Lights on at Eugene Hospital, no zombies standing outside.
1 Zombie at the Bagley building, 2 standing at the carpark 1 block south.
2 Zombies at Scarpendale Street Railway Station.
Totals of what was seen: 30 standing zeds visible in Northern Ridleybank. Those numbers can be verified by anyone who cares to take a pass through the area (remembering that regular traffic and deaths might mean + or - a couple). If you watch the path described you'll see I was zig zagging up and down making sure to hit major resource buildings. If somebody can do the same for the south we might be able to get this thing settled. If this is indicative it would suggest a downgrade as it was thiry zombies in small groups across dozens of blocks. Cheers. Tyler Whitney0 21:49, 25 April 2007 (BST)
I've wandered to check inside numbers.
- Blackmore: 58 humans inside, EHB
- Acourt Library: 2 humans insidde, EHB
- Adalbert General Hospital: human inside, EHB, light
- Blomfield PD: 8 humans, EHB, light
- Eugene General Hospital: human, EHB, light
- Acreman Road Fire Station: 2 humans, VSB
- St George's Hospital: 5 humans, VSB, light
all other buildings i passed through: 0-3 survivors, mostly EHB or VSB. I haven't found any zombie-taken building
So for anyone counting that puts the total survivors across seven buildings at 77-80 survivors. Tyler Whitney0 13:41, 26 April 2007 (BST)
Southern Ridleybank Zombie Count
1 zed Twycrosse Alley
4 at St. Luke’s
1 at the Junkyard 1 block north of St. Luke’s
1 at Snooke Towers
1 at Warehouse south of Musgrove Museum
32 zeds at Blackmore Building with 23 dead bodies that could be anything, 1 at Acourt Library
1 zombie at the clementina monument, 1 at Tardew Row, 1 at the Spring building ( which was also barricaded EH), and one at Gooden Street
Total for Southern Ridleybank witnessed: 43= 73 total zombies witnessed in the entire suburb. Largest horde is in the 30's at the Blackmore against nearly 60 survivors. Most other buildings in Ridleybank barricaded but more sparsely populated by Survivors. Total Survivor population around 80+. Recommend downgrade to dangerous based on these reports. If anyone wishes to provide verification or to contest the results do so here. I'm going to the suburb map page to post this recommendation, and point people to this census as support, as the map can't be changed at this time. Tyler Whitney0 13:41, 26 April 2007 (BST)
20 January Danger vs Vary Danger conflict
There were two discussions, Grim put something on the user he reverted's talk page and they keep trying to use the Ridleybank page to further their conflict. I'd recommend someone provides a Protections request and/or starts an arbitration case. At the same time evidence to your claims might help instead of simply a reversion war.--Karekmaps?! 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Cough http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Image:Arrrrrh.JPG --Thekooks 22:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I changed the DangerLevel to Very Dangerous based on how many buildings are continuously ruined, most are 5+ ap repairs and 13 zombies occupying The Blackmore Building along with around a dusin walking from building to building keeping them ruined. -- Jack's Inflamed Sense Of Rejection (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)