Talk:Revivification Point/Archives

This is discussion from the old revive point at the point of redesign. This should not be edited and new comments should still go on Talk:Revivification Point. Thank You

Update the Revivification Point Page

This discussion page and it's article page need to be updated. Most of the information is out of date or is simply ignored by the players. Here is a list of the coordinates of Revive Points that should be erased.

[32,61] [73,92] [23.27] [97,21] [94,26] [28,19] [84,27] [77,35] [59,78] [51,74] [22,53] [13,69] [8, 98] [78,26] [41,12]

I could do it but its a mayor edit, so I'm requesting some advise. --Tico 01:34, 20 July 2006 (BST)

The rules for when an RP can be removed are clearly stated. Assuming those points you list meet the criteria, then go ahead and remove them. I've done a number of edit rounds myself, but haven't had time lately to remove/update with regularity. The page is modified frequently enough that I would recommend you not try to do it all at once, but rather just delete 3-4 at a time. Just as important as removing old RP's however is adjusting the status of RP's - occasionally people leave comments or make edits, but don't make an appropriate change in Status. And of course we need to mark RP's that have had no comment in more than a couple weeks Unknown (serves as a sort of notice) so they can be removed if still such in two more weeks. Thanks for your assistance!!! --Gilant ^talk|DEM 03:02, 20 July 2006 (BST)

Thanks for your advise. I made the proper deletions with comments to the history log. I have to say that I ended depressed in doing this. Deleting posts made by other players is not a funny thing to do. --Tico 16:03, 20 July 2006 (BST)

No, it's not. Which is why we published giudelines on how the list shall be managed. In the main sense it works very much like the recruitment page, where listings also time-off. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 22:21, 21 July 2006 (BST)

Revivification Request Tools

Update:

The DEM's Revivification Requests tool now lists all the RP's in the list table in it's interface, including the current status and group(s) responsible for that location. The list is updated nightly. However there are a few points that are not getting parsed properly. Rather than jump through a lot of hoops trying to handle the special cases, I'm going to ask the maintainers to adjust the entries I'm missing, if they want them listed on the tool.

The two most critical cells in the table are the coordinates and the status. The coordinate cell must have nothing else in it other than [X,Y] and must not be a wiki link. There are only three that are set up as links, and the target pages don't exist anyway. There should also only be one RP per row. If multiple sets of coordinates are specified, only the first one is recognized. The status field should contain only one of the options listed at the top of the table. The contents of the Groups and Comments cells are taken as is, and the other cells are ignored.

I'd also like to recommend that anyone referring requester's to use either the DEM or CDF tools add a link directly to the recommended tools list for that RP. I've added a couple examples to the table for DEM managed points. For the DEM tool, you would be adding something like:

[http://ud-malton.info/revive_requests.cgi?State=Search&X=x&Y=y&Distance=0 View Requests]

Change the lower case x and y to the coordinates of your RP. For the CDF's CIT your link would look something like:

[http://cdf.aypok.co.uk/public_revives/nn/ View Requests]

Where nn would be the numeric ID of your RP in the CIT database. For example, 01 is the The Way Monument.

Restricting Locations

It was recently brought to my attention that there is at least one RP listed which is supposedly located on top of a Police Station. While I have always advocated strongly for not having an RP on top of any building, except perhaps a church, having an RP on top of any resource building seems absolutely foolish. So I would like to open up two topics for discussion. The first, and of primary concern to me, is how people would feel about having external tools such as the DEM Revivification Request tool simply ignore any RP's listed in this article that are on a resource building. Feel free to make comments here, but I'd appreciate it if you voted your opinion. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 16:59, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Comments:

I believe, as does most of my group (KoSJ) and the related group MCV that tagging of the BWPD by NARC as a revive point in the wiki is purely metagaming by the group. There is no concrete evidence of revives being performed at that location, however the entire suburb is periodically re-sprayed with graffiti listing that police station as a revive zone. We've been fighting that graffiti for months.

Listing resource buildings on the wiki as revive zones is a meta-gaming griefing tactic against survivors and should immediately be discontinued. We need the revive point page to explicity deny that resource buildings are used as revive points so that we have precident to remove the other wiki references (suburb pages, location pages) rather than sitting in an endless edit-conflict cycle with these griefers. --Timid Dan 21:25, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Whether or not the DEM tool lists particular revive points is an issue best let to DEM. They are the owner of the tool and therefore can make arbitrary judgements regarding what they would and what they wouldn't like to include in the tool. If the decision is not to include revive point with the letter J in the name it makes the tool less effective however it is their tool to do with as they please. --Figgy 21:51, 10 May 2006 (BST)

--- Second, should such RP's be restricted from being included in this article at all? While I have no problem restricting them from being included in the tools or map, enforcing a policy of not having them on this page is a much thornier question and I would think would require sweeping popular support as well as feedback from mods if it would be allowable by wiki rules. Another option would be to put such RP's on their own table just below the main one, so they are still listed on the page but are clearly marked as different. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 16:59, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Comments:

As above, I believe that we need to take a strong stance against meta-gaming forms of griefing such as listing of misinformation about revive points on the wiki. It makes no sense to use a resource building as a revive point unless you're attempting to grief survivors in the suburb by denying them access to that resource point. In-game resprays of misinformation are one thing... posting it on the wiki is metagaming and we need to set that aside and remove it from the wiki as a form of play. The wiki should be informational only, not the source of new forms of gaming grief. --Timid Dan 21:25, 10 May 2006 (BST)

The wiki is an integral part of the game to inform players about what's in the game. Whether it makes sense to have any location PD, FD, NT as a revive point is not an issue for a topic in the wiki that talksa bout revive points. Whether it is or isn't a revive point is information that should be imparted in the wiki. Adding further information to describe the location is information that should be in the wiki. Removing information from the wiki because people do not agree with other people is not something that a wiki should do and only starts a wiki on the slippery slope to political correctness censorship. --Figgy 21:51, 10 May 2006 (BST)

So the only solution you see for this type of RP, if I understand you correctly, is to comment it as a possible fake site, and let the user make their own judgement? --Gilant ^talk|DEM 23:51, 10 May 2006 (BST)

I didn't see it as a problem needing a solution, let's look at the situation though. Anything said by someone without knowing all the facts is an opinion or guess. By saying that a revivification site is a possible fake site then you are expressing an opinion that may or may not be true. I could claim that any site on the list is a possible fake site but what proof do I have? At what point do you draw the line? Without some proof backing up a guess it's just clutter. If you are looking at a solution I would say that an opinion as to the validity of a site should be expressed when a specific event or proof can be demonstrated. There is a comments section, that comments section would be used to express the prrof and possible meaning. If enough evidence can be collected to prove that a site isn't working then it should be removed from the list. --Figgy 02:35, 11 May 2006 (BST)

If multiple users have directly opposing views about whether a place is a revive point, then the question is, which set of facts should be displayed? I do not believe the BWPD location is a valid revive point either and posting it as such is misinformation/false on the wiki and should be corrected with the facts : that no valid revive point exists there. --Cinnibar 02:00, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Then you have to discuss what a revive point is. According to this article a revive point is any location which is regularly checked by one or more NecroTech employees, at which zombies who do not wish to remain undead gather to await revivification by the use of a syringe. Since there are zombies waiting to be revived there, since there is a group of necrtotech employees checking regularly, and since there are zombies being revived there by definition BWPD is a valid revive point. --Figgy 02:35, 11 May 2006 (BST)

I believe that is what we should be discussing here Figgy. Tactical Resource Points make terrible Revive Points. Especially when two alternate locations exist in the suburb. I can think of no logical reason why TRPs should be revive points. I invite anyone from NARC to tell me differently. --Jonny America 07:05, 19 June 2006 (BST)

• RRtools should only acknowledge RPs on open blocks. As for which RPs should be posted on this page... well... it is easy to tell which ones should NOT be added...

Since it's stupid for non-agressive zombies wanting a revive to look hostile, they should ONLY stand in OPEN blocks and NEVER on a resource building. "Mrh" all you want, if you're standing on someone's safehouse, an NT, a Factory, or whatever, you're getting headshot. Anyone starting an RP(and posting about it here) should take all that into account. RPs should ONLY be set up in OPEN blocks; anything else goes against common sense. The only exception to this should be Rotter clinics in uncaded NTs. --Raystanwick 12:17, 28 July 2006 (BST)

Location Discussions

Coffins Drive

Drummer boy requested more information about the situation at Coffins Drive. Sorry, I don't know anything more.

I had a character die, and he stood in the queue at Coffins Drive for over a week waiting for a revive. At the time there were about 40 zeds waiting. I started updating the Wiki page daily with the numbers I saw. Over time the numbers dropped, and then on Christmas Day there was a mass revive and my character was rescued. And so I stopped doing the updates.

But recently, just for fun, I created an alt who hides out in the area near Coffins Drive, and from time to time I run him over to count zeds and bodies. Thus I am continuing the updates.

I could just stand him at Coffins Drive, but someone would kill him, and then someone else would waste a syringe on him... he's really little more than an automated probe, just a way for me to check up on Coffins Drive without my actual characters being in Dunell Hills. Since he's away most of the time, I have no way of knowing what is happening there; all I do is report the numbers I observe, with a time stamp for when I observe them.

I think someone is doing revives there. Today it's down to 3 zeds and 16 bodies; if someone were just Headshotting there there would be more bodies than that. You might try contacting the Dunell Hills Police Department, since they are listed as the "owners" of the revive point.

If you really want to know, ask someone who was waiting for a revive there. Or, send an alt over there and have him observe what's going on. --Steveha 07:25, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT).

There are at least a couple of us reviving regularly at Coffins drive. However someone else seems to be headshoting folk faster than we can revive them. 19 Jan 2006.

Thanks, both of you, for the updates. --Drummer boy 03:18, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)

As of Aug we have active revive teams thourought the DMZ, (I'll post a complete list later) But Coffins is one of the three points we operate in the Hills in adition to the Cemetaries. St Lorenzos Church and Prolley Grove are the other two. Conndraka^{mod T CFT} 15:57, 22 August 2006 (BST)

Veryard Crescent

I want to assure people that we are reviving zombies at Veryard, despite a lot of griefing to our staff members and clinic safehouses. If anyone is killed waiting in line for a revive, please leave a message, either here on this page, on the Veryard Crescent talk page, or The 4-H's forums. We are most displeased to hear that people are killing zombies waiting in line. --Aiden H. 23:59, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)

General Discussions

The Stack, DNA Checking, And Syringes

Hey all. Morth Babid from the YRC here. We're considering some changes to our main page to update the page with the recent DNA Extractor and Brain Rot changes, but we could use some help making sure our info is actually correct. Here's what we need to clarify: The current assumption is that using the DNA Extractor on a crowd of zombies will tell you if the first zombie on the stack is a rotter or not, even if you don't get their full info and XP bonus. If they are Rotted, they will also be the first zombie you can attack and thus remove from the group. Is this true? We're not sure if your attack/syringe, after doing an extraction, will move down the stack...possibly making you attack an un-Rotted zombie in the horde or wasting your syringe on a brain rotter who was second on the stack. I don't believe this has been addressed before. --MorthBabid 20:17, 26 April 2006 (BST)

• I think it is a great idea to research and publicize the dynamics of zombie hoards, DNA Extractors, and syringes. Then we can write a protocol for clinic workers for efficient revivification. Recently I have been trying to pay close attention to correlations between my DNA Extractor and results of syringe use, and I hope to be able to make some research progress in this area. I have serious doubts about the belief that the Extractor reports the zombie at the top of the stack. It seems that the extractor always first scans patients who have not yet been scanned. After all present have been scanned the Extractor chooses a single patient whose data it reports in a message saying all present have been scanned. Repeated scannings always report this same patient in the "all scanned" message. It would be very helpful to know how this final scan patient is chosen. Is that patient at the front of the triage line? What is its relationship to the newly scanned patients? I encourage clinic workers to attempt revivification even when the DNA Extractor gives a cortex damage warning message. It should be fairly easy for us to see if this warning message is a guarantee that the first patient in the triage line suffers from Brain Rot or if the message is only warning us that the triage line somewhere contains such a patient. We just need to find a case in which we can revive a patient after the warning message is given.--Wojciech Zurek 00:33, 5 May 2006 (BST)

• There is also the difficult question of what to do with this incurable (without using more sophisticated treatment facilities) patients. I would like to encourage him or her to leave the clinic, and the only method I know to do this is using violence. It is awful to resort to violence against this poor soul, but as far as I can tell, it does not do any permanent damage and may allow us to treat other patients who can then return to their families and aid in the safety of Malton. I only worry that engaging in these cold acts of violent efficiency would be damaging to my own sanity. Also, there is another research question I have not yet been able to answer: If I have just attempted and failed to revive a patient with cortex damage, and then I attack a patient with my Fire Axe, am I attacking the same patient I have just failed to treat? We need someone who can easily "kill" a patient in a single day to help with this research, as I have little skill with weapons. This person should revive patients until finding one with cortex damage (where this is accomplished by wasting a syringe). Then he or she should "kill" a patient. After the killing, he or she will then attempt again to revive a patient. If the second revivification is successful we have good reason to believe that the cortex damaged patient was "killed". Research of this type might also be significantly advanced if we had a volunteer who was willing to become a zombie temporarily and could then report to us his or her own experiences while part of a "stack", but I am certainly not willing to volunteer for this duty, nor am I ready to ask anyone else to subject themselves to such an experience.--Wojciech Zurek 00:33, 5 May 2006 (BST)

• I have heard people claiming that wasting a syringe is equivalent to wasting at least 30 action points, but this is far from the truth. The probability to find a syringe in a NecroTech laboratory is approximately 12.4% (see the Item/Location Table), so it requires on average 8 action points to find a syringe. Making syringes requires 20 action points, so it is much faster to search for syringes. When a syringe is used on a patient with cortex damage only one action point is used. Therefore wasting a syringe on a cortex damaged patient wastes only 9 action points. I therefore advise clinic workers to (1) always search for syringes (unless the Item/Location Table gives a search probability less than or equal to 5%) (2) use syringes even when the Extractor gives a warning message. (3) after wasting a syringe immediately use another and another. The results of (2) will tell us if the Extractor's warning message is a guarantee of syringe wasting. The results of (3) will tell us if using a syringe moves a cortex damage patient to the back of the triage line.--Wojciech Zurek 00:33, 5 May 2006 (BST)

• I encourage other clinic workers to pursue research along these lines, but let me emphasize the need for careful attention to the events you actually experience and not on rumors you hear in the safe-house at night. I believe there are many common misconceptions in this area. Also, be willing to waste a few syringes in this effort. A clear understanding of zombie stack dynamics will greatly enhance the efficiency of the clinic.--Wojciech Zurek 00:33, 5 May 2006 (BST)

• • Today I entered the revivification clinic where 28 poor patients were waiting for treatment. My first action was to use my DNA extractor, and it gave me the message that all patients have been fully scanned and a warning that patient Maxime suffers from cortex damage. I then activated my extractor again and received exactly the same message. Next I used a syringe and successfully revived a patient. I immediately used a second syringe and revived a second. I activated my extractor and received the same message as before. I then revived two more patients using two more syringes. Exhausted, I returned to my safe house for the night. These events are clear proof that the Extractor's "patients fully scanned / Brain Rot warning" is not a guarantee that a syringe will be wasted. The patient reported in the "patients fully scanned" message may be far back in the triage line. It is quite likely that you can do good work with a syringe. Use it! Do not kill patients based on the Extractor's report. The assumption stated by MorthBabid above is false and is causing viable patients to be attacked when they could be revived. I wonder why the Extractor gives Maxime's data in the "patients fully scanned" report? Perhaps it preferentially chooses a patient with cortex damage to give the warning. On the other hand it may be selecting Maxime because he or she has been at the clinic for such a long time.--Wojciech Zurek 23:54, 5 May 2006 (BST)

• How is this study going? Is there a separate wiki page for this sort of research? I'd be very very interested in such a study, as right now the revive point I'm operating has a rotter in the queue. The last time I revived there with no profile, I got a failure, even though I'm pretty sure that the person I (last) scanned wasn't a rotter (it's been a while, though). I stopped after that, went back to restock instead. This time I went back, still no profiles with me, and scanned the stack. Got one "regular" zombie, and then the next one I scanned was also an ordinary one, but there was a notification that all the specimens have been scanned. So I use my syringe and then... I come up with a rotter. Maybe the same rotter? It's putting a damper on my reviving, hence I'd love to know i if there is any movement on this research. (EDIT: Sorry, forgot to put my sig.) -- Angela 15:58, 20 May 2006 (BST)

• With the recent changes to how DNA Extractor works, this thread is rather moot. Just make sure to use your DNA Extractor as a guide for revivifying if you have no emergency contacts in the stack! Simple, no? Lets see if it lasts. Thanks for all the input. --MorthBabid 14:55, 26 July 2006 (BST)

• I'll be honest I dont fully understand the scanning because Ive tried moving down the stack and I got the same zombie with cortex damage. However wouldnt a simple solution be to give zombies in stacks a number next to the word zombie? Then we could go striaght to a particular zombie in the drop-down menu. jed636 11:30 02 Auguast 2006

Reviving at random or for a quick "kill" or for revenge creates a PKer

Just stating the obvious: if you revive a zed who doesn't appear to be looking for a revive you give them an excuse to begin player killing. Don't do it. Alzuun

• Anyone who says they engage in hot Survivor on Survivor action becuase they got RR'd is a liar, as one does not need such an excuse to pk. I say if you're truly dedicated to the cause of the living, it is your sacred duty to spread sweet delicous dukkha to those damnable shamblers anyway you can. - Amazing Hector 12:47, 2 September 2006 (BST)

Find Rate

From the news section, "evidence strongly indicates that the syringe find rate has been raised to 10%." What evidence? --Panopticon 03:59, 21 April 2006 (BST)

The only kind available in UD. A lot of trial and error. Our groups research concurs with Sunnysides post. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 13:30, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Too few NTs now

Is it just me or is the fact that there are very few NTs now affecting the city rather badly for everyone? After the game changes Kevan implemented affecting NTs, the revive points in my suburb are literally exploding. This, from the days that it was actually DIFFICULT to come across dead/zombified humans to revive. Or are NTs on strike? -- Angela 04:04, 15 April 2006 (BST)

There are some few that tried to start up a strike, but it didn't go far (38 officially on strike on the stats page) every one not reviving hurts us. The MPD happened to reopen the Malton Forensics Unit just before it started getting so much harder to use syringes. We're picking up personnel at a steady rate and working on staffing RP's where we can provide MPD & MFD backup support to the NT staff working the location. Hopefully this will help to get some more consistently functioning RP's that can keep up with the demand. --Gilant 12:24, 15 April 2006 (BST)

I saw that strike plan a few hours after I posted this, and was tempted to do so, but felt that THAT would be pretty much no fun at all. :p I'm sure Kevan will do SOMETHING to fix how sucky playing an NT reviver is... the sooner the better. I visited the wiki page of the MFU, that's pretty interesting. My main is in Santlerville right now and is pretty much unaffiliated, but was an active reviver at the cemetery until she pretty much got killed, lol. Still waiting for a revive as of the moment, but I'm hoping to go back to reviving as soon as I get, er, revived. You're active in Santlerville, yes? Is there anyone stationed in Santlerville I can contact (hopefully in the near future)? -- Angela 18:34, 15 April 2006 (BST)

An Anonymous Person Gets Annoyed

I'm getting annoyed now... I have been trying to get revived near Tollyton (I died in Woodroffe) and I get killed continually by Zombie Hunters! I went to the Kempsterbank one - Nobody seemed to come and revive a large number of zombies, and it seemed like people were coming past and picking a few off. I went down a West Grayside one - I've been killed... 2 times now. I went to try and find a survivor for help... And I get killed again! Zombie Hunters - How would you feel in my posistion?

They don't care. Zombies are just XP to them, even those at revive points. This is almost as bad as PK. --Drummer boy 11:33, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)

• If you are really *really* in need, then come to Whittenside, I am in charge of the location, we are literally zombie hunters free now, and rather efficient as well, all thanks to the WMC. :D.--Changchad 13:26, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Brain Rotter

I don't know how I should add this in, but it seems we have a zombie with brain rot staying at our revive point, not allowing us to revive anybody. Those players should be eliminated immediately. Unfortunately I didn't have enough AP to kill the zombie tonight. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 00:59, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

My advice for that problem is don't exempt revivifications points of cleansing raids with personel who are trained to shot zeds in the head. Also if you can provoke the individuals with brain rot to attack you, grab their profile and add it to you contact list, from then on don't revive them and persecute them (ei Headshot them) until they go away.--Matthew-Stewart 21:08, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)

You should be able to do a DNA sample first, to determine if you've got a brain rotter. If it comes up clean, syringe and repeat. "Cleansing raids" are nothing more than excuses to farm XP at the expense of poor zeds who just want a chance at life again. --Drummer boy 11:30, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Now that zombies with Brain Rot are eligible for revives (via techs with the NecroNet Access skill), what is the protocol for BrainRotten zombies who wish revivification? There I was, standing patiently at the West Becktown revive point this evening, and I got headshot for it. If you can't help me, fine--but I was there in good faith. If and when a rule for those zombies for whom hope has suddenly blossomed appears, it needs to be publicized. G Trout 04:55, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)

A zombie with brain rot can only be revived inside a powered necrotech building, so a regular revive point won't work. Your best bet is probably to break into a lighted Necrotech place (don't break the generator) and "Mrh?". - Dashiva 16:02, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)

The in-the-building part was something that it took me a while to realize--I wish somebody might have pointed it out sooner, rather than just shooting me in the head and yelling "OMG ROTT3R Z3DS DIE" etc. I'll give the break-in a try, and cross my fingers. G Trout 23:20, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Map

Could anyone create a map for revivification points ? This way people would be able to think spatialy where there is one or more rev points nearby. --Hagnat 04:17, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• and this talk page could use some cleaning... damn, what a mess! Not doint it myself cuz this is not a page i visit often to see what's important and whats not --Hagnat 04:19, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Not quite an RP map, but this: [1] is very useful for finding the RPs listed on the wiki, and a lot of other things. --Brazzy 16:38, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I've added a map to the page, I hope you like it! The script which I use to generate the map is available. Vasi 11:20, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Since Vasi is retiring the wiki stuff, i'm proposing a new and easier to understand map. It will require a little bit of extra effort to mantain, but at least people would be able to readly recognize the surburb they have to go to get revived. --hagnat ^talk 03:21, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

Coming along with this map, we could create a template for revivification points... so we could get rid of thiw awfull table. --hagnat ^talk 03:21, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

I've regenerated Vasi's map today, and I'll see if I can do it on a regular basis -- Mettaur 09:05, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Possibly a stupid question about the new revive request tool

I don't know my profile ID # that it's requesting. How do I find this info? If anyone wants to know, I'm waiting at St Swithun's Church.

Click on the link for your name in the game. The URL for that next page has your ID. --Drummer boy 20:28, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Siege Danger

• Listing these locations can increase the possibility they become under seige. It seems the number of zombie sympathizers is larger than the number of human sympathizers quite often. --Fuzzytek 22:39, 16 Oct 2005 (BST)

PLEB openly mentions their revive point on their group page. I don't see why listing it here as well is any different. They can always remove the information if they don't like it. --Raelin 04:01, 17 Oct 2005 (BST)

Also, a rev point doesn't have to be a necrotech building, or any building at all--it can simply be a particular bit of street that scientists go every once in a while to revive zombies. Since the survivors wouldn't STAY there, there'd be no way for the zeds to track them any more than zeds can track anyone walking outdoors, save maybe sitting on the spot and refreshing constantly until a scientist showed up and then attacking them. --SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel 18:42, 17 Oct 2005 (BST)

some organizational commentary

I suggest we start removing comments from the table that are over two weeks old: the table is getting quite long and stale info helps nobody, anyway. That brings me to my next point: everyone, sign your comments, please! At least with the date. And let's consider splitting the table up into NW, NE, SW, SE, also. There's no easy way to tell if Southeast Malton has any revive points, for example, the way it is set up now. --Drummer boy 22:20, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Please note that I have started reordering the layout on both the discussion page and the article, and will make other cosmetic changes for ease of use.
I will also be removing stale info. It is not in our interests to keep months-old information on revivification points. It just makes it harder to get the vital information we need, fast. That being said, please list any concerns with what I am doing here; I welcome your input. --Drummer boy 01:55, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)

This article is getting hard to read, and futhermore it seems like we've got a *lot* of questionable locations mixed in there with the reliable ones. I see Drummer_boy has gone though and marked a number of locations with "No update in last two weeks - assume closed." I think that's a good idea. But maybe we could even take it a stap farther and put those kinds of entries in a seperate section? An "approach at your own risk" section, if you will? I rely on this page of the Wiki whenever I'm travelling a long distance across the city, as I'm sure many other do, and it's really frustrating to seek out a nearby revive clinic that has had "no update in two weeks," only to discover that it is, in fact, not operational.--Elmer Addison 21:01, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I was hoping to use the no-update as a baseline, and encourage people to report in at least weekly. However, as you can see, I've met resistance from a few people who don't want to spend a couple of minutes to do that. And revive point status changes rapidly - as of the 26th of January, for example, West Becktown had an established revive point, but in under two days that sanctuary became a shooting gallery. Right now, there are probably still zeds travelling to it from a couple districts over, thinking it will be there. --Drummer boy 11:22, 29 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Starting a new Revive Point- suggestions, comments, observations, snide remarks...

So, our Group is trying to start up a new Revive Point, and clearly, there are a couple of a paradoxes in starting one up. Without advertising (graffiti, word of mouth, the Revive Point page, satisfied customers, etc.), no one knows about it- but by the nature of the game, you can't spread the word quickly. Without a stream of clients, few Lab Tech's are excited about visiting regularly; without regular Tech's, the site isn't viable.

Anyone have any stories of how they started their's up, or words of wisdom on what mistakes to avoid, etc? Thnx.

When I started our revive point I only spraypainted in the 8 blocks surrounded it, and then spraypainted on the revive point that it was a revive point and the place to go to request the revive. This was good for one person or a small group to handle. Since my revive point was right next to Marven Mall there were about two people getting a revive everyday. This kept it easy for my one NT to handle. This is how I personally suggest how to start it. Before you know it more people will know about it and more people will be helping you revive people.

Also make sure to pick a revive point that is in a good location. You want a place that is fairly close to a hospital, close to a necrotech, and also close to a heavily populated area. (an entrance point is a plus)

Finally my last suggestion. Make sure that you start a forum and get the person's profile before reviving them. Rotters and carreer zombies like to sleep there and state they never saw the revive point tag which is in all caps. Then they accuse you of combat revives and shotgun you. You don't want that. So to avoid that trouble simply make it revive only upon request.

I hope that helps some... there are probably people whos revive points are bigger and better than mine that could help you out a whole lot more, but here is as much as I can give you. --TheBigT 23:59, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Revivification Centers

• I think that it would really help in siege situations such as Caiger Mall to use decentralized revivification strategy. Lots of zombies in a single square makes it impossible to revive when there's more that one rotter in the group. However, if zombies stand one or two to a square, rotters can be avoided by going elsewhere. In future, the points listed here should be considered to be the center of a 3x3 block in which zombies should spread out. One zombie standing alone when he could easily be in the 500+ horde. Giltwist 01:08, 14 March 2006 (GMT)

Please update this page.

No, not that page, this one. The talk page. The list will benefit from random, messy information added here by people who can't be bothered with the wiki proper. What I'm asking for here is current information. This was a very handy entry when I started playing; no reason it can't be handy again. Please add current information here, or put it on the entry proper if you prefer, and note any outdated information you'd like to see remain for history's sake, any other cleanup concerns, etc. Thanks. --einexile 08:02, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Last call. If you want an inactive revive point to remain on the list, please mark it active or comment it with an estimate of when it will again become active, or any other sensible reason to keep a useless entry on that list. --einexile 11:34, 1 May 2006 (BST)

I've changed all the points which haven't been commented on since Feb to "Unknown" (aside: you can see the current state of the war reflected on the map now, with more unknown and dangerous points in center-east and more active points on the outer edges). As a general rule, I think old points should have the state changed to "Unknown", and points which are unknown or inoperative for a while should be removed. What constitutes "old" and "a while" may differ, but 2 months is enough time for someone to comment on a RP. -- Mettaur 11:05, 4 May 2006 (BST)

I think two weeks is a sufficient period for changes, in 'UD time'. 2 weeks without a comment to become "Unknown", 2 weeks without a comment to let people know it's working again or trying to be recovered or such at "Unknown" or "Inoperative" for it to be removed. That's 4 weeks for a spot to go from it's last update to removed. It's not like some can't put it right back a week later if it gets up and running again! Better to have useful, up to date information for getting revived than waiting around for days at an RP no one is watching. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 14:48, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Just a note to say I did see your responses here and simply put off replying having been caught up in unwanted drama elsewhere. At any rate since I criticized the page before I just wanted to poke my head in and say thanks for all the work you did. --einexile 16:43, 12 June 2006 (BST)

I would love to assist with updating the main revive point page. Many entries are over two months old and some are even edited and marked as unknown with old dates. Two weeks may be harsh but many of these entries are way beyond that. I'll give whoever wants to comment, two weeks to do so before I begin editing. I will mark all entries over two months old as 'unknown' along with my own timestamp and will delete them after an additional month (if no one objects).--Ablesentinel 14:36, 14 October 2006 (BST)

Well I have marked alot of Revive points unknown today and alot more need doing. I think the page needs a major overhaul and I believe I may start a discussion to see the best way to move forward as these methods seem old and outdated. What you have said is a decent idea Ablesentinel, but I feel getting the view of the community would probably help first. Pillsy ^FT 13:00, 16 October 2006 (BST)

• I have created a page Revivification Point/Redesign to outline what changes I feel are needed and also for discussion. Pillsy ^FT 14:12, 16 October 2006 (BST)

Split Map/List section

Edit - we are now working on this. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 14:37, 11 May 2006 (BST)

First off, as of today I'm taking care of regenerating the map, using Vasi's tools.

Second, the list is getting too long, and I think we should split the Location information into a seperate page - "List of Revive Points " or similar. --Mettaur 09:01, 28 April 2006 (BST)

I'm going to delete the old rev points marked Inactive and separate out the ones that have gone unverified for more than a month. The article right now is pure shit and the list is not worth separating to another page. --einexile 11:34, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Please be certain to coordinate with Mettaur and I before you actually commit any changes, as we have tools that automatically parse the table. We'll want to check what you do ASAP in case it breaks anything. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 15:42, 1 May 2006 (BST)

From Mettaur's talk page:

I agree splitting this off to make a new page might make things a bit more manageable. It
would also open up room for a little more general information on the main page. My only
worry is that it would make it easy to miss, so we would want to put something prominent
pointing to the new page near the top as well. And be sure to leave the same section heading
for the list with the pointer to the new page below it, in case anyone has a link directly
to that section.

As for the list table itself, it seems to beg for some way to make it more organized. But
I haven't figured out a way to break it up that makes a lot of sense. Dividing the city
into quadrants (NW, NE, SW, SE) is one possibility, but I could very well be very biased
in that view as that's how we break up the city for command positions inside the DEM.
Another possibility could be breaking it into 4 or 6 sections, such as A-F, G-L etc or
some such (should really look at the distribution of suburb names to make roughly equal
sections). The main thing is to be sure it's enough sections to get a TOC that provides
a quick jump to the right section.

If you do do something with the table, please be sure to keep me in the loop, as any
change or move will break my nightly parsing of the table to update the sites in the
Revivification Requests tool.

Thanks! --Gilant talk|DEM 01:42, 1 May 2006 (BST)

I'm sure there are still revive points active which haven't been mentioned in a month - note that people usually update the table when they are having trouble at a certain point, not when everything is going fine. A better solution would be to have a separate column for the date last checked, although this might mean changing some of the parsing code. -- Mettaur 17:11, 1 May 2006 (BST)

A change like a new column would be fairly simple. We could set it such that someone maintaining/working that location needs to just sign the cell at least once every two weeks, similar to how the recruitment page works. We then add one more status type, 'Unverified'. RP's with no report or maintainer sig for > 2 weeks become unverified, after being unverified for 1 (2?) week they are removed? --Gilant ^talk|DEM 17:43, 1 May 2006 (BST)