UDWiki:General Discussion

Community Portal – General Discussion – Wiki Questions – Featured Articles – Did You Know

Shortcut: GD General Discussion The General Discussion page is a page for discussion not suited to other areas of the Wiki. For some discussions, other areas are used: For developing a suggestion, or suggesting something for inclusion in the game, use Developing Suggestions and the Suggestions system For bug reports, use the Bug Reports page If you wish to have an page moved, use the move requests page If you wish to have your own page removed, use speedy deletions (criterion 7.) If you wish to have any other page deleted, use deletions For discussion pertaining to a particular page or user, use the page's talk or user talk page

When starting a new discussion on this page, please add it at the bottom with a relevant title. Please sign all comments using four tides (~~~~), or the button. This page is for shorter discussions - please don't add irrelevant discussions (see the column to your left) or spam to this page. Older discussions will periodically be moved into archives.

Let's see if this works

Testing if my url hackage to allow the use of the + button on a regular page worked. Looks like it did.

Everyone okay with this (particularly the big blue box above)? Linkthewindow  Talk  08:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Add some big pretty links to CP and stuff. We should try and integrate all the community links within one another's pages. It'll promote usage. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll add a navigation bar, somewhere then. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:16, 30 March 2009 (BST)

AP loss for actions that don't actually require things to be done

I've noticed after reading some suggestions such as "make clicking spray can less painful and more helpful" that certain people have a view that losing an AP for clicking a spray can, for example, is a good sort of negative reinforcement, and that the AP loss that results from said clicking will discourage you from making the "mistake" again. Why should clicking on something that doesn't do anything have an AP penalty? If someone suggested having no AP cost for speaking (which really does make sense, as speaking doesn't require much energy or action at all, other than opening your mouth), I would have to disagree as making speaking "free" would result in a lot of random useless conversations pertaining to people's mothers. However, I don't see why clicking on something that doesn't do anything (like clicking your binoculars in a building other than a tower) costs an AP. The only reason I can see that people would advocate such a penalty is like I said above; as a penalty and discouragement from making the "mistake" again. However, I feel that (for actions that don't result in any effect to players other than the person clicking, such as the binoculars or spray can example) this shouldn't result in an AP penalty, as simply pressing the wrong button shouldn't take up energy or whatever AP symbolizes. In fact, I'm pretty sure that using up one of your 160 daily hits allowed on the main page is enough of a punishment to anyone who clicks on something that doesn't actually do anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScaredPlayer (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Quantifying Danger

So, I've recently been messing about with my EMR Bot to allow me to more easily update the danger level of suburbs based on the given report. I'm having it pull up suburb news so I can take that into account obviously, but for suburbs whose news is too outdated to affect the current report, having the bot automatically select a half decent status would be handy. I can always manually change the status based on what I see, or can instruct it to just leave the suburb alone if needed. What I'm really trying to get at here is: given statistics from an EMR, and given no other recent info, what danger levels would a human user tend to choose? Personally, I think the current descriptions are a little off given their age and trends in gameplay (very dangerous should be 100 zombies since there are less players these days, and ghost town should have a lower "max zombie" limit, 60 zombies in a dead suburb is pretty dangerous)

Anyway, for the uninitiated, the current descriptors read as follows:

• Safe - Break-ins rare, max 50+ zombies in suburb and no zombie groups above 10.
• Moderately Dangerous - Active zombies and break-ins, but no 50+ hostile hordes.
• Dangerous - Zombies inside many resource buildings; OR hostile mobs of 50+.
• Very Dangerous - Most buildings wide open or zombie-infested; OR hostile zombie mobs of 150+.
• A Ghost Town - At least 2/3rds of the suburb's buildings either Empty of Survivors or Ransacked/Ruined AND having no zombie mobs of over 10 and no total zombies over 60.

For those unfamiliar with EMR, you might wish to pay a visit to EMRP and read up on what the shorthand means. Anyway, I started with the basic idea that the four infrastructure levels can map pretty neatly onto the four danger levels. *** being safe and --- being V.Dangerous. This makes sense.

Next comes accounting for zombies, any suburb is V.Dangerous if it has 150+ zombies in. Dangerous if it has 50+. These are stated. I prefer 100+ for V.Dangerous myself. One can logically extend this basis whereby certain levels of zombies present moderate danger or safety given certain infrastructure. Infrastructure of **- is usually moderate danger, but no zombies in the area? Then it's safe anyway.

Next comes fitting in the unusual ghost town. This isn't as hard as it first seems, a suburb with little to no infrastructure is dangerous to survivors, but at the same time a low zombie presence offers some sense of safety. So for *-- and --- suburbs with low zombie numbers, we can use this designation handily to avoid the weirdness of trying to use moderate or standard danger.

I have given a rough diagram of the actual numbers I would use in my sandpit. It should be pretty self explanatory, infrastructure levels along the top, zombies down the side and the colour gives the danger level. If you were updating a danger level based on a report, would your status tend to fit the diagram, or would it vary significantly? --  RoosterDragon  01:08, 31 March 2009 (BST)

Maybe, you have to take into account of who the zombies are and where they are located. A mob of 125 zombies is fairly dangerous, but if all they're doing is sitting outside a mall, then they're not posing as much of a threat to the suburb as a whole. I might say moderate, instead of dangerous or very dangerous. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:38, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Aye, and I would agree, but say I wasn't privy to such info because the burb news hadn't been updated in a while and so I only have the report for reference. I would be stuck with my initial assumption. Although the program suggests a status, I have it look up the recent 'burb news for just such info so I can adjust the level manually if I need to. Regardless, given even just 100 zombies, I would always go for V.Dangerous no matter how intact the 'burb. The core question of my discussion however, being "Would you?" --  RoosterDragon  20:54, 3 April 2009 (BST)

If someone told me there was "100 zombies in the 'burb" I would go by whatever the guideline said (so V.Dangerous). I suppose, it should be defaulted to the guideline, unless there is reason to change it? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:59, 3 April 2009 (BST)

PLEASE remember that EMR don't include zeds inside buildings. both ghost towns and "Safe" Zones with groups of 20+ zombies in a single building aren't really covered. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:00, 3 April 2009 (BST)

I know that, but without omnipotence or somebody with a recent update on suburb news, I won't know that there are 20 zeds in wherever. If my choice is a not-totally-informed, but recent, EMR or an outdated bit of suburb news (whose accuracy varies). I personally would go with the EMR every time. However, in order to account for likely zombies in buildings, one might suggest that as a burb gets progressively more ruined I should assume a certain proportion of zombies are inside, thus things become more dangerous more quickly based on this limited info. And I assume higher levels of danger at lower zombies counts. In my diagram, the green/yellow/orange blocks shrink in size a bit and red takes over even more room. --  RoosterDragon  21:19, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Fair enough. Unless a bit of recent news contradicts the EMR, I think its the best we're going to get. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:08, 4 April 2009 (BST)

Project Userboxes

I've been thinking about making a page for a while with most of the userboxes made on the wiki - like they have on wikipedia. It will make it easier for newbs to make userpages (and we could expand it to have several common themes for userpages as well.

Thoughts? (sorry if I was a bit unclear.) Linkthewindow  Talk  11:16, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Short and simple, I think this is a good idea. :) --D.E.ATalk 12:28, 7 April 2009 (BST)