UDWiki talk:Open Discussion/DangerMap Version 4

From The Urban Dead Wiki
< UDWiki talk:Open Discussion
Revision as of 03:16, 29 April 2019 by DanceDanceRevolution (talk | contribs) (Protected "UDWiki talk:Open Discussion/DangerMap Version 4": Inactive Open Discussions ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Discuss the proposed changes to the DangerMap system here.


Currently I've set the goals at:

  • Make Danger Reports more relevant to the game's decreased playerbase.
  • Make danger levels more NPOV.
  • Build on existing system. Don't reinvent the wheel.

Anything we would add as goals? ~Vsig.png 15:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be somewhat clean looking. Like the map is now. Maybe a max of two additional icons in the map square. For example the map at that bottom end of this header with all it's links has too much stuff on it.        15:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I think we could get by without any icons if we use <noinclude>. Just include the images on the template proper with a link to the template on the included version. One link and no images for the purpose of the map should be fine. ~Vsig.png 16:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
So you mean no images on the map itself just on the suburb's danger report page? I'm referring to this page. On a side note would it be fair to say we should stick with the current color scheme (green-red) as it is what everyone is accustomed to and the meanings of those colors are pretty universally recognized (ie. red=bad, green=good)? Also, here is what I'm doing in my sandbox.        16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes that's what I mean. The map would look the same as it did now except for perhaps a link that goes directly to the danger template (User:DangerReport/South_Blythville for example). We can keep the same color schema as now. ~Vsig.png 16:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
That might work out, although I think most people would skip past the link and just use the map color as we do now. Heck I'd probably not bother clicking the link most of the time.        16:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Relevant Discussion

Any topics of discussion that I've missed? ~Vsig.png 15:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


Any that should be eliminated/merged from the list of ideas? Any to add? ~Vsig.png 15:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else ever results of this discussion, could you chaps at least revise the current numbers downwards? I don't know about the rest of you, but I consider even caded areas not exactly safe at 50 zombies, and I doubt anybody actually thinks a full 150 zombies or more is a requirement for very dangerous suburb. Specifics are up to you, but rewriting the current wording is cheap. Changing the actual system is much crazier. -- User:The Rooster RoosterDragon User talk:The Rooster 17:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
i agree ...i can do that manually with help ...User:Subject 0001 was doing it for a month or so and User:Jason Lundquist is pretty active. That's what's wrong with our society today ...we depend on (ro)bots ...manually updating EMRs can be done daily if 2 or 3 users are dedicated. the only thing i ask is for clear definitions of EMR terms like operational (rebuilding? safe w/o power?), being held (rebuilding?/under attack? but doesn't state "a few zombies are outside The X Building"), some survivor activity (rebuilding?), out of action (no power?), looking wrecked (ransacked?), has fallen (ruined?) ...there's no mention of this on this page ...does anyone know? i've tried having 3 of active alts in NT (ruined, powered, "dark") buildings to understand the summary better (2/12 NT scan, 2/12 EMR ..got lucky once) Son of Sin 18:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Population Based discussion

My vote is for this option. Fairly easy to assess at a glance and subjective enough to be a little fluid as actual player numbers and ratios fluctuate. Perhaps too many "levels", but I strongly believe this is the way to go. --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 10:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

no to this 1 ..."survivor-controlled" could be a lie ...if zombies aren't trying to eat survivors in a particular suburb, that doesn't make it survivor-controlled ...some malls appear to be survivor-controlled until a zombie mob decides to attack 1 corner ...and some survivors report running away when ~10 zombies scratch at the doors ...~10 zombies against 30+ "shoppers" ...they don't deserve to be called survivors ...anyway, this idea is worse than the current model. Son of Sin 12:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This is my second choice. It is population based but it does get away from using numbers of zombies in a burb as the deciding factor in burb danger. I guess it is more of a population/infrastructure hybrid. Fewer categories and better naming and this could be a real contender for the new system. ~Vsig.png 15:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It is basically the same system we have now just basing it more on the ability of the zombies to break in and eat survivors instead of zombies numbers. It's an improvement and if we use the same color scheme as we have now it's only a matter of updating a few templates I believe.        16:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Infrastructure Based discussion

Why do some of the terms have to be so... gay? Fortress? Battleground? The latter should surely be called something better like 'contested', and as for fortress, dunno. But it's lameness annoys me. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not my favorite choice of verbage either. Nor do I really like the colors. Any suggestions? ~Vsig.png 01:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I could get used to the colours. I'll think of some potential names perhaps DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
In all honestly, to be a complete negative Nancy, I dislike everything about this option except for that fact it's based on ruins. Is six options really better than four?        02:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

and no ...i don't think NPOV means 2 levels for survivors, 2 levels for zombies and 2 neutral levels Son of Sin 12:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Son of Sin 12:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

EMR Based discussion

Just throwing this out there to make note of it. If we do happen to update our map with icons on it we should look at possibly upping the size of the map some for more space and to look less cluttered. I'm playing with stuff in my sandbox.        16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What if instead of images, color coding is used as I've tired to demonstrate here? ~Vsig.png 18:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Seems a tad ambiguous is the only thing. I'm in favor of more direct signage. I've got the full mock up using ZL's method here if you want to see how it looks, sooo many lightbulbs :P. We can debate the icons/colors/etc. later on, are we both in agreement to use Zombie Lord's EMR based ratings? Or a different method? Also, we might break the general discussion into sub headers where each person's favored idea can be refined into a final product if the idea has someone supporting it to do the work.       21:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah Infrastructure Based Refined seems like best option to me. Kind of a merger of Danger Report and EMR in a single map with new bells and whistles. Individual headers for each suggested map type sounds good but we could probably eliminate all but a couple of the suggestions, honestly. ~Vsig.png 22:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we could get rid of ZL's first infrastructure based system as it's the first rendition of the refined system. Is there a way we could tie a suburbs EMR to the suburb danger report page to make it auto update? I might play with that in my sandbox when I get some time. A map that auto updates itself would be nifty if it doesn't break the wiki.        00:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm also looking to remove the ratio based system if it doesn't get any support. Is burb EMR bot updated still? I don't know about Map auto updating but this would certainly open up the possibility of bot Danger updates. ~Vsig.png 00:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure rooster still runs the EMR bot to update all the pages every now and then. Although it hasn't been done in a few months judging by the page.        00:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If I may. The numbers seem superfluous, as does the mast icon. Both of those are more easily conveyed via the EMR report on the individual suburb pages and do not need to clutter up the Suburb page. The "Ghost Town" and "PKer Presence" seem unnecessary; you won't put the "Ghost Town" on a suburb that is in good condition because that implies survivor presence, and what qualifies "PKer Presence"? A group? One man? Ambiguous and not needed.

Generally speaking I would say that the Infrastructure model is a poor one for the Suburb page. That has always been used to reflect population and I think it should remain so. If we want to make a color-coded map for the EMR reports, then I can see some aspects of this Infrastructure model working just fine as an alternative. --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 09:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

...i like this idea as i think i mentioned in another discussion ...but the wording could be simply ...Intact, Minor/Heavy Damage, and Wrecked ...no need for infrastructure/structural ...danger levels should be solely based on infrastructure, not population ...pop. is the main problem w/ the system ... what should this suburb's danger level be: 25.96 MHz: "... maybe fifty in Dartside ... mostly just small groups ... power's on across most of the area ... infrastructure looks intact ... the Bagnall Building has lights on ..." EMR doesn't say anything about structural damage or ruins ...50 zombies in small groups in a seemingly safe, maybe moderately dangerous, suburb which is intact ...buildings are intact, therefore survivors are safe, and obviously zombies are safe because survivors aren't outside killing ~50 wandering zombies ... point is...#s don't matter if neither side is hostile ...just my 2 cents Son of Sin 11:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

oh the only thing i don't like are the icons ...ghost town isn't necessary ...whether a suburb is intact & deserted or ruined & deserted, it should be covered in "Intact" or "Wrecked" ...PKer presence isn't part of EMRs ...if PKers are in a suburb, someone should write a report in the suburb's news section Son of Sin 11:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
suburb pages should provide detailed information, not the suburb danger map ...and i think the EMRP is fine although i do like the phone mast & lightbulb icons ...add a little style Son of Sin 11:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
@Maverick, yes clutter is a big concern. I've been trying to mock something up which looks less cluttered than Zombie Lord's version. It uses small color-coded squares rather than images to indicate power levels, ghost town and PK presence. See here for a rather bleak beginning. I could probably do without ghost town indication but substantial PKer presence in a "safe" burb can easily turn it to "unsafe". PKer presence would need to be quantified of course. One or two guys would not make an impact. A group of PKers would. We still want to convey a sense of Danger using the map but using the most neutral quantifying values, which is burb's infrastructure. Population based reporting may have been ok in a time when the game's population was growing. Due to the steady decline in numbers, though, I sincerely believe it is time for a change. EMR based reporting seems the best way to go IMHO.
@SoS, the EMR report you provided would likely put the burb in "infrastructure Intact" or "Green" status. The update process would mean typing "A" "B" "C" or "D" (or some other system) instead of "safe" "moderately dangerous" "dangerous" or "very dangerous". On the ground reports will still be the best option for updating reports but EMR reports could also be more easily used. ~Vsig.png 15:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The PKer presence icon would be used very sparingly, because more often than not we don't really change much anymore. The biggest thing is the state of infrastructure directly relates to the safety of a suburb most of the time. Your not going to see a large survivor presence living in ruins just like a large zombie horde won't leave a suburb barricaded and powered for long. Now depending on the time the EMRs come the info might be out of date the next day, so the danger level can still be manually changed if need be. I just looked through a few danger report pages and there are some that haven't changed since July. Using EMRs might give a nearly total refresh of the map what every 2-3 weeks?       16:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I looked a bit more into the possibility of an auto updating EMR based map. Unfortunately, the EMRP: Suburb pages (EMRP: Dakerstown for example) are not templates, just tables. Otherwise it would be a rather easy task to make a new EMR Map. It might still be doable, but the EMRP: Suburb pages would need to be converted over to a template format with variables. Then a second formatter template could be could be used to parse EMRP: Suburb pages into a map format. It would take a lot of work but would be doable. Couple of problems though. 1) The bots would need to be updated 2) there is no way to build onto the existing DangerMap system. It would be from scratch and that could be a problem. Literally thousands of pages would need to be updated since the User:DangerReport/Suburb pages would be obsolete. It would be more logical to just turn this idea into EMRM2 and go with a different idea for the Suburb map; one that builds on the existing system. ~Vsig.png 06:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean scraping this whole idea or just the novelty of an auto updating map? Since if we just scrap the auto updating idea then it might just be a matter of changing the inputs of the template that controls the colors. Where as instead of putting safe you'd type in ***. I'm assuming that template is universal to all the pages(so we'd only have a few pages to update instead of thousands)?        15:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Just the auto-updating. And I wouldn't say I want to scrap it just that it would probably be best as a different map. I've spent quite a bit of time the last few days looking everything over to see what the impact on the current system would be for each of the proposed changes. I'll put something in the General Discussion area. ~Vsig.png 15:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey chaps. Figured I'd pop in and give my 2 cents. Something that should be done regardless if converting EMRP: <suburb> pages into a "choose your own template" type of page like current danger reports (both building and suburb). That is to say you should be able to call the page and specify a template so you can format the data however you like. I even made Template:EMR way back when but never got around to using it.

Quick example:

|Dec 25

So yeah, you could make a new map that uses the data in but a few moments if you did that. Anyway, onwards.

Regarding my bot updating danger reports: When I actually cared enough to run the bot actively, it would use the infrastructure as a starting point and make an adjustment up/down if the numbers were extreme enough either way. The numbers were hard because even then the definitions on the suburb page had long been outdated and in need of revising downwards. Plus EMR numbers don't count zombies inside of buildings which limits their use. I didn't care about the power or mast or anything, because nobody gives a shit about those things. I think I got complained at for a bug where an old EMR was replacing a newer human update, but I don't think anybody actually complained at me about the levels.

Regarding auto-updating: Well updating an EMR takes fucking forever. There's the EMR page, a log, then maybe a suburb update, some building updates and a news post, for every EMR. There's like 2-7 daily IIRC so you get tired of that pretty fast. I set up the bot page so somebody could just do one edit a day and I could process them semi-automatically. But hey I got unreliable. If you really want anything resembling an auto-updating map I would impress upon the need for somebody to host a fully automated process on a server of their own to do it. This is seriously your biggest issue. Kittithaj is an ultra-dedicated god who has been keeping the "todo" page up to date, but useless somebody processes it all it's a bit worthless.

Seriously if you want to do anything EMR based then discussion about how to convert EMR values into a nice map is totally pointless unless you can actually get the EMR system automated. -- User:The Rooster RoosterDragon User talk:The Rooster 17:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Woot! Rooster. Glad you showed up my man. I wanted to ping you for your opinion on this once we got a little further along. Thanks for coming in and I agree with basically everything you said above. ~Vsig.png 18:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Until next December then. *vanish* -- User:The Rooster RoosterDragon User talk:The Rooster 00:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
What would it take to fully automate it? Or could you just pass over running the bot to the EMR man Kittithaj?        00:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Ideally somebody with a server that could run a script (not necessarily mine) at set intervals so nobody had to do anything. Alternately, I could hand my program over to whoever wanted to run the semi-automated version. Or maybe tweak it into an automated thing, but you'd still have to set it running yourself whenever you wanted it to do stuff. -- User:The Rooster RoosterDragon User talk:The Rooster 21:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Zombie/Survivor Ratio Based discussion

Does anyone support this idea? ~Vsig.png 01:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a nice idea, but difficult to quantify. Zombies have always been fairly easy to count, but since survivors are naturally hiding inside of buildings, counting them in addition and then coming up with a good ratio seems just silly. --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 10:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The nazi fellow proposed this idea and hasn't be around to support it.        16:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

removed. ~Vsig.png 17:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

General Discussion

Go ahead and place new discussion under this header. ~Vsig.png 15:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(Moved comments to the NPOV Infrastructure Based Revised discussion header as it was almost entirely related to that subject, feel free to revert if I was in the wrong) --Mazu 02:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed some of the headers on both the main page and here in discussion to better reflect the type of systems being proposed. ~Vsig.png 15:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Impact on Existing System

I've taken the time to look deeply into the danger map system and have determined what changes will need to be made for each of the proposed ideas. In keeping with the goal of building on the existing system, I've gone over the impact that each of the proposed changes would have. I've listed them below in order of least amount of impact to highest.

  • Qualifying numbers change - Simply redefine the number of zombies which will qualify a suburb for each of the Danger Levels.
  • NPOV change - Change the names of the danger levels while also redefining the qualifications.
    • This would require about 20 template changes. {{DangerMapnormalsafe}} and {{DangerMapnotablesafe}} would be moved to some other naming structure for example. {{MapColors}} and {{DangerMapFormat}} would also be updated. Each burb's Danger Level would need to be updated during the change. Approximate number of changes: 20 templates + 100 Suburb Danger Level edits
  • EMR based change - Changes to the Danger Level names and added information on the map to indicate power levels, ghost town status, PK presence and zombie levels.
    • This is where it starts to get tricky. We could possibly still build on the same system if we simply want to redefine qualifications and add some icons/indicators. As above, the {{DangerMapnormalsafe}} and related templates would be changed as well as {{MapColors}} and {{DangerMapFormat}}. In addition to the 100 Danger Level changes, each of the Suburb pages would need to be updated as well. Using User:DangerReport/Dakerstown as an example, you can see that many pages other than just the Suburb Map rely on the User:DangerReports/<suburb name> templates to be used in a certain way. Some of these would need to be updated with this change. This option could also run the risk of breaking the template inclusion limits of the Danger Map. Approximate number of changes: 20 templates + 100 Suburb Danger Level edits + at least 200 page edits (and quite possibly many more)
  • Auto Updating EMR change - Danger Map would rely on updates to EMR rather than User:DangerReport/<suburb name> updates. Map would automatically update based on EMR.
    • Easily the most system altering change. This would make the User:DangerReport/<suburb name> pages essentially obsolete and so they would need to be replaced all over the wiki. the EMR:<suburb name> pages would also need to be updated to use templates. All of the changes from above would need to be made as well. Approximate number of changes: 220 templates + an untold number page edits (somewhere in the 1000-2000 range I think)

So based on this and some of the other discussion going on, I'd say our safest bet is somewhere in the middle of these. I'd lean more towards NPOV Infrastructure Based but with a lot of tweaks. I really like the idea of EMR based and think it would make an awesome project but unfortunately I don't think it is a replacement for the current system. I'll probably put some work into a separate auto-updating EMR system over the holidays regardless. ~Vsig.png 16:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

About the auto updating map, I am unsure of the inclusion limit stuff but it might be simpler and less edits to basically reinvent the wheel as you put it. I'd have to look closely at the existing system but just off the top of my head usage of the a template to call one of thw 5 color templates and then the PK image some how. All the EMR auto updating stuff would take place on the given danger report page so there's not too many inclusions on the map page itself, if that is how it works?
But none the less I'd be in favor of a much simpler change like the one above.        03:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem with EMR (non-auto updating) is that the current system has so many moving parts (there are about 7 templates which cause any given danger level to work properly). I sort of beat myself over the head trying to figure out a way to make it all work with the existing system without any major major changes and what I've come up with is that we'd need to create a new template (let's call it Template:EMRFormat) and use something similar the following line of code wherever you find a suburb danger report:
You see the problem? It's that last line of code. It would need to be added anywhere you find a danger report. Could I have overlooked something? Sure. Maybe there is a way to build onto the current system without those changes. Damned if I know how, though. I've stared at it for days and that's the best I could come up with. I'd prefer to put efforts into something that uses the actual EMR updates but isn't necessarily a replacement for the Danger Map, but maybe it needs another set of eyes. ~Vsig.png 04:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
It's very easy to redefine the current levels to be more appropriate. It's very easy to make an auto-updating EMRM. The only hard part is deciding the EMRM would be the new standard, because now you have to change all the places the link to the DangerReports in some way to link to EMRPs is some way. I doubt anybody actually wants to ditch user reports for plain EMRs so I wouldn't worry about having to deal with the pain of all that. Redefine the levels and be done, make a fancy EMRM for a bonus. -- User:The Rooster RoosterDragon User talk:The Rooster 01:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey vapor check out whats in the bottom of my sandbox its basically a modified template of the one we currently use. To implement just that template it's require the creation of 40 new pages for colors and icons, updating the 100 suburb danger report pages, changing the code around on the suburb map page and making the template itself. So only 142 edits in total if I didn't miss anything.        05:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I see where you're going with it. The 40 DMF templates would need to include all of the formatting necessary to add the light bulb icon, though. It doesn't look like you've addressed that part of it yet. That's where I kept getting stuck. I also have to be honest and say I don't really like the way the light bulb icons look. I'd prefer to see something less cluttering. I also still really feel that this would be more of an awesome alternative map rather than a replacement for the current system. ~Vsig.png 06:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
To fit the light bulbs in all you have to do is made the DMF templates output this: style="background color:xxx; font weight:xxx;width:70px"|[[Power image]]<br> and I would agree it might be a tad too busy for the main map. Although if people liked the EMR system we could just get rid of a images and just use colors. If we decide to run with making an alternative map we should include the MPM icon and the zombie numbers as well, like ZL had on his original idea.        00:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I updated the various EMRP pages to use the magical system. There's a basic template up at Template:EMRM. If you want something new, call each EMR with {{:EMRP: <suburb>|template=<template name>}} and then create a template that does something nifty with the given info. -- User:The Rooster RoosterDragon User talk:The Rooster 04:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rooster. I'll start fiddling around with it. ~Vsig.png 04:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

So, Here' a Question.

Why even bother doing any of those, why not just scrap it for a system that shows contested(orange/yellow), uncontested(gray), zombie dominated(red), survivor dominated(green). I mean that's clearly what people have always wanted to system to represent anyway, it's how most people assume it functions and try to use it. So why not just change terms slightly modify requirements to more accurately reflect those realities instead of "survivability/population/infrastructure"(current) since that's clearly a poor and undesired system for doing this anyway. Scrap NPOV make the goal is to show who's doing better where. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 04:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Simple and it works, how do you quantify the level of domination? Number of zombies, ruined buildings and powered buildings. Unless you have a different way in mind.        04:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm leaning mostly towards just that. I don't personally care that much about NPOV but there are some that do so that's why there is consideration being put into it. And like Mazu said, the general consensus seems to be building ruins is what sets the bar for danger levels, not number of zombies in a burb. ~Vsig.png 04:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Certainly just rewording the definitions is by far the easiest to do. No actual systemic changes, just wording that reflects reality. -- User:The Rooster RoosterDragon User talk:The Rooster 01:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Not Dead

I haven't forgotten about this. I made a few half-hearted attempts at a new map during the holidays. I know what needs to be coded I just haven't found the time to sit and do it. I should have the time soon, though. ~Vsig.png 01:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not quite getting why this has to be so hard. Most of the above suggestions while novel ideas will only serve to over clutter the map space, which is what always ends up killing these suggestions anyway. We don't need to do something like this, we shouldn't do something like that. Color, easy obvious meanings, inherent self promotion. Nothing else actually matters beyond impact on the learning curve. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 17:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree actually a simple change to the system would be best. I just really want to do the auto updating map. I had thought to create it and then offer an alternative yet more simple suggestion. Feel free to jump in and give your suggestion for an adjusted danger equation. ~Vsig.png 23:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I've just been massively lazy for the last month. I blame Skyrim. But yes, a few things should stay mainly the 4 color system( 5 if you want to keep the ghost town) and now my realization that images on the map become gawd ugly when there is a hundred of them. Although I do still like the mass PKer presence icon because it would be used sparingly and not overwhelm the eyes. Lastly it still needs to be nailed down if were using infrastructure to figure out the colors or what. I'm in favor of infrastructure reading off the EMRs. It allows the future possibility of an auto updating map and in the absence of active wiki updaters on the ground gives a fairly accurate measurement.        04:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
There should be absolutely no icons on the map, in my humble estimation, because I don't think there is a way to make them not look bad. EMR based ratings are a brilliant idea. The four color system is great, and the NPOV idea is silly. Luckily however, the (brilliant) idea of using infrastructure status as the evaluation rubrik makes the map NPOV by default without requiring any awkward phrasing. CITIZEN VI 23:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
What the upstanding citizen said. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 07:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
So then this without any icons?
Cell Level EMR Rating
Infrastructure Intact ***
Minor Structural Damage **-
Heavy Structural Damage *--
Infrastructure Wrecked ---
Any need to further define what "Infrastructure Intact", "Minor Structural Damage" etc mean for the newb updaters and/or wiki lawyers of the wiki? Perhaps a numeric value attached (ie Infrastructure Intact = 85% building barricaded, "Infrastructure Wrecked"=85% buildings ruined)? We can do the auto updating, icontastic map seperately as a different project I think. ~Vsig.png 07:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I dunno, this seems very easily manipulated by survivors. Cade Strafing for greens comes to mind. I'm thinking more along the lines of Survivor dominated, slight zombie presence, We've got a fight, and there's zombies everywhere. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 23:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't really read much of any of this, but you should examine how the system is used by its users presently, rather than focusing on how it is supposed to be used from the rules. Try to match the rules to how the system is used (because nobody pays attention to what the rules say, instead they use their impression on the status of suburbs... taking into account the number of zombies, structure and lights and ruins, what the zombies are doing, where things are concentrated, what group is present and doing what).--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)