Uniform Barricading Policy/Archives

UBP Map

Compliant plans follow the concepts of UBP as closely as possible given building layout. To elucidate, the UBP calls for a certain basic ratio of VS to EH buildings as well as guidelines for dispersal: "no more than a 3-1 ratio of EH to VS. As a rule of thumb there should be between 15-20 well distributed VS locations in any given suburb, and at least 1/4 of those should be non-resource buildings". The only complication is the uneven dispersal of buildings in any given suburb. No specific plan can ever be an exact application of the UBP; each plan should adjust to terrain as needed while sticking as close to the UBP as possible.

Map Discussion

Barricade Plan Template

OK, I've got a fairly functional template put together for Barricade Plans - Template:BarricadePlan. I'd appreciate any feedback. I'm lazy, so I put together a web page to generate a usable instance of the template for any specified suburb based purely on the basic UBP specified barricade level by building type. Then it can be tweaked from there. You can take a look at a version of the plan as originally generated by the web tool on my user page. Here I've made some minor tweaks to the auto-generated plan for Kempsterbank.

Kempsterbank Barricade Plan

	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59
70	C
71			J		H
72			Sc
73							H
74							Bl
75							NT
76
77		T								Bl
78						L		Bk
79

Legend

Unenterable Buildings
	Extremely Heavily Barricaded		Phone Mast
Enterable Buildings
	Auto Shop		Fire Station
	Hospital		NecroTech
	Police Department		School
	Other VSB Buildings		Unbarricaded Buildings
Other Locations
	Street		Monument
	Cemetery		Revivification Point

Banner

UBP needs a banner similar to this one from Sacred Ground Policy.

	Sacred Ground Policy Supporter
	This user or group supports the Sacred Ground Policy and acknowledges that all Cemeteries in the city of Malton are considered Revivification Points.

Here is a rough draft - feel free to edit it!

	Uniform Barricading Policy Supporter
	This User or Group supports the Uniform Barricading Policy by actively maintaining barricades according to local plan or UBP standard.

Also, it gives you a nice list of who supports the UBP. Click HERE to see the list. --LadyAG 23:43, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Wow, fantastic! :) I'll go tweak it a bit now if you don't mind. Let me know what you think. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 16:50, 25 May 2006 (BST)

• Should we just put this on the page for all the groups that pledged support on the main page, and then exchange that list for a link to the Category, or would that annoy people too much?
  • Love your edits! Much better! I would like to see the category list replace the other list, but I'm not sure I like putting the banner on their page without asking. Is there some way we can notify them that it is avaiable. For example, we could put a message on their talk page? --LadyAG 18:42, 25 May 2006 (BST)

Tagging

Could there be a uniform tagging policy as part of the new uniform barricading policy? Outside the building the tag should indicate to newbies where the nearest entry point is located, where the nearest revive point is located. Inside the building the tag should link to a UBP policy page on the wiki and tell what the suggested barricade level is for that building (and the reasons). For example, in Richmond Hills grid 30,31 would read outside UBP: Newbies enter here! and inside UBP: Freerunners go east. Barricade to VS. In Richmond Hills grid 30,30 would read outside UBP: Newbie entry go south! Revives go east.and inside UBP: Freerunners go southeast. Barricade to EH. What else should be communicated in the tagging plan? Also, there should be a piece of the wiki including the suggested tags, so vandalism can be reversed easily. --Agazman 22:15, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Nah. 1) It eould take too long and too many ressources. 2) it would require huge upkeep (spraypaints aren't permanent, and people will spray over). 3) Groups advertise through spraypaints. -Certified=Insane_UG

I think it would be viable if implemented properly. There would have to be guidelines like there are for barricade policies. A rough draft starting point for this might look like:

• VSB buildings should be labeled as such inside and outside
• TRPs should be labeled inside
• revive points should be labeled inside
• non-building non-revive point squares cannot be assigned tags

As to whether or not it would ever get used, if the information were embedded in the barricade policy for the suburb I think good samaritans with extra spray cans would help keep at least a good number of them up. That in itself would make it worthwhile. Personally, I think there should also be a uniform lighting policy, and the best place to put both is inside the barricade policy. Yes, they won't be strictly adhered to, having them around is always helpful. --Wfjeff 01:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Old Suggestions

These suggestions have been reviewed and dealt with (or not as the case may be).

Libraries more useful to n00bs then schools(or autos)

Well, I do have a suggestion that may better provide for the needs of new players. I think instead of all Schools being at VSB, it should be Libraries. The reason is that books can help gain XP, however slowly, and they are always available in libraries. The find rate for books in schools is low.(and newbs do NOT need spraycans) I do not know the ratio of schools to libraries in Malton, so I admit I am unsure if this radical change would be a benefit or a detriment with respect to the overall availability of enterable safehouses. (ED: after reading certified's comments below, I think all of this would hold true for Libraries over autorepairs as well --Raystanwick 10:57, 9 June 2006 (BST))

If this proposal is completely stupid, I kindly ask to have it removed and an explaination (or flame) posted on my talk page. Even if acceptable, this would probably not be easy to implement, but I felt compelled to express it and I wanted to know what others thought. --Raystanwick 08:30, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Libraries might be more useful to n00bs than schools. But the XP return rate for AP on books is so negligible, I wouldn't recommend that as a strategy for anyone. Mainly, at the time the UBP was crafted the average level was MUCH lower, and many people with tagging still didn't have Free Running yet. Schools seemed, then, a more useful choice. In the end, any locations after Hospitals, NT buildings and Police Departments (the main tactical resource locations) are mainly there to help make sure that there are enough VSB designated buildings available in every suburb. By having it be certain location types, survivors would hopefully be able to depend on finding reasonably reliable entryways and safe houses at those types of locations. Schools, and particularly Fire Stations, play a critical role in that, as designated entryways that are usually lower priority targets for zombies. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 14:07, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Okay, between this and the reply below, I think I understand now. If someone(G? since part of your reasoning to below is in here) could move or remove this, I would appreciate it.--Raystanwick 14:40, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Low level survivors sleeping in VS buildings

Someone just barricaded the building I was sleeping in to heavy. Since I don't have free running, this means I lost my safe house and had to find somewhere else to hide, leaving me in the open for half an hour. So I'd like to make a suggestion: If there is a survivor without free running sleeping inside a building barricaded at VS or less which should be at EH, don't barricade it any further, at least until they go away. Obviously you should exercise common sense here, and if there are compelling reasons to ignore the rule then ignore it. But it is very annoying to lose a safe house this way. Peter Thrawcheld 15:59, 6 May 2006 (BST)

I don't think we can make it a rule, but it's a great point, and I will certainly add in a caution about it (no editing today though - about to head out for the weekend). --Gilant ^talk|DEM 19:38, 6 May 2006 (BST)

• The EH:VS ratio needs some serious editing, Seriously, If these players aren't killed because they're locked out, Then they'll go off and become stacked lvl 20 somethings, helping the war against zombies. Remember, the newb you save today, could be the guy head shot-ing a zombie that was chewing on your arm a couple months down the road. --Labine50 ^MHG 02:12, 17 May 2006 (BST)
  • Remember the guy you save today might be the guy who gets bored of the game, because he doesn't feel a threat from zombies, and starts PKing others for fun. -Certified=Insane_UG

Buidlings designated for VS barricaded

Barricading of essential buildings shall be limited to levels that allow average citizens
entry under normal conditions (Very Strongly Barricaded or VS). 
Essential buildings include: 
*Hospitals 
*Police Departments 
*Fire Stations 
*Schools 
*Necrotech Buildings - (see exceptions below) 
*Auto Shops 
Because the internal halls are open, Malls and other multiple-block structures should be
maintained at EH, but must have one or two adjacent buildings maintained at VS+2 entryways.

Okay, that is highly restrictive and illogical, in my opinion. Of course, newbs should have acess to atleast 1 hospital, police dept, NT building, and maybe a fire station. However, Auto Shops should be EHB all the time, since powering them gives the best fuel can search rate possible, which is more important now than ever, and no noobs need acess to such a building. Also, I see nothing strategic about schools... -Certified=Insane_UG

I kinda agree, if you look at my post above. Noobs really don't need autorepairs.(they don't need fuel or paint, they need XP) Libraries would make more sense, IF there is a comparable number of each in Malton. Now, if there are more autos and not enough libraries... --Raystanwick 10:52, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Obviously I disagree C=I, on both counts. Please remember that the UBP isn't just about how many VSB buildings to have, but about providing some consistency (Uniform) that survivors should be able to generally depend upon. See my answer to Ray's question above. The vast majority of Hospitals and Police Stations should be VSB, as newbs most need those to get supplies. Most advanced characters have mall skills for getting supplies far more efficiently. On top of that, people really should not be sleeping in Hospitals, PD's and NTs anyway. They are the first targets chosen by most hordes. I despair over the frequency with which I find people with free running who get killed during a hospital break in, when there were many EHB buildings within 2 blocks that the zombies never touched. I have little sympathy for them. Just recently I have been witnessing a Hospital which has been under assault regularly by a small horde and is now generally barricaded to EHB. Even so, almost every night it gets cracked by the horde, with many of the same people, most with free running, sleeping in there night after night regardless, feeding the horde. By using a little sense about where I sleep, I've been killed by PKers far more often than by zombies, even in some of the most dangerous suburbs. As for Auto Repair, it was decided to make them VSB after a period of a few weeks of community input. Again, the reasoning is not simply just because they are now a more useful resource building, but we also wanted to balance allowing more NT's to be EHB in the plan. If your suburb has at least two Auto Repair (most do), designate one of them EHB as your primary refueling location. There is more behind the UBP than just what buildings to barricade how. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 14:24, 9 June 2006 (BST)

That would be why they sleep over at ressource buildings: witnesses discourage PKers. Making it uniform and all really sounds good, but ransack can really be a pain at auto shops. If the suburb has more than one, they are usually quite far away. I'd like reference to the reasoning behind putting auto shops at VS. In my mind, only a few of each ressource buildings plus a few random (useless) buildings should be VS, the rest at EHB. In my eyes, Auto shops stand with Malls as far as barricades are concerned. -Certified=Insane_UG

I think the reasoning is pretty clear now: it's just a general standard for easily recognizable entryways(and newb safehouses). I don't think it's a hard and fast rule, C, as long as there are some other non-resource buildings at VSB available. And like G said, if you really want a secure(and powered) auto, you only need one anyway.--Raystanwick 15:07, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Fire Stations and Schools

Out of curiosity, why are fire stations and schools considered essential? The only useful items there, as far as I can figure, are fire axes (infinite-use) and spray cans (non-essential). --LouisB3 20:57, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

You also get flares and generators at FDs, I am guessing, and people really like spray can. Also it might have something to do with keeping the EX-VS ratio open enough to provided enough entrances for the free running to have a way in. --Matthew Stewart 17:14, 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Phone masts

Wots ur policy on the phone masts. Is it VS+2, so that those who feel that they might like to help and have the time can aid or is it EH so that those with free running and in organised groups can maintain them? --Celt 22:24, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• I think buildings with masts should be EH unless there is an overriding reason not to, such as perhaps it happens to be in the only hospital in the area. Low level survivors should have better things to do than worry about finding fuel to keep the generator powering the phone mast running. --Gilant 15:46, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• personaly, I think that phone masts should be maintianed at VS if there is an active group inside that can defend it, but EH if it's going to be a ghost town after the MalTel tech leaves. Labine50 ^MHG 02:03, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Policy suggestion for fuel supply

Now that we have electricity from portable generators, should we amend the list of essential buildings to include places where fuel can be found? This would mean factories, auto shops and junkyards. Johhny Fireball.

• Hmmm. I don't think we can add all those to the list of resource buildings. Does anyone know which of those fuel is most likely to be found in? Has anyone tried carparks? My basic feeling is that any specific suburbs plan should try to have at least one or two locations where fuel can be found VS. But as with the phone masts, I don't see this as a priority activity for low level characters. --Gilant 15:46, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

• Junkyards? They're a resource building all right, theres a 1% chance of finding just about any item in the game there. I don't think that's enough to add them though. --Labine50 ^MHG 02:05, 17 May 2006 (BST)

• But yet elsewhere on this page you argue for more VS designated buildings?!?--Gilant ^talk|DEM 14:40, 17 May 2006 (BST)

• If you read the Junkyard page, you would note that if the fences could be repaired, they would make a near-perfect safehouse, as zombies cannot enter one, but currently, no uncut fences exist, and zombie spies with wirecutters would be able to null that "force field" --DJSMITH 13:41, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Malls and other Big Buildings

With the new Big Buildings upgrade, Mall barricades are only as strong as their weakest corner. Leaving one corner at VS is a sign of weakness and invites attack. Perhaps this particular part should be dropped? - KingRaptor 14:51, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I was thinking about this the other day, and am inclined to agree with you. I'll make an appropriate edit shortly. Thanks for the prod! --Gilant 20:38, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Bad idea, if you do that then your blocking out half decent fighters who just haven't bothered to get free running. But if you don't really care about them anyway, Go ahead. --Labine50 ^MHG 02:09, 17 May 2006 (BST)

• First, the MFD and other groups that support the UBP have enough trouble convincing the general population to keep as many buildings VS as we do, and as an organization the MFD alone probably spends 100's of AP every week, if not 1000's, lowering 'cades ourselves on designated buildings, tagging and informing people about the local barricade plan etc. Please don't insult us by insinuating we don't care. Second, since overbarricading is an endemic problem and has been for 6 months+, I can't see how anyone beyond level 3 hasn't chosen to have Free Running. It is the most essential general survival skill. ... But then I still can't figure out why people who have picked free running still choose to sleep in a police department at VS (an extremely high profile target) when there are frequently 3 or more low profile EH buildings a block or two away. So, given that 100s of survivors tend to huddle in malls for days on end, and a break in at any quadrant endagers everyone in the mall, I think the more 'caring' solution is to protect those 100's as best we can. Those few 'half decent fighters who just haven't bothered' can shelter and arm up at the local PD. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 14:56, 17 May 2006 (BST)

• If a mall is under siege, they should all be as strong as they can, plus survivors without free running can wait until the zombies knock the barricades down to VS --DJSMITH 13:44, 17 May 2006 (BST)

• if Fences were made mendable they would also be made somehow passable to zombies, either smashable or a subskill on MoL to climb the fence at the cost of some AP. --Lehk 05:03, 22 May 2006 (BST)

• This nerfs the whole consumer starting class. They start with the shopping skill but they can't get into the mall. It's a difficult enough starting class as it is, why eliminate their only starting advantage? The organizations that maintain mall barricades know when to bring an entry point corner up to EHB anyway. Nobody's going to hack down to policy levels when there's a horde outside just because it's in the suburb plan. --Wfjeff 01:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

NecroTech Buildings

These buildings are secret bases of operations for a private organization, and should be barricaded to EH without regard to their necessity as entry points. NecroTech buildings are prone to impromptu blitzkriegs by large, unorganized zombie hordes; and they are essential as staging areas & supply stations for revive points. They should not ever be used as safehouses, and the common good demands that they be closed to ordinary survivors as well as the undead. For these reasons, NecroTech's employees and contractors are required to barricade these buildings to a maximum. The UBP should reflect this policy in order to save travelers unnecessary confusion and danger. --einexile 18:04, 5 March 2006 (GMT)

Before having a generator in the building was such a benefit, I don't think it mattered. People were better off not sleeping in an NT building (or any resource building!) if they didn't absolutely need to. My survivors always sleep a building or two away. But with the increased cost of revivification, better search rates in powered buildings, and now the addition of ransack, I find this a compelling argument. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 19:37, 6 May 2006 (BST)

I disagree because if the Necrotechs are barricaded heavier than VS, then people will be unable to get revivification syringes. --Mycoplasma 18:19, 14 May 2006 (EST)

I agree with the above because 1)Half the revivers we have don't have free running as they go Lab Experience as soon as they had 75 xp 2)Theres usualy enough people inside to keep them at VS so I don't think this is nessicary. Labine50 ^MHG 02:08, 17 May 2006 (BST) I agree with barricading to EH because new players are always strongly urged to get free running(FR) which would allow them to bypass the EH once you get FR then the agruement to not implement this is pretty much moot.--Mercsenary 07:58, 24 July 2006 (BST)

The problem with using the everyone-should-have-free-running-by-now train of logic is that if you apply it to NT buildings, you ought to apply it to every TRP in the game. Yes, NT buildings are valuable resources, but so are PDs and hospitals. There's a simple and easy solution here that doesn't require such a drastic change: remember that barricade policies are flexible. When any building is under assault, you take the barricades to EHB, regardless of the planned level. Why bother forcing green suburbs to keep all of their NT buildings at EHB? Yes, there's a lot of pressure to reduce the number of VSB buildings, there always will be, but it's a slippery slope. Watch your step. --Wfjeff 01:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

NTs have got to be at EHB. In this day and age of mass coordinated attacks by zombies (ala Shacknews), VS+ just won't cut it. Zombie groups have specifically targeted NTs, as the vital resource they are, in all of their recent mall sieges. Caiger, Bale, Ackland, Giddings... all of them saw their NTs fall very shortly or very shortly after the mall. If the NT falls, efforts to regain the mall will be nearly impossible. As for the green suburbs out there, that can change very, very quickly. One week before Shacknews appeared, who would have guessed Caiger would fall?

I suggest we amend the UBP to recognize this change in game conditions. NTs should be maintained at EHB, but all NTs should have a VS+ building adjacent (ie on the NT's nine square screen) to it. This choice of building should be predictable from suburb to suburb by establishing a hierarchy of choice. Obviously, if there is another resource building, use that. But if not, designate an adjacent church, since heavy barricading does not work as well anyway, given it's lack of doors. If there is no resource building and no church available, use the building immediately to the south of the NT. Ignore the bulding if it is a large building like a mall or a stadium. If that is open space, move clockwise around the directions until you hit a single square building. That will be your entry point. This way, no matter what suburb you are in, you can expect to find an entry point available near the NT. --Nosimplehiway 04:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Folks, this question was closed long ago. The UBP, if you read it, now states that [b]only 1[/b] NT in a suburb should be VS+2. Any additional NTs can be designated EHB. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 14:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

BP Map development

---

There seems to be an assumption that survivors should be spread out, so that no building will be too good a target for zombies. But from what I've seen so far (as a relative noob), actual practice seems to be the opposite: survivors look for places to cluster. I think actual practice has it right. If there are only a few survivors in a building, they will be wiped out on the first break-in, and the attackers will move on to the next building, rinse and repeat. If there are just a few survivors in each building, it won't be likely that whenever the barricades are attacked there will be someone just logging in who will notice.

If I were designing a barricade policy, I would designate one building next to each resource building as sleeping quarters to be maintained EH at all times, with the same safehouse for multiple resource buildings wherever possible. (Where multiple resource buildings of the same type are clustered, I would designate one as the primary place to search for that resource, so as to optimize the use of common safehouses for multiple resources.) I would designate a number of buildings as entry points to be kept at VS, including one near to each resource building for low-level characters to sleep in. For each EH safehouse I would designate a retreat building or two, where people should go if their normal sleeping quarters are being overrun: these would also be maintained at EH. The rest of the buildings I would leave as optional, for people to barricade to EH, or leave at VS. I would try to discourage leaving buildings at heavy or very heavy; those are neither serving as entry points nor fulfilling their potential as safe places for free-runners to retreat to. --Dan 06:41, 2 April 2006 (BST)

---

I think this policy is a good idea, but the EH:VS ratio needs some adjusting. Are you trying to lock out all newbies? When I was like super new (First day) I found it almost impossible to get a safehouse. After wandering around for 40 ap, I found a school that was at Loosley, and ran in. Naturaly, I was killed the next day, and I didn't play for like 2 weeks. As I like to say "The newb you save today, could be the lvl 20 something head shot-ing a zombies that was chewing on your arm a couple months down that road" --Labine50 ^MHG 02:19, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Being a newb myself, I totally agree with this statement. A big criticism I have is that giving malls Extremely Strong Barricades makes newbie Consumers totally and completely useless. Without access to a mall, we can't even ply our one and only skill. I've played for 2 days, and died twice already, as well as had a hell of a time gaining experience; I do have some plans for what I'd like to do in-game, but if I can't even get past level 1, I'll never get a chance to put them in effect. --Rod The Bod 20:38, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Hey guys I agree with the above statements,one of my alts(NO I DON'T ZERG!)has Free running but it's hard to find an Entry Point when you're low on AP and there's a zed chasing you or you're infected and low on health.Also,if you ask me the UBP should'nt always be put into effect and if so,in situations where it's called for,(i.e. the big bash although a UBP plan alone can't stop something like that.)And these Entry points can easily be destroyed by zeds if there tough and coordinated or by overcaded by zombie spys who can simply visit the wiki.And lastly if ask me,ALL tactics (except zerging) are accecptable and should be used in the proper situation,and only a few entry points per suburb or resource buildings are almost always entry points is messed up logic since one player with construction and free running can easily mess it all up. --Gamestriker4 20:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that the problem is still going on. It may be fair to barricade most police stations, but even auto repair shops and schools are getting the same treatment! Thankfully I managed to find a VS junkyard so I can get some ammo and supplies. The main problem is that people need experience to get free running which that means killing zombies, requiring either a melee weapon or ammo, which can only be obtained from certain places.

I propose at least one PS and one junkyard in the neighborhood without EHB. In most situations the difference between VS and EHB are pretty minimal. Especially in the less troubled places. --AlexFili 10:42, 31 July 2008 (BST)

UBP Map

Now that many sub-urbs have UBPs, could we add a 10 by 10 table to this page which links to the UBP for each 'burb? --Agazman 20:18, 11 May 2006 (BST)

What a fantastic idea! Are you volunteering? :P --Gilant ^talk|DEM 21:21, 11 May 2006 (BST)

I'm willing to try, I'm not very fluent in wiki code. I was thinking of using the following map as a template: --Agazman 22:04, 11 May 2006 (BST)

That would be a fine start. I don't know if it needs to be a template, unless people feel that would be easier to update. I'd also prefer if it was a bit smaller, but that may not be possible given the name lengths. And we would only need two colors of course. Does or does not have a plan. THanks! --Gilant ^talk|DEM 22:24, 11 May 2006 (BST)

OK, here is another try. --Agazman 23:42, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Map moved to article! --Gilant ^talk|DEM 00:19, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Standard UBP maps comply with the color / format standard used at Kemps!

(--LadyAG I think)

Map Discussion

So Galliant Gilant, does this map meet muster? If so, can it move to the main page? If not, what should change? --LadyAG 22:52, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Sorry for slow responses, been on a coding binge for some DEM tools. Yes, it's looking great! in general. I do have some questions though. For example, why is Kemps bold? And why is it green when it has so few EH safehouses? And why is EaBec orange when its plan was the original out of which the UBP grew (though looking back now it really does have too few VS designated buildings doesn't it?)? -- Regardless, I'd say it's is quit sufficiently functional that it most certainly should go on the front page! :D It should be a living map, regularly getting reassessed and updated anyway, and the sooner it's up there the more likely we'll get people helping to point out barricade plans and update the map status. Thanks for all your work! --Gilant ^talk|DEM 16:46, 25 May 2006 (BST)

Super Questions. I'll try to answer them here:

• For example, why is Kemps bold? And why is it green when it has so few EH safehouses?

• Just my personal preference. I like the way Kemps UBP map is formatted. I didn't actually look at their strategy, just at the colors and wiki/html formatting. We can make them less prominent, if you like.
  • AH. Yeah, please make it like the others. I'll review all the available maps after I edit the UBP to incorporate discussed changes, and reccomend one for use as an example for application of the UBP. You can also link Kemps below the map as an example of a nicely formated plan. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 17:44, 26 May 2006 (BST)

• And why is EaBec orange when its plan was the original out of which the UBP grew (though looking back now it really does have too few VS designated buildings doesn't it?)?

• Yes, I'm not sure. Perhaps we need to re-think the "legend / color code" prior to making this map official. I bow to your wisdom for how to do this. I suggest that we have 2 or 3 colors, and the color should be based on something concrete, not opinion.
  • I changed the text in the map slightly to more closely reflect what I was thinking. I think 3 or 4 colors would be useful. Published UBP compliant plan, published non-UBP plan, and no plan. But the last could be split into no-plan and local groups use default UBP barricade levels as is. But we can leave that split unless requested as I don't know of any concrete examples that currently require it. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 17:44, 26 May 2006 (BST)

• Concrete like "red because they don't have a wiki page showing their map" and "green because they do". Not opinion like "pink because they don't have enough smiling zombies". Without a quantity, we can't say how many smiling zombies they need to have. Further, we can't count how many smiling zombies they acutally have. So, Galliant Gilant, if you can suggest a clear-cut system, I'm all for it!! In hindsight, my "compliant" vs "non-compliant" is opinion-based (bad) instead of concrete (good). We need a system, where an independent person can look at the values and judge without bias. However, I don't understand UBP philosophy as well as you do. I think your opinion here would give us a better system, that means something for UBP. It should encourage good use of the UBP.--LadyAG 18:40, 25 May 2006 (BST)
  • UBP compliance can be ascertained fairly concretely. While there is some room for interpretation, the general parameters are fairly clear. And any exceptions in a local plan as to a particular building would need to be explained as part of the plan. To elucidate, the UBP calls for a certain basic ratio of VS to EH buildings as well as guidelines for dispersal: "no more than a 3-1 ratio of EH to VS. As a rule of thumb there should be between 15-20 well distributed VS locations in any given suburb, and at least 1/4 of those should be non-resource buildings". The only complication is the uneven dispersal of buildings in any given suburb. No specific plan can ever be an exact application of the UBP; each plan should adjust to terrain as needed while sticking as close to the UBP as possible. Since you have done the work of making the map, I'll go review all the plans linked from there and list them here with my opinion. This may help to identify areas that need to be made more clear in the policy. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 17:44, 26 May 2006 (BST)

• OK, Once you review the existing plans - the map will be ready to go when the big UBP policy change is finalized. Great work! --LadyAG 21:25, 1 June 2006 (BST)

May 2010

==Pimbank==

After reading through the archives of the UBP talk pages, I'm noticing that maybe at least one of the Auto Shops in the NE corner be set to EHB because of the high rate of finding fuel cans. There are a few factories to the east of Tynte Mall, and one to the south, so maybe it's okay. The NE corner was the hardest one for me to finish, since I wanted to weigh the need for an entry point close to the mall against the idea of having a fully EHB free running lane N from Tynte Mall. Comments? BTW I'm referring to User:Soynuts/Pimbank Barricade Plan Sandbox which I've updated from the current barricade plan. --Soynuts 20:01, 23 October 2009 (BST)

I will get a review of your plan to you as soon as possible. There is currently discussion about some major changes to UBP, so reviews of current plans is going to take longer than initially expected. Is the BP you've linked to the accepted one for the suburb, or just a personal plan that you want checked for UBP? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 19:22, 24 October 2009 (BST)

I wouldn't say that its the "accepted" one for the suburb," but I certainly haven't seen the one currently posted on the wiki as accepted or successful. The plan I'm submitting is very similar to the current plan, and I'm submitting this one as the new plan to be posted for the suburb, welcoming any suggestions or criticism. I think Tynte Mall has decent access to free running lanes and has been neglected mostly because of its bad reputation and lack of an active survivor group in the immediate area. I hope to, with my small band of friends, try to bring the suburb to an easily maintainable level, not assuming we can withstand serious attacks, but placing an emphasis on recovery- maintaining free running lanes to surrounding resource buildings as well as trying to spread awareness in the area about entry points and fall back positions while maintaining enough transmitters to provide regular status updates and places to call neighboring groups for help. --Soynuts 18:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked at the BP in your sandbox. I will hold off on reviewing Pimbank as a whole until your plan is accepted/rejected by others in the area, since there is little sense in reviewing the current plan if it might end up chaning anyways. Anywho, here are my comments on the BP you've put together...

Overall it's great. VSBs are well distributed around the suburb, one of the NTs is VSB, essential buildings are generally accessible. Honestly, the only changes I would make would be to make Frayne Walk Fire Station EHB (FR lane concern) and make the Lasder Building VSB (at least 2 adjacent buildings to the mall should be VSB). Other than that, it's solid. I would certainly call it compliant. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

September 2009=

== Santlerville ==

Yes, we know. We have been griefed by a group for the past 10 months or so and they just decided one day to "turn survivor" and turn Dewes NT into a Rot Revive to revive their own members. We didn't object because there was no point to trying to discuss anything with them. We've tried. We also figured they would lose interest in being survivors after a few weeks or a month (which is what happened) and go back to attacking us. So, we've cleared and caded Dewes and I've reverted all their changes about Dewes NT being a rot revive. Among the many other things I need to do is reviewing the plan and seeing what other arbitrary changes were made and make it compliant. Cade levels in Santlerville, it should go without saying, are not always consistent since we've been under seige most of the year. --Calista griffin 22:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say that most places are not consistent. I will review Santlerville again as soon as I get the chance. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 00:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Prior to April 2009

Ummm. Whoever reviewed the Earletown map didn't read the key. Keys are very important in the reading of maps. I really cannot stress this enough. In this case our poor reviewer mixed up which color meant VS and which meant EH. As a result his review is a bit, ummm, misguided. I'm going to edit his comments for him. -SJC Cato, BOW 22:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made one yesterday for Kinch Heights. Note it has a single police dept, and half of the suburb is empty blocks. Also, there is high PKer and zombie activity there since some time, so while it considered newbs (hence the only police dept being designated VS), it was not focused on them too much. I have added it to the list of un-reviewed barricade plans so you may eventually judge it and put it on your map with the appropriate color. -Certified=Insane_UG

Done --Gilant ^talk|DEM 21:17, 14 June 2006 (BST)

Might revise the Kinch Heights barricade policy later, but the suburb really lacks ressource buildings in general, exept for fire stations which are agglomerated, thus having more at VS wouldn't really change anything. -Certified=Insane_UG 01:56, 17 June 2006 (BST)

I've updated the Roachtown Defense Plan, designating schools as enterable buildings. I've made a post on the discussion page for that article suggesting opening up four additional locations (and designating one of the neighboring PD's as a non-entry point). Can someone check and see if the four additional locations would bring Roachtown into complaince? --Cartoonlad 19:02, 23 June 2006 (BST)

The Roachtown Defense Plan has been changed to comply with the UBP. Please review. --Cartoonlad 20:48, 30 June 2006 (BST)

Havercroft, Barrville, and Ridleybank all have barricade plans. I believe the Havercroft and Ridleybank barricade plans conform to the UBP although the Barrville plan does not. Please review! --Koppie 20:21, 5 July 2006 (BST)

The East Boundwood Barricade Plan has been created. A review would be appreciated. --Jonny America 02:26, 2 August 2006 (BST)

I have put up a plan for Nixbank that I hope might get a better review. It uses the {{BarricadePlan}} template so I hope it is easier to read. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 05:42, 2 August 2006 (BST)

Sorry I have been so behind in doing reviews. I'll try to catch up this week! --Gilant ^talk|DEM 04:02, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Eastonwood now has a barricade plan. I added some letters into the table. Deviations from UBP is explained below the plan. For d 21:23, 24 August 2006 (BST)

The Kinch Heights Barricade Policy has been updated, with added VS buildings, and I'm woundering if it's now UBP compliant (not that it matters that much).

Buttonville now has a UBP-compliant barricade plan posted. I've included a direct-link to the Barricade Plan for use on the map, if approved (that being "Buttonville#Buttonville_Barricade_Plan|Butto")

The preceding comment was by my friend krae. I added the Buttonville plan link and changed the color to "UBP Compliant" on the map on the main page. If you have objections to us declaring it UBP, drop a note here or on the Buttonville discussion page. -ZaqWer 23:17, 22 September 2006 (BST)

Reganbank and Lockettside both have new Barricade Plans. Several DEM members and the locals of Grigg Heights are working on a new Barricade Plan on the discussion page of the suburb. Any input on each of the three plans is very welcome. --John Cannonfodder 15:48, 6 October 2006 (BST)

Ridleybank I didn't make it, You'll want to talk to The Cannonball Crew, but It didn't appear that you knew of a barricade plan in Ridleybank. The same goes for Barrville, Except this one was made by C4NT.--Labine50 ^MHG|^MalTel 22:40, 20 October 2006 (BST)

Just noticed that you've already been alerted of this. I do feel rather silly now...--Labine50 ^MHG|^MalTel 22:49, 20 October 2006 (BST)

The Quarlesbank barricade plan doesn't look UBP compliant to me... you note a couple of deficiencies here, and suggest that things should be changed, but as far as I can tell these changes have yet to be made. The most obvious is the problem at Pittman mansion... as noted above, a square of the mansion itself is designated as VSB, even though there are two adjacent buildings which would make perfectly acceptable entry points. Another issue, pointed out in the discussion page for this diagram, is that they have carparks listed as EHB structures. It a bit of a careless mistake, and while it won't have any real impact on the barricade levels of the suburb (since you just can't barricade carparks) it should probably be fixed. I don't think this ought to be called UBP compliant until your reccomended changes are made, and it needs to be cleaned up just a bit.--The bluefish 23:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A colleague of mine, now MFD Captain MatJack1 of Gibsonton, came up with a very solid barricade plan for Santlerville while we were in the Academy. He did it in conjunction with the dominant local survivor group The Dribbling Beavers and it was more or less implemented. I'm not sure it is entirely UBP compliant but, since the campus migrates, eventually the MFD won't be there to maintain it and I think we'd all like to see a plan implemented for Santlerville. --Wfjeff 10:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually we recently changed Santlerville's Barricade Plan! Club Birch is now no entry, EHB. The entry point is Cotterrell Crescent Police Department, 1E. The MFD wanted easy access to ammo for new players, especially the military. Krayzee The Dribbling Beavers 16:15 4 December 2006 [GMT]

Has our plan been re-reviewed? User:MatJack1 was supposed to send this off to DEM, but our status above still lists us as "unreviewed." Just wanting to clarify. --Sexy Rexy Grossman 03:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The MFD is working on a new plan for Lamport Hills which can be found here. --Wfjeff 23:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Myself and NEPhillyGuy of the MPD has posted a plan for Pashenton that was agreed upon by local groups BOW and FEBU and are ready for review, any input on this plan is welcome. BP is located here and we have a discussion going on the Pashenton talk page. --Agrojagg 10:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The policy on file at the Suburb is sound during peacetime, it provides access to vital resources and housing for those in need. I see no reason it should not be approved. -- Detective Lane grate 19:01, 23 August 2008 (BST) MPD Badge#407

What the heck? Are we trying to be nice to the zombies?! 26 places unenterable! So are all of us supposed to hidein a few far apart places? How are we supposed to leave messages semi-permanently without Spray Cans? Or enforce the plan? Seriously?! Thats just my view..... Sorakairi 03:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a real lack of compliance for the Chancelwood Barricade Plan. I would like to see the barricade plan enforced, even if i have to do it myself. --Wiiwantxbox 23:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

i think there should be a plan for dartside, i would do it but im not sure i would have enough time, or even be able to figure it out. someone should help make a plan for this, i would like to be involved.--truemaggot 10:41am 4,March 2008 Anti-zombie_squad

Shouldn't their be at least one Police Department Entry Point (VSB++) for people who start as Military (Besides Scout) to get ammo in Havercroft? --The Gecko PKer 00:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're starting out in Havercroft, my suggestion is that you get out ASAP. It's not a newbie-friendly suburb, and very frequently it's hotly contested. Most of the revives that I give out are to newbies that get caught in the crossfire. GeraldThompson 05:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Southall mansion has become a revive point. By having 8 spaces for reviving, there is no way the undead can prevent survivors from reviving those who want it. This building should be left wide open and never barricaded.

I have edited the barricading plan for Starlingtown.

The changes are:

Crosbie Grove Railway Station – EH to VSB Crump Cinema – EH – VSB Finchley Museum – VSB – EH Hartry Arms – EH – VSB Ponting Building – EH – VSB Nix Arms – EH – VSB Mackworth Building – EH - VSB --EzriSun 02:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Both Hospitals are EHB. At least one should be taken down to VSB. --Duk3luk3 12:17, 28 April 2008 (BST)

The proposed South Blythville plan has all NT buildings set to EHB. The Pippard Building is being used as a rotter revive point due to its proximity to St. George's Hospital in Greentown. Operationally the building has recently been VSB++ so it would make sense to update the plan. --Dmorenus 01:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)