Talk:Suburb/Archive 2

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Its called top secret, people!

Dear fellow survivors,

Hello fellow survivors. I am writing this letter-formatted message to tell you a simple thing; shut up, stupid! Please, let's not be be stupid and report which suburbs are safe and/or populated. The zeds use this wiki page too, and as soon as they see a green or yellow suburb, they WILL come and turn it red... literally, with your blood. Let's excersize something called secrecy, and not be reporting which suburbs are UP and which are DOWN. Why make the zeds' work easier? Reporting that XX suburb is safe or the survivors are winning the fight there is like hanging a sign that says "please come eat us here"!

Zeds, before you start harking at me for being unfair, cheap, not playing by the rules, etc... I will say this. I DO NOT CARE! I don't care if you start whining about how 'unfair' it would be for the zeds to have no accurate reportings filed by survivors. Gather the god damned intel yourselves, than. It'll be more accurate than some reporter clowns' subrub ratings.

Remember survivors, the zeds use wiki too! Shut it, and keep it quiet, for everyone's sakes!

Respectfully, Danny lee 04:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 04:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

if you a scared motherfucker go to church --Riseabove 04:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hallelujah! --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 04:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering survivors have a tendency not to communitcate this information in-game refusing to do it here only makes things worse for you, not easier on the zombies. Zombies aren't the ones who benefit from knowing what is and isn't safe.--Karek^maps?! 05:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Publicly appealing for survivors on the wiki to exercise operational security (IE: secrecy on the wiki) is a contradiction in terms and a little silly at best. In my experience, the best way to keep a secret is to... --Airborne88^T|Z.Quiz|PSS 06:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just like you said, the zombies use the wiki too because the wiki is for everyone. The wiki is not a tool for one side or the other to use for their own benefit. --George Decay 07:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not made for that, but that is what they are doing. Once they have reddened an entire map, don't you think they have nothing left to do but go to any town that some idiot put to green? If you just leave the maps unupdated until the BB2 ends, getting towns back on their feet would be a lot easier.--Private Mendoza 13:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You idiot. The wiki is here for to inform everyone, you have to take the good with the bad. BTW, break that template again and you will be done for vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:46 27 March 2008 (BST)

I agree with Danny lee above. Updating that map is 100% optional. Traditionally survivor players have done it because it benefited them. Now it benefits zombie players more, so let THEM update it. The winning side usually draws the map anyhow, right? However, I doubt it would help much, given that zombies can carry and listen to radios tune to 25.96 MHZ.  Swiers 18:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! it's true zeds see geen they come a running, why do we even update the map anymore. It's always red these days, let's just keep the map red. Would it not be more fun not kowning if your "safe."--Jamie Cantwel3 23:31, 30 March 2008 (BST)

Its useful to know if a suburb is safe when you need to choose a new suburb to work from and you need to know if they are safe before you go there. Nillocnroh 04:14, 5 April 2008 (BST)

There will be no safe haven so long as the Undead walk among us, and declaring any zone "safe" is like ringing the dinner bell. Of much greater concern are those who play both sides - those who fight alongside you Monday and munch on your intestines Tuesday because they happen to wake up dead. Our respect and support (defense, alliances and revivication) will be given on a preferential basis to players who exhibit survivor skills only, or a combination with a minimum of "freakshow skills" like Lurching Gait & Ankle Grab - just to get you to the next rev-point a little quicker.

...and if you find yourself Undead, and pass an NT building on the way to the cemetery, gnaw on one of your zombie buddies and maybe you'll distract them from chewing on your future syringe delivery-man.

M.U.M.'s the word. This has been your mayor speaking... Mayor MC Cheese 14:22, 5 April 2008 (BST)

I'm here to deliver information to fellow players, and I will not discriminate on the nuances of how the players play the game. Survivor, zombie, or PKer be damned. This is a meta-game for the game, not a clique of trenchies. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 19:43, 5 April 2008 (BST)

Survivors status in the game has greatly improved from the darkest moment. Why at one point there was only 8000 or so standing survivors, and zombies made up 70% of the active characters. Now, there is close to 12,000 survivors, and the number is much more balanced (57% Zombie, 43% Survivor). Yet despite this fantastic improvement in survivor numbers, even more of the map is marked red than when survivors were at the low point. How can this be? Are 12,000 survivors actually crammed into the lower portion of the map, cringing in fear? OR, are people so scared to post anything accurate now that the whole color coding of the map is meaningless? If that is the case, the Urban Dead entries on WIKI have been effectively killed by the zombies. Have the Zeds actually won the battle for WIKI informatrion, and created the ultimate dead (lack of useful informatrion) zone here? --Wke235 17:32, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Questions

Should the "How to make a Danger Report" guide be added to the main page? Not many seem to follow it properly. 'arm. 18:45, 3 July 2007 (BST)

DUNELL HILLS

Why this is not "special" already I will never understand. It is home to one of the largest stationary groups ever, the DHPD, and it is where the largest horde in the history of UD originated, the dead. The man 20:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, so far after 2 days you still have 100% of the votes! :) Cisisero 06:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Because nothing happens in Dunell Hills, so much nothing that the DHPD spend most of their time outside of the suburb in the area they call the DMZ. Oh and the dead of Dunell Hills being in their name doesn't mean they originated there or even did anything of note there, they disliked the DHPD this happened around the same time and kinda makes the point itself.--Karek^maps?! 07:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah figures some pro-zombie person would come in here and shoot it down immediately afterward. Oh well. I dont really care, the DHPD will exist whether you like us or not. :P Cisisero 04:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, cause I didn't actively participate in your forum ever because I liked your group. --Karek^maps?! 05:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and read the section below.--Karek^maps?! 05:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I read below and you know who was the lone dissenter that time? Well I wouldnt be surprised if it was none other than YOU! Wow! Must be a coincidence im sure. As for you not participating in our forums, well same goes for your groups forums as well Karek. Dont get me wrong in this, the only reason I come to this wiki is to talk to all the awesome pro-zombie people like yourself. I could care less if our suburb's name is bolded on the super awesome biased suburb page. Keep up your good work reping the zombie cause everywhere you go Karek, as long as you put in the effort and always shoot for the end of the rainbow Im sure you will always succeed! Cisisero 20:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I could have sworn Dunell Hills used to be bold, if that was the case then I obviously wasn't saying Dunell should not be marked significant. But to claim it is notable because anything happens there is simply absurd, nothing significant has occurred in Dunell Hills since '05-'06. I'm sure you'll make it significant again, keep shooting for mediocrity, though, and you might succeed with an attitude like that.--Karek^maps?! 06:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So in that case why is it not noteworthy then? :P If thats the way this works you even just admitted it was or should have been in the past. Ive never seen a suburb become un noteworthy. Weird. Seems to be that everyone is unanimous on this. Do we rally up a mod to do this or do I just do it myself? :P Thanks Karek! Cisisero 19:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not noteworthy because nothing of profound historical importance in the game has happened to it in a long time unless you count entertaining DHPD failures. The Dead's unfortunate early name aside, the hordes originally gathered in different suburbs which would invalidate the brunt of The man's argument. --Riseabove 05:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks for the argument Karek, it was fun. Now that we have input from the Goons themselves, anything further just be spam from Something Awful. Riseabove, As much as I dislike Karek's input at least its not entirely biased in an entirely pubbish way. "Crush the DHPD, make them lose all their members! We are totally winning!". How many of our members have left? Like 3? Good Work! Rally at the apathy point! Cisisero 06:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What the fuck are you on about? --Riseabove 06:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you retarded? Or could you just not think of anything better to say? I was stating that now that YOU, a member of THE DEAD and SOMETHING AWFUL have added your opinion, any further conversation is pointless, due to the fact that both our groups hate each other and the fact that I play as a "roleplaying pubbie faggot" in general. Hence what we are talking about now. Cisisero 07:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't come here yelling pubbie at anyone, I came here with germane information to the topic at hand. Even though you evidently don't want to discuss it like an adult I'm just going to say good job not losing members but that doesn't make Dunell Hills a notable suburb in and of itself. --Riseabove 07:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, but Im sure we did a couple of things before Something Awful came around that did. Im pretty sure only you and your group seem to be the only people who dont think that. Cisisero 07:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I helped smash Dunell Hills up with TSO and watched you recover fairly slowly/ineptly from that before I was a goon. Also Karek is by no means in or affiliated with our group and was the first to say it's not notable. Do you really want bold text over a ghost town that badly anyway? --Riseabove 07:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, so much controversy over a completely un noteworthy suburb. Its kinda like alot of people hate us, and alot of people like us. Kinda like we are famous or something. Some might even say noteworthy Cisisero 07:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your group isn't Dunell Hills, Dunell Hills is 1% of the Urban Dead map (100 squares) where not much of note has happened for a decent while. The "controversy" here is an extended discussion between all of 4 people (counting the OP who has apparently abandoned it) and sounds like a canned talking point you were waiting to spring when you finally derailed the topic into your group (not the suburb) anyway. --Riseabove 07:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the first time someone from their group started trolling when their incompetence was mentioned. I suspect this all stems from the fact that the only noteworthy thing they've ever actually done was getting busted zerging. It's all pretty sad really. Especially since we haven't even been paying much attention to Dunell Hills and they still can't do anything about it. --Laughing Man 14:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would love for you to prove how many times we have been zerging within the last 2 years since that incident happened. I can do it far more times for your group. You might want to talk to a few members of your group. Its ridiculous how many times things like "oh I have 1 char in Santlerville, 2 in Dunell Hills, and 1 in Dulston." are posted in your forums. A direct quote from SomethingAwful - "Mr.Brinks posted: I have four total characters: active one in Caiger, two in Dunnel Hills, and another one that I'm not sure where it is (a throw away and I don't have the login info). How large is the anti-zerg zone? I have moved really far away (about three 'burbs) from where it first started happening, so I don't think thats it." How are you going to explain that one? Blah blah blah blah we dont cheat. That guy wasnt even told to move his charachters apart.... By the way you even just said DH was noteworthy for the implied fact that we cheat. Even if we did, you still implied that it is noteworthy. Not something you should do in a situation like this where you are trying to keep it un noteworthy. Cisisero 21:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yo "us versus you" stuff aside, the point is Dunell Hills is not particularly notable. If for some reason the RRF was unable to exert any control over Ridleybank for the better part of 6 months I'd probably say that it could lose notability too, it's not some kind of permanent thing in a game like that. What's really funny is while you were totally unable to retake any part of the suburb your main argument was "well, we still have other areas of the DMZ lololol" and now that it becomes a question of suburb notability (aka another chance for you to shill your group on newbies who read the wiki, much like your overly encompassing category) it's suddenly notable as the DHPD's home. You're not gonna get it both ways because if your territory is this "DMZ" and the Dead didn't actually start in Dunell Hills that would invalidate both of The Man's points here. --Riseabove 03:52, 30 March 2008 (BST)

So its obvious then, we feel it is you feel its not. Its just another game of "us versus you stuff" as you put it. Hell you guys flip into little whiners the second a barricaded building shows up in DH. All that aside, Maybe it should be a vote that includes nobody from SA and nobody from the DHPD. Would that satisfy you? Or is that just to much of a chance to take with that the precious suburb that you are determined to hold onto? Cisisero 09:26, 30 March 2008 (BST)

Yo if we gave a fuck about Dunell Hills at the moment we'd love to have it's beautiful red or gray colors bolded but we don't. I came here to address what The Man said about the origins of The Dead, not to deal with your tireless defensiveness about sweet sweet Dunell Hills. If you want to keep up the crusade for your bold text go ahead, but I said my piece for why I don't think it's notable so I'm out. --Riseabove 06:12, 31 March 2008 (BST)

New Noteworthy Suburbs

I think Santlerville should be included as "noteworthy". It's had a couple of major sieges over the last four or so months (The Battle of Santlerville and The Battle of SantLUEville). It's also home to one of the most well renowned and organised groups, The Dribbling Beavers. Thoughts?--Nallan 10:38, 15 August 2007 (BST)

Nah, wait a while, see if anything else overly notable happens.--Karek^maps?! 11:36, 15 August 2007 (BST)

Alright.--Nallan 12:10, 15 August 2007 (BST)

could someone answear a question for me? to quote the article on noteworthy suburbs it says "Suburbs listed in boldface contain notable locations, groups, or events." now is this accurate? in regards to the group part?--'BP^Tmz 06:15, 7 September 2007 (BST)

I think West Grayside should be included as "noteworthy". It has seen both the big bashes 1 and 2. It is home to the malton euro commision. Just face it a mall and a stadium. This suburb is also known to be a safe haven.--zinker 15:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Zinker^{T!Z!A!R! F !} zinker ^M! Brainzz

Laughably, no. These are not a "noteworthy" elements. Also, your sig sucks and is irritating.--Jorm 19:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well what does make a noteworthy suburb? Ancient history that has little relevance to the game today, like Caiger sieges? ... or a bunch of PKer has-beens vs. newfags -- all wannabes -- in Shearbank? This is a serious question... I mean, why is Sheabank noteworthy? Nothing of importance there that I know about, unless hot air counts. Or the Caiger burbs, considering that Caiger is merely an old, dead myth that some people still like to flog... What about Pegton and RMF vs. CDF? Hell what about Dunnell Hills, Dunnell Hills is certainly noteworthy... --WanYao 22:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiple major historical events that have effected how the game was played, a massive amount of players in the game, or the game itself. Shearbank was the biggest PKer victory in the games history, Pegton has been a major centerpoint for conflicts since the games creation with numerous massive historical battles, and Caiger changed how zombies go about mall sieges and survived two of the biggest sieges the game has ever seen. West Grayside has done nothing close to any of that, the next in line for a shot at being a Special noteworthy suburb then? Santlerville probably.--Karek^maps?! 00:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Dunell Hills? --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 07:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't stroke survivor groups egos as a force of habit. Do I really need to answer that though?--Karek^maps?! 10:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate three new suburbs for noteworthy status- Havercroft, as the home of Ackland Mall and the location of the Battle of the Bear Pit (the Channel 4 News Team's first major battle and a rather large battle anyhow) as well as several subsequent battles, and Pennville/Whittenside, as location of Fort Perryn, which was also the site of several major conflicts. I'd also like to recommend the updating of the Pitneybank entry- one would definitely think holding off the Second Big Bash for an entire month deserves some note.--Boris 22:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposing Dulston be promoted it is after all one of the safest places in Malton so ive heard not to mention the Alliance --Cardinal Ximenez 21:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I second Dulston. Besides being one of the two "safe" areas that survivors gravitate to, it has: seen every major zombie group, has the largest survivor group alliance, is rarely orange or yellow (just fluctuates between red and green), has the most survivor groups, and has only 1 barely active zombie group. Plus, its got DvB!P.S. Caleb approved! =P 23:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make it noteworthy. Definitions: You're doing it wrong. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 01:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If that doesn't make it noteworthy why is RidleyBank Special? It had the biggest zombie group for a long time, why not Dulston?--Cardinal Ximenez 00:29, 25 April 2008 (BST)

Dulston is and has been unremarkable. Your claim of "the largest survivor group alliance" is highly dubious unless you mean a lot of tiny groups start there. Every time zombies actually go up there in force to raid Treweeke Mall the survivors there cram into the most populated corner and refuse to sleep in the least populated, giving the zombies victory in a matter of days if they have enough numbers to take any mall. The only reason Dulston is generally safer is because it's an ignored moderate-to-low traffic suburb crammed in a corner. That doesn't sound tremendously noteworthy to me unless you want to go ahead and make all the corner suburbs noteworthy because they're corners or something fucking retarded like that. --Riseabove 00:39, 25 April 2008 (BST)

Wait a minute, by "largest survivor alliance" you didn't mean that recent united survivors ineffectual last stand or whatever it was called did you? I hope you didn't cause that was nowhere near the largest survivor alliance at any point in the game all hype aside. --Riseabove 00:41, 25 April 2008 (BST)

He means the Dulston Alliance, a largely ineffectual group of groups that has done very little in an area with very little activity. Also, still think that the DEM has them beat for sheer number of members. Neither group has done, or been involved with, anything really overly notable though, aside from just existing and being kinda big.--Karek^maps?! 06:49, 25 April 2008 (BST)

I'd say that Dulston is noteworthy, as it was the home of one of the game's most famous players, Caleb Usher, as well as a spot which numerous zombies want control over. It also recently had one of the biggest seiges of all time, featuring nearly every major zombie group in Malton, as well as Red rum. It also tends to be more safe than other suburbs, despite being attacked numerous times by numerous zombie groups, and it also has the most annoyign radio spam in Malton, Courtesy of the FEZ. Yonnua Koponen 19:50, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Caleb Usher is no Petrojsko, KotD, Jorm, or Ron Burgandy. No one outside of the DA and it's "associates" knows who he is, or cares, the Dulston Alliance has never done anything worth note, there has never been any large sieges in Dulston(contrary to your statement), there have never been any large hordes that destroyed the whole area that came from Dulston. All Dulston is or has been is a corner of Malton's map, and of the four it's the most notable only because Arkham hasn't had anything going on since 2006. It's not more safe, it's less populated, you want more safe look at Pitneybank or Santlerville.--Karek^maps?! 03:50, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Dulston had an event of note! The 1st (and only) Ice Cream Social of the WCDZ happened there. For that, i fully supposer Dulston for noteworthyness. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:54, 27 April 2008 (BST)

General Discussion

Get rid of noteworthy

What's the point? All it seems to do is create drama... and all for a few bolded names on the suburb map. Meh -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:02 25 April 2008 (BST)

I agree. Any noteworthy things can be added to the suburb pages.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:37, 25 April 2008 (BST)

Absolutely not. If people create drama around this feature of the suburbs page, it's those involved fault. Do not remove a feature that have been working in the suburb page since day 1. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:22, 25 April 2008 (BST)

As a compromise, could we talk about a set of objective criteria for determining whether a suburb is notable or not? Something other than "I hang around here, and stuff seems to happen" that the current criteria seems to be. I mean, with The Dead's rampage across Malton, everywhere has been having huge battles lately, and the places that haven't are notable because they are harboring the exiles of the places that are. So what should distinguish notable from non?

In the case of "Home of Large, Organized Groups" how does that interact with megahordes roaming the city? What is the threshold for "Large"? What is the threshold for being located in that suburb?

In the case of "Large, Notable Battles" what qualifies? Is it simply by survivor death count? Zombie (temporary) death count? Length of time it took to crack the barricades? "Swingyness" of the battle (that is, how many times it went back and forth)? How is it defined? Also, how long ago should it matter? If a large battle took place five years ago, should we still care? When is the cut off point?

Let these questions be answered, and I'd be happy about the "Noteworthy" system staying around. Without these questions being answered, I don't see the point. All bold means is that someone is stroking their own ego, and is getting pats on the backs from other wiki regualrs in a wiki circlejerk. Iunnrais 22:55, 25 April 2008 (BST)

We have criteria, they're what keep noteworthy actually useful as a way of finding out the safest and most dangerous(read zombie friendly) suburbs in the game. Most of the time suburbs get added to the list it is because most everyone agrees that they should be so, if you need to whine about it not being fair because a suburb you like isn't added there it doesn't deserve to be there. This is one of those things that has, and does, work out insanely well and just because a few people bitch about how "unfair" it is and you don't want to read it is not a reason to remove it.--Karek^maps?! 01:08, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Remove! It serves no real purpose and the term 'noteworthy' is stupidly ambiguous, pretty much any suburb with a mall or fort is note worthy for that alone. What 'burbs are 'of note' should change as groups grow and die, but they haven't. Correct me if i'm wrong but the list is much the same as it was when i joined over a year ago...--xoxo 09:32, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Then suggest a way to remove them instead of getting rid of it entirely. But it should probably be noted that only about 3-4 of those actually aren't currently noteworthy in anything but a historical status. Ridleybank is still one of the safest places for zombies to gather, Stanbury is still in a state of perpetual siege, Eastonwood is still a death zone to enter, Pitneybank/Giddings is still one of the strongest malls in the city(and has, since the days of Caiger, been the second strongest mall in Malton). And even then, two of those, the two notable because of Caiger, are still vital to the survival of a whole corner of Malton, even if they aren't as consistently safe as they once were.--Karek^maps?! 14:02, 26 April 2008 (BST)

That's what I'm suggesting. I'm saying the current criteria are insufficient, because what "everyone" agrees is notable is simply a group of people who would prefer keeping status quo in order to feel good rather than provide useful information. Since change is something that upsets things, in order to establish change, there needs to be RULES for it. To force the issue. Iunnrais 18:48, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Yes and those rules need to define the current system, not make it so that anyone who meets a small number of criteria can get a suburb marked notable. This is one of those cases that works out better with less definition.--Karek^maps?! 03:45, 27 April 2008 (BST)

So the reason for having noteworthy suburbs bolded on the map again? What is it? It serves no purpose that isn't adequately covered by the colouring system... in fact looking for red or green is much more important than looking for bolding which only seems to signify historical interest (something that fits better on the individual suburb pages) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:48 27 April 2008 (BST)

It exists to make those who were in the suburb at the time it became worthy of note feel good about themselves and to further confuse noobs/everybody else.--xoxo 01:04, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Oh I don't know Boxy, the fact that the suburb coloring is useless kinda makes your argument not worth the time it took to type. The fact that suburbs basically need unanimous agreement that they are notable to get marked notable makes them somewhat more significant than a temporal map that is wrong 90/100 times. The notable status shows the long term state of things and represents the direction of the game at large, just because you've never used it as a guideline doesn't mean others don't frequently, when I was a casual player who checked maybe once a week and those notable suburbs were easily the most useful portion of the danger map, albeit this was in 2006 but I have little doubt that the users who don't actively use the wiki still do much the same thing and there's no reason we should out them of a useful resource because some users that do use it frequently don't like drama or favoritism regardless of how realistic it is(see how useless Historical Groups and Historical Events have become because of the exact thing you're using to justify your complaints here).--Karek^maps?! 03:45, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Noteworthy month

I don't quite believe our little city has ever been in such shambles! I believe an announcement of some kind should be made as to this level of distress and that Kevin should be notified that his "un-biased" update, coupled with current mega-horde activity (the dead), has drastically turned the balance to the zed's side. I only hope there is a real present along with the Apr. 1 gag... And I kindly ask the Grimch not to cringe and wright something in the relation to flaming about zombies being underpowered. There has been to much talk about whats easier to play. =P 01:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll live... just have fun surviving in an actual zombie apocalypse for a change -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:02 25 April 2008 (BST)

Moderate Zombie Level Color

Note:This is my first edit, so bear with me if I do something terribly wrong. This is a subject very near and dear to my heart; in fact, it's the whole reason I registered on the wiki. You see, on the reports on zombie danger level in the Suburb pages, the yellow chosen for "Moderate" is incredibly hard to see.Actually, mildly invisible would be a better way to describe it. I'm red/green colorblind, a condition ~5 percent of the male population shares, so it would seem a worthwhile endeavor to change the color to something more... visible. --Sir Tanto 07:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So the yellow appears almost indistinguishable from white? Hmmm...what about the other yellows in this page, do they have the same problem? And is there enough difference between Very dangerous (red) and Safe (green)? --Toejam 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Strange, I assume you can still tell them apart right?--Karek^maps?! 04:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

When I first came across this, it was probably the third or fourth time I had visited Ruddlebank's page. Somebody had posted the day's danger level as "Low"; I checked back on the others and found that they had "Moderate" written in invisible-yellow.

The actual color of the yellow is fine when presented in a big, bold bar on the colors page, but doesn't stand up in letter-size writing. As per the other shades of "yellow" on that page, non of them appear as anything but shades of gray or light brown.--Sir Tanto 05:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the Ruddlebank page I can see what you mean - that yellow writing on the white background was pretty much unreadable. I've added a grey background, would you let me know if it's an improvement? --Toejam 13:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful! My eyes thank you, kind sir, as do I. --Sir Tanto 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Color System Discussion

main article: Suburb/Color System Discussion

Are there really that many Very Dangerous Suburbs or does someone like the color red

I think that having 1/4 of all the suburbs (all of the Northwestern Corner) being Very Dangerous is some noob or Zombie Propaganda movement there simply aren't enough zombies to do that i think that either people think just because a building is ruinied doesn't mean 150+ zeds are immedialty in the area Someone needs to check on this problem to see if there really are this many zombies around if so RUN FOR YOUR LIFES--Matterfoot 00:11, 2 September 2007 (BST)

Read the description. "Most buildings wide open or zombie-infested; OR hostile zombie mobs of 150+." There are actually three seperate conditions, ANY of which fully qualify.

• Most buildings wide open
• Most buildings zombie infested
• Hostile mobs of 150+

Clearly one of the first two applies to almost every burb in the NW right now. The real question is, do they qaualify as Ghost Towns yet? "At least 2/3rds of the suburb's buildings either Empty of Survivors or Ransacked AND having no zombie mobs of over 10 and no total zombies over 60". This is a pretty complicated description, but it seems the second half likely fails, because most of the NW burbs DO have mobs of 10 or a total of 60 zombies in them, either holding buildings or waiting for revives. Ghost Town means the place is EMPTY.  Swiers 01:46, 2 September 2007 (BST)

But should people who aren't usally zombies actually count as hositle mobs of 150+ I am not saying that all of them are Ghost towns I am just saying the all don't have 150+ mobs of zombies in them they could be Dangerous but not Zombie everywhere dangerous --Matterfoot 02:54, 2 September 2007 (BST)

It's not an and; it's an or. Those places are nightmarish for trying to survive right now.--Jorm 03:03, 2 September 2007 (BST)

Like Jorm said. "OR" means its "Very Dangerous" if any one of the listed conditions applies; the absence of large mobs is irrelevant if the majority of the buildings are trashed. And in any case, that many trashed buildings is a pretty good sign there IS a decent sized mob, just that one that is hiding / dispersed. 03:56, 2 September 2007 (BST)

Don't!. It'll be a ghost town soon enough. Who can be bothered going to fight the zerg The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 04:56 2 September 2007 (BST)

Also revive queue obviously don't count as a hostile mob, it's very easy to spot the difference but the burden of proof is on the dissenter. I don't doubt that many of the suburbs are actually gray and not red, but the problem there is there is no one left in the suburb to update it to gray, it almost always takes a third party passing through.--Karek^maps?! 08:08, 2 September 2007 (BST)

What sucks is that since no one wants to fight the the cheating scumfucks, they'll soon decide that they're "winning" and make thirdfourthfifth "alt group" and move to a new part of the city. Eventually, it will only be zergs, all the honorable people will quit playing, and they'll "win the game". Hooray, zombie trenchcoaters.--Jorm 08:39, 2 September 2007 (BST)

I'm also quite sure that Quite A Lot of those red suburbs whould be actually grey (ghost town). I've got characters myself there and the places are mostly in ruins with no "repaired" buildings or any hiding survivors... --~~~~ [Talk] 11:45, 2 September 2007 (BST)

I somehow doubt all of these are red. There aren't even enough pro zombies in the game to fill all those red suburbs and pose to be a very dangerous threat. I'm tempted to check every suburb myself to see if this is BS or not.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:26, 4 September 2007 (BST)

15967 zombies is enough for more than enough for 3 zombies on every single block of every single red suburb in the game. All it really requires is more than 10 zombies per suburb if the suburbs are almost completely ruined/ransacked(which seems to be the case). The numbers most definitely are there for this to be very true and correct according to the danger reports criteria. --Karek^maps?! 16:50, 4 September 2007 (BST)

A good chunk of those are Mrh? cows though. Regardless, some of these suburbs probably qualify as ghost towns as stated above. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:01, 4 September 2007 (BST)

They don't have to be hostile, mrh? cows are more than enough to qualify it for red over gray, the suburbs obviously aren't empty if most people in them are Mrh? cows, but they also aren't safer.--Karek^maps?! 17:05, 4 September 2007 (BST)

You think Extinction cheats..join it..(temperary)..and you will find out the truth. Otherwise dont say shit about us cause you know nothing but what other asshats tell you (example: jorm) so come and find out for yourself..otherwise keep your comments to yourselves. --Brainz 17:20, 4 September 2007 (BST)

"We've switched to a new 1 alt only policy, and yet, our numbers haven't changed!"--Jorm 17:41, 4 September 2007 (BST)

Its called recruitment Jorm. Extinction averages about 4 new members each day. BTW, i think i said it before..there WAS only about 10 or so members with more then 1 account in Extinction before, so our numbers are still quite high even after everyones (10 or so people) alts left Extinction. --Brainz 18:02, 4 September 2007 (BST)

On topic please, we're talking about abnormal amounts of red suburbs, not extinction alts.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:04, 4 September 2007 (BST)

Brooksville: ~200z on streets, Shearbank ~150, Gatcombeton ~60, Shuttlebank ~70, Millen Hills ~100, Darvall Heights ~60, Pitneybank ~0. Current wiki suburb ratings (accordingly): Dangerous, Very Dangerous, Very Dangerous, Very Dangerous, Very Dangerous, Very Dangerous, Moderate. --~~~~ [Talk] 20:28, 4 September 2007 (BST)

Seems pretty accurate since the ones with under 150 are completely ruined with not a single harman inside. Brooksville should be elevated to Red though. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 20:33, 4 September 2007 (BST)

I think we're about due for a new suburb color, something like brown or blue or whatever, that is between Red (VD) and Grey (Ghost); something that would be for a suburb with 3/4ths or more Ransacked (larger than the Ghost Town selection) AND Less than 150? 200? standing zombies, and probably called "Ruined" or somesuch. It'd take away the "doubt" between Red and Grey in the same way that GT was supposed to take the doubt between Green and Red (which interestingly was instituted after the ransack game change) I don't doubt that currently the red Suburbs are Very Dangerous, I simply think that "red" could be split some into two choices. --Karlsbad 21:11, 4 September 2007 (BST) Yes I am in Brooksville there is no doubt it is a VDS now--Matterfoot 01:39, 5 September 2007 (BST)

DHPD is fighting a mobile battle with Extinction that ranges over six suburbs and every day the overall situation improves as we recover more buildings than they have been able to re-ruin. As for the criteria - most buildings are still empty and ruined, the zed population is relatively low and buildings are not infested. I think ghost-town better represents the situation, we've had people hide in ruined buildings for days without attack, the actual danger level is low. FmrPFCBob 04:13, 5 September 2007 (BST)

If you are hiding in ruined buildings the danger level is obviously not low. It would be low if you were hiding in powered or barricaded buildings with next to no attacks. If you're hiding in ruined buildings you are obviously hiding from something.--Karek^maps?! 04:34, 5 September 2007 (BST)

Yet we've never *had* ruined buildings to hide in before, so there is no precedent as to whether that means the suburb is Very Dangerous or Dangerous. You even note that the Danger isn't low, but that also doesn't mean it is high either. Personally, I would say it qualifies as "VD", because if you ever have 3 to 6 or more Survivors in a ruined building the first Groan will create a Brian Buffet. --Karlsbad 04:42, 5 September 2007 (BST)

Look, you're hiding from zombies meaning it's zombie controlled and zombie dominated. In a gray suburb you don't need to hide, in a green suburb there are so few zombies that you can sleep in streets, in a yellow you don't need to worry about barricade levels unless you're in a resource building, and in orange you are constantly fighting zombies. The suburbs meet the letter and spirit of a Very Dangerous suburb.--Karek^maps?! 06:22, 5 September 2007 (BST)

However i support Karlsbad's idea of splitting VD into 2. There is a big difference between "zombies trashing everything on their way" and "zombies trashed everything a week ago and now there's just stragglers that follow groans" --~~~~ [Talk] 08:39, 5 September 2007 (BST)

Sleeping in a ruined building is no more dangerous than sleeping outside, either way if you're found you're in danger. As Duke said, "zombies trashed everything a week ago and now there's just stragglers that follow groans". Extinction uses their Guardians to harrass the ruined suburbs while their main group expands the area. For about a week now they've been unable to gather in large enough numbers to crack our safehouses before we relocate. There is no zombie control, just a threat, and with a mobile group in communication that threat is easily countered. The days of casually sitting in a mall and going out to hunt zombies are over and the danger levels should reflect that. With the possible exception of the forts a survivor in the city is the hunted, as it should be. FmrPFCBob 13:35, 5 September 2007 (BST)

Well there's some "debate" going on at this very moment about this, as several burbs are being updated to grey. I only want to question the assertion that a ghost town is "safe" for survivors. To me, 2/3 of all buildings wrecked, no real survivor presence and the possibility of dozens of feral zombies in the area -- all within the definition of a ghost town -- is still a pretty dangerous place to be breathing, especially if it's far behind "enemy lines"... In my opinion, the ghost town thing isn't about whether the areas are dangerous or not -- but about whether they lack a significant and organised presence of zombies and survivors alike. Personally, I think that's the crux of the matter... Others can beg to differ, or even correct me if I am mistaken, please do... But that's how I see it... --WanYao 06:38, 7 September 2007 (BST)

I agree, a ghost town is mostly empty, still contested, and neither side really has an advantage. FmrPFCBob 15:50, 7 September 2007 (BST)

Or, rather, no one is seriously contending for it... not in any significant numbers, anyway... Dunnel Hills -- sorry -- is a good example. Whether the DHPD is active there or not, they aren't holding anything... but neither is there a serious zombie presence from what I scouted... For all the little tiffs that have developed, and IMO some quite over-zealous upgrades of certain 'burbs earlier today, at least people are making an attempt to find out what's going on "behind the lines"... and debating the results... and not just taking the word of possibly out-of-date Extinction "victory reports"... This is healthy, methinks... --WanYao 00:15, 8 September 2007 (BST)

If you still cling to the idea that any group can "hold" anything you're about 9 months behind the times. NO territory or building can be held anymore with the possible exception of the forts and that has yet to be tested. Survivors who attempt to hold will die, its just a matter of time. DHPD has adapted to the new updates and prospered. We've been able to keep supplied, triple our numbers and only lose a handful of people for over 2 weeks now without heading to a green zone. Extinction hasn't been able to gather the strength to attack before we move so they're chasing shadows, we have them reacting to us and therefore we are in control of the situation.. We "aren't holding anything" longer than we choose to as a strategic choice. FmrPFCBob 03:23, 8 September 2007 (BST)

You're not even dealing with the topic at hand... You're just delving into bizarre ad hominem attacks and and anecdotes that aren't about the danger level map at all. Whatever, I grow weary of this. Cheers... --WanYao 05:19, 8 September 2007 (BST)

On the contrary, I am discussing the safety of Dunell Hills in support of the danger level I set and in relation to the excessive number of red suburbs that are probably in the same condition. Holding territory is an outdated tactic in UD and shouldn't be used to determine which side is in control. Study some military tactics and you'll see the IDA cylce is more important than defending to the death. As the primary survivors in the area DHPD, INO, and ZS have determined when and where we fight leaving Extinction to hit empty safe houses. Of course anyone traveling on their own will face a greater risk but I see nothing that says we're supposed to base danger levels on the threat to a 2 day old character or the loners that might pass through. In response to your last edit to the Dunell Hills page: It seems every time someone doesn't agree with your report you think its some personal affront. I believe ghost town is an irrelevant designation so I chose moderate because it accurately reflects the danger to a relatively active human in the area. If you don't like it change it, otherwise chill out or get voted into some position of authority here. Until then your POV is just like mine an OPINION. FmrPFCBob 13:08, 8 September 2007 (BST)

The issue at hand is the definition, as it stands -- flawed rating system notwithstanding, we use what we have till we have better -- of a "ghost town".

I happened to scout DH extensively and it fit those very specific criteria of a ghost town, and I posted a news report to that effect. That's it... Shortly after my News post, you changed the danger level, I never touched it... then you posted to the news saying my assessment of DH being a ghost town was wrong -- when it was based precisely on the definition, and backed up by screenshots and everything. Understandably I defended myself against these comments... You are the one being irrational and stubborn and dragging this out... and then taking it here, too boot, and off our talk pages, why do that? then claiming it's me who's starting a war?? Whatever... And, btw... I am neutral, I have no stake in DH, or in falsifying or distorting anything, I was satisfying my curiosity and reporting what I discovered... as objectively as I was able... period...

Well, anyway... I'm done... Guess what, that means you even get the last word!!! Enjoy.... --WanYao 14:39, 8 September 2007 (BST)

I'm not after the last word but I'll not be misconstrued. To quote you ..
... I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, but it is a gorram ghost town. --WanYao 04:50, 8 September 2007 (BST)
That followed my explanation of why I changed the level and I've seen it before when you've dealt with others. I never said your assessment was wrong, only that I disagreed. I'll grant you that ghost town could apply, so can moderate as the criteria are written, change it if you feel that strongly about it, I'm not stopping you. As for bringing it here ...
You're not even dealing with the topic at hand... You're just delving into bizarre ad hominem attacks and and anecdotes that aren't about the danger level map at all. Whatever, I grow weary of this. Cheers... --WanYao 05:19, 8 September 2007 (BST)
There were no attacks in my statement and every bit of it was relevant to my stance on the danger level in Dunell Hills. But you are wrong about the issue at hand, look at the header and you'll see "Are there really that many Very Dangerous Suburbs or does someone like the color red", not "the definition of ghost town". FmrPFCBob 15:27, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Let's just drop it please... But, first I do have to add a couple of things, and I apologise to the community for this drama, sigh... Anyway, a few days ago, I made some changes to danger levels based on External Military reports... I was called out on them, and realised that I was being rather "over-zealous," yup. I talked to some other users, we did it on our talk pages... and I learned something from the experience... But, then, remembering that I had a mostly unused alt in the area, and my curiosity not yet satisfied re: what's going on "behind enemy lines", I did some first hand scouting in DH. And shared the results. You'll notice that I did not change the danger levels in DH at all... I did that out of respect, having learned from my previous experience. But I did post my findings and conclusions to the DH News. Then you came on and said, and I quote you, "It's a suburb danger level, the designation of ghost town has no bearing on danger, it only indicates the population of a suburb" (underscores omitted). I replied that your definition was mistaken, and pointed you to my reason for asserting this... Okay, I was probably overly defensive in doing so, and I apologise for that... However, I have to say my defensiveness wasn't totally unjustified, for I was not mistaken, myself. But, whatever... but then it just escalated... Soooooo... You know what? why don't we both be reasonable, and just stop this here, there's no need for it to continue... is that cool? --WanYao 17:18, 8 September 2007 (BST)

I've seen the way danger levels make some people edgy but had you changed it to ghost town it would have been fine with me, it actually happened a few hours ago. However, my definition is based on my opinion and therefore cannot be "wrong" just like yours is not, we disagree, simple as that. The problem is the flawed criteria which is being discussed elsewhere. So, yeah .. its cool. FmrPFCBob 17:32, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Well I would say that the current level of red is approriate so I am pleased--Matterfoot 07:03, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Group Listings on Suburb Pages

They should all (zombie, survivor and pker) be wiped every 6 months (june 30, december 31) and let groups re-enter them if they are still active within the suburb The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 10:29 8 September 2007 (BST)

No, no, NO! Every 3 months, or 6 months, or whatever... they are asked to post some kind of timestamped response confirming their presence. They'd have a week or two to respond, whatever is reasonable. THEN, if nothing, they get deleted. And if they're obviously active (posting to the wiki, etc) you don't bloody touch them. Just deleting them wholesale, then requiring THEM to fix YOUR damage??? a) it's a guilty until proven innocent mentality, which is just plain lame, to put it mildly and b) as far as I can see it amounts to vandalising the wiki. No wiki brain-wipes! --WanYao 11:35, 8 September 2007 (BST)

I agree with WanYao, it would be better to first ask groups if they're still active in a suburb. --Toejam ^{A Stats Graph} 13:29, 8 September 2007 (BST)

It wouldn't. it's the worst and most work intensive way, that places the most work on the smallest group of people. We already have such a similar situation that WanYao is protesting. At the recruitment page you have to make an edit once every two weeks or your ad gets deleted. That is a similar situation that removes group listings. The group has prove themselves active in order to stay up. That has nothing to do with vandalism. It's just a requisite for having your group up. asking people to make a single edit once every year or half a year is less work for both the group and the people maintaining the suburb pages, The suburb maintainers only have to make on edit and the groups only have to make one edit each. That's 400 edits tops divided evenly amongst everybody. And a hour or two for the maintainers of the suburb pages.

Asking people to provide a time stamp is a lot more work. first every group has to be checked whether or not they are active,and if they are active if they are active in that suburb because they could be in another suburb all together, so they should be contacted as well. Then all the inactive groups have to be contacted they have to provide a time stamp. Then the maintainers of the suburb pages have to sort out which ones have reacted to which suburb and only then can they delete the inactive ones. That would mean triple the edits and cost ten times the man hours.

All that just to prevent that a name is taken down for a week or so? There isn't a right that allows people to have their name up forever without them doing as little work as possible. This is a wiki and everybody should do some the work, not just the people who already do a lot of work. That is the wrong sort of reasoning. If a solution takes less time and less work for everybody it is the vastly superior solution above the one that places triple the amount of work and cost of time on just a small group of people.

There is a simple compromise, adapt the the suburb pages rules to those of the recruitment page. Provide a timestamp every two weeks or months or whatever or anybody can delete your group, no questions asked. It's more work for the groups, but it's their group. So although worse then a spring cleaning twice a year it would still be hugely preferable to the rather work intensive solution you two proposed.-- Vista  +1  14:10, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Vista, your compromise solution was something I was actually thinking would be best... Do something like that every 2 or 3 months? My rhetoric got the best of me, but my motive was simple: I don't like the idea of people just having their groups deleted wholesale, it doesn't seem right... that's all... --WanYao 14:45, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Why not make it like the recruitment page? If you haven't updated you're timestamp there, you're removed. Have it at the beginning of a new month. Have some kind of template thingy that a group makes that automatically places their name on the suburb. I don't know how this thing works but here's what I'm trying to say. Each suburb has a template, example Template:Ridleybank/Groups, and inside that template people must place their template (like the recruitment group template), example Template:RRF/Suburbs. It'll put their name on every Template:Suburb/Group template that they place their Template:Group/Suburbs template in. At the bottom of their Group/Suburb template they'll have a timestamp where they must list each suburb, in the nowiki coding, and have a timestamp next to each suburb. Everyone understand this or should I make a couple of pages to show y'all? --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 16:08, 8 September 2007 (BST)

I was thinking something similar, but simpler. Have a template for each suburb groups section, and each group moves their name to the top of the list every few months. Groups whose names fall to the bottom get removed if they haven't been moved up for 6 months (or whatever period). Being that the list is on a template of it's own, it's easy to work out how long since a group has updated their presence in the suburb (without the need for timestamps) The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 16:28 8 September 2007 (BST)

I don't like that because I like how groups are in alphabetical order right now. That keeps fighting for who's on top to a minimum. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 16:34, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Well I don't really mind, I don't have much to do with the suburb pages (except the one's I'm personally in at the time), but can just see that checking a single template would be easier than checking every group's suburb page every time you wanted to clean up a list (not to mention the fact that every newbie group would have to make a page in the right format so you could find it... I can see only nightmares there). I like to K.I.S.S. The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 16:59 8 September 2007 (BST)

The recruitment page works similar to this right now. And instead of checking group suburb templates it could instead be put on the Suburb template instead. So all you'd have to do is check the suburb template to see if the group is active. This would make more sense. I'll try to recruit a couple of people to try this. Swiers and Hagnat might know how to do this. We'll try it on a couple of pages and if it works we'll try to push to have it on every suburb. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 17:57, 8 September 2007 (BST)

And if a group isn't activately recruiting, does that mean it doesn't exist? No, it doesn't, so this shouldn't be done. As a matter of interest, there are also groups which don't even have group pages - e.g. the Badmen of The Badman Building, who according to your system would not exist as far as the wiki is concerned, which is again, innacurate, which is why things like this shouldn't be encouraged. The wiki is meant to inform about what is happening in the game - such ruleplaying leads to excuses for the sort of abuse Sonny has exercised on literally about a score of suburb pages recently---Crabappleslegalteam 21:10, 8 September 2007 (BST)

1. You're a fucking retard. Just want to get that out there since I want no misunderstandings in the next few things I say. 2. The "Badmen" aren't on the suburb page to begin with. So fuck them for being lazy. 3. It has nothing to do with active recruiting. Did you pick up one word, "recruitment", out of everything I said and think that's what I was talking about? If so, please refer to the first sentence in the first point. I said to make a style of having groups on suburb pages similar to the recruitment page, as in using a template instead of placing your name there. 4. No one said anything about any groups not existing. In fact all I said was have groups create a template to place in the template of each suburb so that they can update through there and timestamp to see who's active. 5. You're a fucking retard for not reading anything I said. 6. Die in a fire. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 23:33, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Ya boo sucks to you too, Mr. dodgy! We must admit, since all the evidence we've presented regarding your gross malpractice in deleting groups on the vandal banning page has been ignored by you and all the other pro-zombie propogandists, it's hard to bother reading in full whatever you write. Especially because we're all pissed at the moment. The Badmen are on the page, because we put them there, because there are loads of them, and they have lasted a whole lot longer than Johnny come lately groups like the rule bending extinction, but just do things without all this bullshit you're faffing the wiki around with. Zombie players have been changing danger levels to misrepresent the situation in their favour for months. News pages have been declaring GLORIOUS VICTORY FOR THE RIGHTEOUS ZOMBIES at the drop of a hat. Now you're trying to bring in a "we can delete groups off a page at the drop of a hat when we haven't met anyone while sauntering through a suburb 1 day" rule thats so fuck stupid, Mussolini would have thought twice before bringing it in. Bloody zombie fascists! We're a retard? You're so up your own mouldy arse, you probably believe your own completely innaccurate deletions are actually half justified! "fucking retard, fucking retard - let me piss all over the zombie game all I like, cos I'm all important and this is all I do with my life" yeah, like who gave this arrogant little shit the power?!?--Crabappleslegalteam 02:39, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Yeah, Sonny, but the recruitment page has timestamps on it. Do we really want every group listed to have a timestamp next to it so you can tell just by looking at the suburb page when it was last updated? How else could you tell, using your system? The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 03:20 9 September 2007 (BST)

The only practical limit is two weeks, two months is too long, two days is too short, and one week is practical but a bit too much to ask. If a group is too lazy to come by twice a month then they are too lazy to deserve the privileges and rewards that come along with being on that list. The suburbs page is meant to be an informational tool and anything over two weeks is horribly out of date when it comes to group locations, always is and always has been. Every two weeks suburb groups pages should be regularly cleared, the 15th and the 30th of every month.--Karek^maps?! 01:28, 9 September 2007 (BST)

It should be a month at very least! THE WIKI IS MEANT TO BE AN INFORMATIVE REFERENCE POINT FOR WHAT HAPPENS IN THE GAME. Full stop. End of story - it should not be the case that those who spend there whole life on the wiki can bring a half a dozen rules to stop groups that have healthy numbers being admitted to exist because they don't spend half their lives maintaining their group on the wiki, but just play them in game! God, we've never encountered so much cobblers on the wiki in the whole game as you zombie players are trying to bring in at the moment!!! WanYao is right, and you bullshitters should be STOPPED--Crabappleslegalteam 02:41, 9 September 2007 (BST)

You're an idiot. It's supposed to be informative. Outdated info is no longer useful. If a group is no longer there then it serves no purpose other than to spread misinformation. Seriously, I wonder what goes on in your whacked out little mind. Keep it up and you might be burned as a witch --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 02:54, 9 September 2007 (BST)

I don't think a month or two out of date is too bad for suburb group lists, they seldom get over long, do they? And just by having a cut off, and requiring groups to update or be removed, it will encourage them to keep the info more up to date anyway (seeing they're making edits anyway) The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 03:20 9 September 2007 (BST)

Yuppers. If you make them timestamp it at the beginning of each month you'll have a more accurate picture of who's active and who's not. If they can't be assed to update then there is no point for them even being there since anyone who wants to get i ncontact with them won't be able to see they're not active. If only Chicken Little could see this. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 04:23, 9 September 2007 (BST)

And what about groups that are "active" but have no real presence? Until recently, Shearbank had two groups listed that only boasted three members, and the DEM claims to operate all across Malton, but in many places has no permanent or significant force. LUE is also on the Shearbank page, despite only passing through, and I've seen it and other zombie groups listed on suburb pages even though those groups are highly nomadic. I'm a LUE member and fairly active on the wiki. I could keep us on a page indefinitely, but it wouldn't be an accurate representation of the situation.--Insomniac By Choice 09:13, 9 September 2007 (BST)

The RRF does not put its name on every suburb it visits because we know we will be leaving in a couple of days. Survivors don't do this. They're the UD equivalent of capitalists. They'll do anything for some spotlight just to make a quick buck, or in their case get another member. LUE shouldn't be listed in Shearbank if it isn't there, unless it is historical to the suburb, which it really isn't compared to DARIS. The DEM can claim to be everywhere at once but one or two members doesn't mean jack shit. If all 400 of their zerg alts were evenly distributed to each suburb there would only be 4 per suburb. Not enough for a group. So since we know they're not evenly distributed they must be more in one or two big suburbs. Let them list their names there, not in the suburbs where they have no one in. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 15:19, 9 September 2007 (BST)

See the side. Nalikill 15:24, 9 September 2007 (BST)

We already have a Drama Llama image. It's in this template. And the only drama is coming from the retardedness that is cabappleslegalteam. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 15:44, 9 September 2007 (BST)

	Drama Llama
	The Llama is watching you.

Oh, you're not giving yourself enough credit, Corleone! Anyway, we can't be bothered arguing on this page anymore - we'll just wait for the vote--Crabappleslegalteam 16:09, 9 September 2007 (BST)

The vote? What vote? Are you and the voices in your head talking again? --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 16:12, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Crabappleslegalteam, this doesn't need a vote it's not official policy. Any user is allowed to wipe the groups list in good faith, this is just trying to develop a general consensus for it so as to get a feeling of a reasonable time frame for doing it so that groups that aren't there aren't listed as active. It's a privilege to be listed there, just like it's a privilege to be listed on the recruitment list. Both should have somewhat similar rules in regards to removing groups, recruitment requires you to update your add to stay on the list, for the same basic reason a group should have to reverify that they are in a suburb. In the past many groups have left and simply decided not to remove their group from the group list and is has caused confusion and misinformation. Suburb pages are meant to be information resources, this makes sure that they are up to date.--Karek^maps?! 21:22, 10 September 2007 (BST)

	Attention
	Please do not feed the Trolls

Nuff said. --The Grimch ^U! 05:03, 11 September 2007 (BST)

Alphabetical Order

I really, really hate these in alphabetical order. Order of "most recent" at the top is far more useful. Can we switch this back?--Jorm 20:53, 20 September 2007 (BST)

Karen Howard made it in abc order without any announcement/discussion. It is still supposed to be in "most recent" order... --~~~~ [talk] 21:06, 20 September 2007 (BST)

Then I shall roll it back.--Jorm 21:09, 20 September 2007 (BST)

I just undid the header change, it's back to the old easier to navigate way. Also reordered reports by when they were reported and removed stuff older then two weeks.--Karek^maps?! 12:37, 21 September 2007 (BST)

I only placed it in alphabetical order because I remember for the longest time that's how it used to be done and thought that was still in effect. I had some time on my hands and the reports looked like a wreck and wanted to do some community service around the wiki -- most the time I only have time to clear out the oldest most irrelevant reports. Karen Howard 19:02, 22 September 2007 (BST)

In my opinion doing it by alphabetical suburb would be better, that way you can see the latest report for a suburb. In addition, all someone would have to do is find the relevant suburb and replace the old report with a new one.--ramby 07:41, 23 September 2007 (BST)

No, because not all suburbs have most recent reports. You'll see the latest report for a suburb one way or another, as any other reports are just not stored. --~~~~ [talk] 10:02, 23 September 2007 (BST)

If in chronological order, you get a better feel for how the city as a whole is changing. Plus, if you're trying to research a suburb, you should probably go to that page specifically; the "Suburb" page is really more about an overall status.--Jorm 18:09, 23 September 2007 (BST)

September 26th 2007 The safest day EVAR!

With a new record level of Zombies (Survivors 63% Zed 37%) and a record low VDS land I proclaim this day every year to be the Safest Day EVAR!! (unless another day lower than this is reached which It looks like it will according to trends I wonder what might be causing this??--Matterfoot 01:19, 26 September 2007 (BST)

This how it usually always works. Every so often Survivors gain the majority of the population, then it switches.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:51, 27 September 2007 (BST)

I wouldn't know, but it's been worse before, hasn't it? The pre-On Strike days? Also, what's silly is that there are several burbs that I have been in where you have these giant mobs of apparently unorganised zombies all on one building. Meanwhile, the rest of the burb is zombie-free and totally safe... And the entire suburb's survivor population just defends that sole building... and of course is able to beat off the zeds... We're at an odd crossroads where my former yelling at survivors to get more organised seems to need to be replaced with shrill shouts for zombies to start playing smarter... I mean, if these mobs of up to 100 zombies split into 2 or 3 sub-mobs and forced survivors to split up and to have to guess a bit, and waste AP clearing lesser buildings, etc... then I bet you could totally destroy these burbs in a week or so, tops... but no we have these odd stalemated (and boring) mega-sieges on single buildings... hmph... --WanYao 04:29, 27 September 2007 (BST)

Zombies that stay in one spot make me feel safer than a green suburb. Oldies getting tired and newbies coming in?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:36, 27 September 2007 (BST)

It's due to the ruin update. Now survivors get to see where zombies have broken in and emptied the building (and the ransacked penalty has been applied). When powered buildings became viewable, there was a similar swing to the zombie population. Survivors get this benefit at an AP cost to zombies. Players I've spoken to that play both zombies and survivors realised before I did that the ruin update was more beneficial to survivors. In a way that's inevitable, once you look at how the powered building update affected Malton. However it's the AP cost to zombies that makes it fucked. I tell all zombies under my command to ransack only and leave the ruin to ferals. 'arm. 10:43, 27 September 2007 (BST)

The pendulum sways back and forth all the time, even if there would have been no updates. I could refer you to some mathematical victim-predator models, such as Lotka-Volterra --~~~~ [talk] 14:41, 27 September 2007 (BST)

It's interesting that the zombie:survivor balance does appear to emulate the predator-prey models, and it's not clear that such a model should apply in UD. Afterall, neither side needs to feed on the other to survive/exist. Malton is just a VERY large battlefield, with 2 players-types, non-equal distribution of resource-points and a multiplicity of playing styles. You wouldn't expect the same models in a FPS game with the same components.. so why here? 'arm. 16:38, 27 September 2007 (BST)

Hmmm.. I thought it was due to as phenomena I like to call Newtons Third law of gaming that when one side pushes to hard the side being pushed will push back with equal or greater force. It happened during several zed excursions and survior take overs when one side gets the edge another takes it back but I am complicating the matter --Matterfoot 00:42, 28 September 2007 (BST)

We all know Ridleybank is the Zombie Capital...

We all know ridleybank is the Zombie Capital... So what is the Survivor Capital??? BoboTalkClown 20:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

They don't have just one, Dunnell Hills is safe most of the year round, the Dulston Area(those 9 suburbs in that corner) is probably the safest area in Malton the most consistently since Caiger fell, and then there's the Caiger Area that is also usually safe, and, now, the Giddings/Creedy area. Not sure if Yagoton is still considered one of those places.--Karek^maps?! 00:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I like to think of Greater Dulston as the Northern Union capital, Buttonville as the communal center of the southern state/burbs, and Caiger as the West's super Alamo. =P 00:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I always felt it was Caiger Mall, whether occupied or trashed. No one can change the history that happened there.--TheFlys 05:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I, too, like to see Dulston as the survivor capital. But with the friggin' overnight zombie assault making the place red, then it is a sad time for survivors. » JS talk contribs » 05:08, 2 April 2008 (BST)

External Military Report Map

The above page allows a direct comparison of (summarized) reports from the External Military radio reports with the suburb danger level map, and provides access to logs of EMR broadcasts for each suburb. I hope people find it useful!  Swiers 15:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, it seems that there should be more red suburbs; any suburb with an infrastructure score of *-- or --- qualifies under the current suburb danger level descriptive system, regardless of all other factors.  Swiers 15:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yellow Vs Green

After looking at the above map, I noticed that there are actually cases where a rather safe suburb qualifies for neither yellow nor green (nor orange or red).

• Green: Break-ins rare, no zombie groups.
• Yellow: Active zombies and break-ins, but no 50+ hostile hordes

Now, imagine if there IS a zombie group, but there are effectively no break ins (infrastructure ***, power A). Which category does this qualify for? Compare for example, East Grayside (green, z: ~30 i: **- p: B) and Crowbank (yellow, z: ~40 i: *** p: A). To me, it seems East Grayside should be yellow, because there are buildings in zombie hands. But Crowbank should be green, despite having more zombies, because those zombies are not damaging any buildings / generators. Am I missing something?  Swiers 15:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Green is an extreme, it's limit is the min required, if it doesn't meet it it's yellow.--Karek^maps?! 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Biased?

I have a question, why does a page entitled, "Suburbs" have a danger map intended for survivors. You may argue that "zombie players can use the map", but I would say that that is not the point. The point is that by having a survivor tool on what is arguably the most important and most viewed wiki page influences new players to play as survivor and creates the impression that the game is about surviving. I propose that the suburb page be changed to show a map, perhpas just a more visuially pleasing version of this. Another link be created to the mainpage, this one, which is just the current suburb page. The third link will be the Zombie_Map. I believe that this will represent all sides of the game fairly. Although I believe that this is the best option, a comprimise could be merging the zombie_map onto the suburb page. Thank you for your consideration. --Thekooks 22:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

you have a good point.... but the alternative (i.e. the zombie map) imo kinda sucks. it doesn't really reflect any useful information. whereas at least the danger level gives you an idea of relative zombies vs. survivors strength. however, i think you overestimate the ideological/indoctrination effect of the wiki, and underestimate the ingrained Hero Complexes of most survivor players. i think most people take it with a grain of salt are not influenced by the bias which you see. but they ARe inlfuenced IMO by the bias inherent in a game mechanic which provides multiple specialties/niches for survivor characters to play, i.e. dedicated healers/revivers, combat-y types, firemen/support types. so people wanna try all the different survivor roles, and maybe play one zombie... cuz every zombie basically does the same thing, eat people. and all those DEM members with 3 survivor alts in different departments, and no zombie characters -- oh wait, that is just an organised Hero Complex clique... but you catch my drift, i am sure. my thoughts... --WanYao 01:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree about being infuluenced by other things, still, the maps of suburbs should have the zombie map as well. Even if it does suck a little bit, it is the principle. --Thekooks 15:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it should not, it's unnecessary repetition of information, not to mention it makes the page look worse and detracts from the news briefs on the page(which are usually the least bias news reports in the whole of the wiki.)--Karek^maps?! 23:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So you agree a map which is completely geared towards survivors should be on the "suburbs" page? I think that is blatant bias, it does not matter if the map "happens" to be useful to zombies, it is meant only for 58% of the playerbase and I will not rest until that page is representative of the other 42% of players!--Thekooks 23:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Red means safe for zombies. Green means unsafe for zombies. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The map isn't geared towards anyone, it's just a flaw of a choice made when danger levels were implemented. The truth is Red is definite zombie control, Orange is zombie majority, Green is definite and complete survivor control, Yellow is survivor majority.--Karek^maps?! 23:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"Dangerous: Zombies inside many resource buildings; OR hostile mobs of 50+" Looks pretty geared towards survivors to me.--Thekooks 12:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

How, it means there is much feasting and large safe groups to sleep in.--Karek^maps?! 12:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thekooks, If you formulate it "Our friends breached many resource buildings OR fierce sieging mobs of 50+" the meaning won't change --~~~~ [talk] 15:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, the point I was raising is that you are calling a suburb "DANGEROUS" if there are "Zombies inside many resource buildings; OR hostile mobs of 50+" it is NOT dangerous to zombies. Therefore the danger map is geared towards survivors.--Thekooks 15:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Then propose a change to the danger level system, that's essentially what I meant by the choice made when the system was added.--Karek^maps?! 15:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere, how would one propose a change to the danger rating system?--Thekooks 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, but if anyone would know it would be hagnat.--Karek^maps?! 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How about just calling them "Red", "Orange", "Yellow", "Green" and "Grey"? Names could be changed, but color-codes - doubtfully, too many players are already used to them --~~~~ [talk] 18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, I think it is best to just have a blank "suburb map" on the suburb page, and two pages for two different zombie and survivor maps. That would be the simplest option.--Thekooks 20:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So if nobody has anything more to add I'll take that as a consensus on doing the above.--Thekooks 17:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Give it a few more days just to be sure. --Toejam 18:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, blanking "suburb map" on the suburb page is a terrible idea. --~~~~ [talk] 21:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it how it is. Simple, clean and beneficial for both sides. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As both above, the suburb map is one of the most frequently visited pages on the wiki and that is in part due to the danger level functionality of it, and in part no one would know about a danger level map if it were placed anywhere else. If that function weren't there many zombies would never get out of the green sububrs, or know about Ridleybank being the most likely place to not deal with daily headshots, or be able to find or follow zombie hordes. I've always seen it as more useful to zombies as is because they need to know where the zombies are more than survivors need to. --Karek^maps?! 21:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as biased against zombies. Zombies aren't trying to make the world safe, they're trying to make it dangerous! If you're playing a zombie, you're playing the "bad guy" and would see a "dangerous" suburb as dangerous to your enemies, and hence gloat over it. "Mwahhaha, look how much of the city is in ruins! Those cowering harmanz are being eaten alive. They *should* feel frightened- their fear is a delicious appetizer to our feast of conquest. Bwahahah!" At least that's how I see it. The map strokes my ego equally well for me whether I'm a human or a zombie. --Ms.Panes 19:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Lesson needed to be learned before spending much more time here, Zombie != bad guy. Actually, the closest thing to bad guys we have are Trenchcoaters and Pkers.--Karek^maps?! 06:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Zombies do like to inspire fear in harmanz... you know this to be true, karek, don't deny it... zombies delight when survivors tremble in their space boots... --WanYao 18:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Only because they delight in hurting our young and violently kicking us out of our homes in the middle of the night.--Karek^maps?! 00:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow... I don't do it for "revenge" or "protective instincts"... I love the fear. Period. --WanYao 07:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

External Military Reports

Stop posting them in suburb news sections. Just stop.

It's stupid. They're great flavor, but they're meaningless and do not in any way indicate danger levels. So save yourself from looking like an idiot and stop. posting. them.--Jorm 16:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. They provide information, often useful information... And they provide unbiased, if not 100% complete, information. They are thus not meaningless, not at all. In fact, in some suburbs EM reports end up being the only source of information on goings on in weeks... sad, but true. As for their use in determining danger levels, that's a totally different matter... they can assist in that, but unless a report makes it perfectly clear that a certain danger is present, they should not be the sole basis of danger levels, agreed. But that's a seperate matter... --WanYao 18:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, though... what do others besides me and Jorm think? --WanYao 19:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Accurate, unbiased and too the point. If it won't be used in suburb danger level updates, then it should at least be put in the news section. Gives a nice update, really. Since a lot of suburbs go without a news update for weeks. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Jorm is wrong. In the time that I was maintaining the EMRM, I saw a high correlation between suburb danger levels (or what they should be, once I looked into actual current circumstance) and the information in the reports.  Swiers 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he's right, they shouldn't be the only thing being used as a basis to update the danger level, they don't really provide the kind of information necessary for anything other than changing between yellow and orange.--Karek^maps?! 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Scent Death

The new scent death map potentially offers an easy way to census the population of zombies and bodies in a suburb, as it covers an 11x11 block area and (per the info at Talk:Zombie Skills/Scent Death should be able to be used to get an accurate count of total numbers in that area (or a 10x10 subsection). This probably isn't in itself enough to decide if a suburb is safe or dangerous, but it does seem like if a scent map indicated there are 70 zombies in a burb, it probably should not be yellow.  Swiers 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell happened?

Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I've just got to ask. Last time I was in Malton was the day Monroeville was created, and everything was fine... but now everything has pretty much been killed! Who, or what caused this? My guess is that all the survivors have been playing in Monroeville, and no humans are in Malton. Am I right? • DS • ^{Tlk•Dev•W!•+1} 20:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There are people in Malton, it's more like the zombies and survivors just switched sides. That and The Dead have started destroying Malls.--Karek^maps?! 20:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bit of both really, people giving up an alt to go to MV. It makes a difference. 1500 zombies turns up, just as the zombies learn a new trick. Makes a difference. New zombie wiki players wanting the whole city red. definately. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Check the official stats page, its 35% human to 65% zeds at the time of this writing, its rough out there for humans. --Memoman 21:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

When they said that zombies are the only ones who can theoretically win, I didn't think that it'd actually happen! I heard about The Dead just now - do they have anything to do with it? • DS • ^{Tlk•Dev•W!•+1} 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think so. I've been keeping track of their targets and the shape of the red area, and it seems to be moving around the map like a big wave. First it grew all at the top, then it moved SW, and now it's moving SE. The Dead are pretty amazing, but if the zerging is as bad as I've been hearing on their discussion page, than there's actually 500 of them.--TheFlys 03:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is impressive in itself, considering that that's double the size of the second-largest group in Malton (which is also zombie, along with the third-largest). But that is also some seriously unchecked zerging if it's true, and something should seriously be done. And if nothing can be done about the zerging, then the barricade block needs to be removed at the very least, because I know that a large part of the remaining survivor population is going to quit at this rate.

Speaking as a pro-survivor here, I can say with absolute certainty that the last statement is solid gold fact. Pro-zombie players tell survivors to "just adapt", but survivors have NEVER been able to adapt at any high speed, and the combination of another superhorde as well as a nerf to the biggest advantage and tool of the survivor side is a bit much. People aren't even going to try to adapt to this- they're going to quit. Something must be done.--Boris 00:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Barricades have never been the biggest advantage survivors have they're just the most commonly used and the one that makes it the hardest for zombies to enjoy the game.--Karek^maps?! 00:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree, but if you have a bigger advantage to present I'll hear it. At any rate, my point stands- unless the survivors get shown a little love (no matter how superfluous), many of them are going to quit. The last pro-survivor update was back in August, and it was simply the addition of pipes as extremely-low-level barricades. --Boris 01:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm just going to come off as a whiny survivor to the zombie players (though I actually play a zombie alt), but Boris has a really strong point here. I've noticed huge drop-offs in the survivor groups I play in, and the groups hurt most by it are some of the game's more beloved organizations -- the Malton Zookeepers, the Quartly Study Group, and other groups that make this game fun. I'm seeing a lot of old players quit because they're tired of waking up dead every morning, and I've seen a lot of new survivor players really upset because they can't stay alive along enough to gain the skills that will actually help them stay alive in general. I'm really impressed that the zombies have made such a serious, unstoppable run on this game, and I'm glad they're doing so well, but the survivor groups are suffering quite badly for it, and for a lot of people the game has just ceased to be fun. --Diano 01:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think zombies like to have all buildings barricaded at VHB+++++ every morning when they log in the game ? Hell we dont. But we had to live with that, and with pesky human players bragging about how their burb were safe and how the zombies where a bunch of losers yada yada. Now that we have gained a nice boost, that we have another organized mega-horde playing, you guys want to scream that's not fair and quit because you can't find a revive ? Please. If that is the kind of player that run the survivor groups, than i think i am glad this people are leaving. Ron didn't quit when he was getting killed every day once he got a revive, and he led one of the greatest survivor groups ever to exist in Malton. It's time for you whinny survivors to start asking "What would Ron Burgundy do ?" instead of "Boo hoo, i am leaving". --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And that was an extremely predictable response from the zombie side of the equation. I'm not going anywhere -- I live here, man. This is how the game is played. I'm not crying because I wake up dead more often than not, but I'm also not happy to see survivor players just giving up and making it even easier for the zombies to steamroll our asses into the ground. Zombies actually have it pretty easy, systems-wise -- death is nothing more than a nuisance for you, equipment is completely irrelevant, and your tactics at this point are essentially focused on numbers, because that's all you need to win a siege anymore. Personally, I think that's just fine -- in zombie movies, zombies win when they have the weight of numbers, and that's why I play. But honestly, fuck you for accusing us of whining when the point of what we're saying here isn't "This sux, it's so not fair!" and is rather, "Hey, have you noticed how many survivors just aren't bothering to show up anymore? That is not good." A lot of you old timers hang your Project UnWelcome signs up and are more than happy not to get new players, but the rest of us actually like larger numbers in the game, and want it to be friendly to n00bs. Call me a whiny survivor if you want to (even though it just makes you more of a dick), but I don't really care about getting killed by zombies. I do care about hemorrhaging players because of it. --Diano 02:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There's about 35 K characters in the game now, which is more than one or two months ago. But I guess new ZOMBIE players don't count? And no, not all of those are in the Dead - their ~1500 members don't make up the gap, not by half, not by half. Really, is it so unexpected that now that zombies can actually do something, more people would want to play them?  Swiers 05:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I love that there are new zombie characters (I do play a zombie, too, remember?), and have no problem with that. I also know there are more people now than there were before, mathematically speaking. I'm really talking about things on a personal level -- what I'm seeing of the new players who join my group and then quit because it's so frustrating, or the groups I'm a part of that were tumbled so hard by the ongoing horde that even the best attitude in the world about how it's all fair in love and war hasn't actually assisted them in regrouping. I happen to share D's opinion that the survivors are getting their asses handed to them, and that doesn't seem to be good for the game overall. That'd be my opinion, which is what we're all sharing right now; I'm not stating it as a fact and saying the zombies are in the wrong, but rather saying that from my perspective, the game has gotten less fun and players are not sticking around like they used to. Also, as bad as the zombie players say the humans are complaining, listening to zombie players talk about how hard the game is for them is like listening to Al Sharpton talk about the evils of slavery. While I think the upswing in zombie players on the Wiki is awesome, I'm seriously tired of every last one spouting the party line of "You don't know how bad we've had it! You have no right to complain!". I've got news for you, guys -- zombie whiners are far worse than survivor whiners, any day of the week.--Diano 12:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Death is only a nuisance for zombies, right ? A CONSTANT nuisance. Why do you think so few players actually played as zombies before the latest update ? Because tearing down cades suck. Because having to waste 10ap to stand suck. Because leveling as a feral zombie suck. Because relying on numbers to do a good job suck. Because having to metagame takes a lot of time and patience, and only a few can enjoy that. How many times does a mega-horde appears in your burb ? They migrate from one burb to anohter as soon as food runs out. So it's really easy for you to get a revive in a safe burb, and come back when the mega-horde is gone. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 05:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that the AP zombie characters spend knocking down 'cades was akin to the AP survivors spend restocking - both necessary for experience gain, and draining on AP. As I zombie I've wasted 50 AP getting into a building, and as a survivor I've spent the same amount searching for ammunition or first-aid kits. Isn't that balanced? --Saralan ^{Talk 404 ZHU ❤} 10:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much gonna echo what Saralan said here. The entire game is full of constant nuisances. Searching for ammo sucks (hard). Using up all of that ammo in a tenth of the time it took you to find it sucks. Rebarricading and still knowing you'll never be "safe" sucks. Dying and having to find a revive point and wait for someone to come revive you sucks. Losing 10 AP to revive people sucks. Having to choose between carrying weapons or the materials to repair and heal sucks. Having to worry about the state of buildings and barricades in an unfamiliar area, the presence of PKers, and the impending doom of the invincible horde sucks. Waking up to find that you and six members of your group were wiped out in your sleep and can't help the others out sucks. Urban Dead is a game that supplies great frustrations and setbacks regularly, and the major difference on the nuisances suffered by zombies and survivors is that zombies generally just need to stand up to fix their problems, whereas survivors need to seek temporary, ephemeral safety. Safety for zombies is found outdoors, without having to look very hard. The only true bitch of being a zombie is leveling as one, which I admit is a cast-iron bitch. I've done it, I hated it, it was awful, and I do not envy you guys that. I do, however, envy you the carefree existence that is shambling about, unhindered by concerns for safety, equipment, and shelter. Life as a zombie may be hardscrabble when it comes to gaining XP, but it pays huge dividends when it comes to not thinking for two seconds about your own security. --Diano 12:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And, because you know, when you are a lower leveled survivor and get killed by a zombie its just so easy and so much fun to try and get back on your feet. I mean what with the whole 10 ap to stand as a zed, wait for someone to use their 10 ap to come stick you, and then spend 10 more ap to stand as a survivor. At half health even! Its just so much fun, and so much easier to be a survivor. Im not surprised zombies are having all the hard times in this game, I mean that 10 AP to stand once as a lower level zed must totally kill them! Its ridiculous!-- Cisisero 16:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand the problem don't chime in, especially when you're complaining about how hard it is to get a revive, something that is completely determined by survivors. Fuck Newbies as long as they're zombies right?--Karek^maps?! 17:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Death is not zombie death, stop comparing it to survivor death.--Karek^maps?! 17:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I just decided to check the stats page and I'm amazed... 1494 is just... I've just gotta asume zergers (although it would set the zombie apocalypse scene better...)! • DS • ^{Tlk•Dev•W!•+1} 17:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If less than 1500 is zergers, then i guess that you are saying that the whole +1800 that the Caiger Mall Survivors had during the first or second siege of caigar were also a bunch of zergers, Glad to finally see a survivor confess that. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they're zerging. They came from the Something Awful forums. That place is huge.--Scott Timewell 19:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just in response to the survivors who are complaining about how disadvantaged they are and want an update that helps them, STFU. Back in the old days of xp-losing headshots I had to deal with the agonizing worry every time I logged in as to whether or not I lost the 99xp I had worked for the day before to some headshooting "LOLZ PWNED" noob. And if you want to leave go ahead, if you're not willing to play as a zombie once in a while then I'd prefer such players like you leave.--TheFlys 03:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The zerging is not as bad as you'd assume. We have a very large forum, and while of course people will play alts and have a couple of them, it really wouldn't be unrealistic that we'd have at least 750 unique members of the group and probably more. And yep, we've effected a pretty nice change on the map of Malton, I for one enjoy the trail of ghost towns left in our wake. Rudiger Jones 09:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright then. Thanks for clearing that up, only external stuff can get that many users in a group that quickly except the Caiger Mall... happy now? (wasn't there that yahoo thing?).It's finally zombie-survival, not just run out and shoot the brains out of a random zombie and revive some random survivor at a park. • DS • ^{Tlk•Dev•W!•+1} 11:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is just my opinion but I think someone is messing with the suburb status map to create choas.I mean Malton is huge and there is not enough zombies for they to dominate the entire city no matter how many zeds there are.As proof of my theory that someone(or multiple people)is sabotaging the map of suburbs status,in dulston although it is red on the map the mall is still intact with all its lights on and in an NT building there was almost 80 survivors and I found very few ruined buildings.Something is going on if you ask me.Maybe people who monitor this wiki page should investigate.--Gamestriker4 14:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

People are so scared of The Dead that mere rumors of their entrance into a suburb sends it into the red. Either that or it's a defense mechanism to not attract as much attention.--Scott Timewell 02:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

damn...just, damn......--TheFlys 05:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

UD as 'fair' is screwed, I'm just going to ZK the hell out of the person that kills my characters, and Grief kill all the zombies I can, because there isn't much point in trying anymore. It feels more like Monroeville now, no revives because all the NTs in a 20 block radius are ruined. --Rogue 09:20, 30 March 2008 (BST)

I'd like to personally speak for The Dead and apologize about how your zombie apocalypse game isn't a buncha survivors hanging out in giant green blocks of suburbs with a few zombies puttering around for you to headshot. You just need a better strategy to beat ours. Rudiger Jones 04:19, 31 March 2008 (BST)

That's not the problem, the problem was that in the case of 1 zombie=Can't barricade no strategy works. Except everyone running back and forth from Suburb to suburb in a moronic chase scene. The dead enter suburb, everyone runs to next (except the ones not fast enough), The dead enter that suburb, everyone runs back (Causing more losses), the dead go back, everyone runs again(More survivor deaths)... Get the picture? If that's the 'best strategy' then there is no chance. Heck I'm sure it would be somewhat like this even without the dead. So don't flatter yourselves. --Rogue 08:37, 7 April 2008 (BST)

The best strategy was used in the First Siege of Caiger Mall, every one there maintained a network over AIM where as soon as a cade came down, a survivor would log on, cade, then kill the zombie. Of course now the order has been changed to be more realistic, which is kill the zombie THEN cade. If more survivors developed a little more backbone then going "OMG teh Dead, RUN!" there would actually be a decent battle in this game. Instead, at the moment of the largest hoard the game has ever seen, the survivors roll over and bitch and complain. Way to show the SA forums what we are guys...--TheFlys 19:51, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Whoa, cool it up there!

Whoa. I decide to come back to Urban Dead for a day and I figure out This is the city of the dead now. But really, does that mean we need to whine about it? Games are meant to be fun. Not "OMG NOW WE ARE GONNA LOSE NOW I'M BITCHWHINE." Now, this is what I think will happen:

1. Zombies take over pretty much all of Malton.

2. Kevan gives Revenants Zombies the Biggest Nerf in Urban Dead history.

3. Survivors pretty much take over most of Malton.

4. Kevan gives Survivors the Tied-with-the-other Biggest Nerf in Urban Dead history.

Hmmm.... well. Remember, Urban Dead is just a game. Whwen sometihng goes wrong, someone will fix it. Say? Is it impossible to drive back these zarman hordes? No. Is it really hard? Yes. Stop throwing in the towel. Survivors should start whining on the wiki and start trying to work together to make sure the Everybody Dies(TM) future of Urban Dead dosen't happen. --High Gen. Grue Talk 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And weren't you zombie vets saying "ARGH SURVIVORS ARE TOO STRONG WE NEED A BUFF" before the Zombies could block cading survivors? And you're COMPLAINING at this moment of triumph? --High Gen. Grue Talk 23:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually many survivor players were complaining about how unfair it was that zombies didn't suffer a "death" penalty. The zombie complaint has always been based mostly on the absurd strength of barricades and how it basically makes playing the game without other people on at the same time you are in the same area you are an exercise in futility.--Karek^maps?! 01:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case... --High Gen. Grue Talk 03:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Misinformation

Zombies should note that survivors are trying to hide their favorite burbs in a sea of red and are not properly updating when there is new information. The same nitpickers who used to document every last detail are now using the wiki as a tool of misinformation. Don't expect any help from the usual wiki defenders, zombies are going to have to work twice as hard to keep the information accurate. --George Decay 02:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, great. You're sure about this? (Event:The great Newspaper Scandal of Malton!) --High Gen. Grue Talk 03:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unimportant, has always gone on. Most of the time when the map is covered in red by a majority a lot of it is gray or yellow in reality.--Karek^maps?! 04:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this with Lukinswood in particular going back to red when it's very much orange but somebody is going to update it and it will be in the history no matter what. None will be spared anyway &c. &c. --Riseabove 04:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

yyyeeeeoooowwww....no greeen :) and yeah get over it, why would someone go to the hassle of updating this if it doesn't benefit them? --xoxo 05:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that it's happening on a much wider scale than ever before, and it's being done by many of the same people who used to keep the map at least slightly accurate. Some people are even stupid enough to leave a record. Since the map is getting less useful every day as it turns one uniform color, these problems are going to become more apparent. --George Decay 05:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh it's worthy of pointing out but since anyone can edit it it makes more sense to take it with a grain of salt anyway. It was somewhat biased the other way before those people learned the fear, heh. --Riseabove 05:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so there are relatively safer places out there? Wish I knew where those were, everywhere I go has a couple zombies for every tile with all buildings ruined. Kind of a shock for me when I logged in yesterday after a three or four month hiatus. VegJed 16:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That's partly why I created the External Military Report Map. If kept up to date (which lately it has been) it makes it pretty easy to see which suburbs are being seriously mis-reported, at least for suburbs that there are recent broadcasts about. EMRs do have their flaws (zombie numbers are typically low, as they ignore zombies inside buildings) but if a burb has a ++- infrastructure and C power, it probably should not be red (zombie numbers permitting). I've actually upgraded and downgraded bubs in the past based on this info, with no complaints.  Swiers 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Or dig a bit deeper. Look as buildings statusses, revive point requests.etc. Also anyone else notice the suburb danger map is starting to look like one of those pesky aliens from space invaders? But like redder? Personally i think now is the perfect time for the truth, draw zombies on to places of strength, were better equipped survivors can soak up their AP's and let the less organised bubrbs have a fighting chance at a rebuild. Look at the giddings seige recently, many suburbs were doing well, with 5% of all zombies camped out in one suburb.Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:49, 31 March 2008 (BST)

Suburb News

Someone somewhere brought up the idea of not having people sign their suburb news reports. This would make it much easier to eliminate POV segments from reports without impersonating someone or wiping the whole comment out. Thoughts on this? Is this where such a decision would be made? Also, does there exist a simple list of guidelines for what is and isn't POV in suburb news, or could we generate one? --Pdeq^Talk* 04:33, 17 April 2008 (BST)

There is no guidelines, i looked into this and the only guide on POV the wiki had was wikipedia's NPOV rules, which are totally inappropriate when applied here. I think signing is a good idea as it makes a sense of accountability for the news, i know people could just check the history but they don't always. Not signing could work if the news was given some sort of template you just fill in with basic structure eg numbers of zombies, rp queue, largest horde, ruined buildings, etc. Certainly guidelines need to be developed to avoid an arby case cropping up everytime someone disagrees with the news...--xoxo 11:25, 17 April 2008 (BST)

Read Talk Page? Accountability in a wiki article?--Karek^maps?! 11:46, 17 April 2008 (BST)

Why is {{DangerMap}} the main focus of a page called Suburb?

It seems that this page has outgrown its map status. Firstly, there aqre noqw multiple city maps, each arguably as valid as the {{DangerMap}}. Secondly, there is no alphabetic list of suburbs on that page (ideally with corresponding suburb numbers) meaning that players who want to figure out where there suburb is on the map need to scan visually, or resort to some sort of search; I faced this issue often before coding up a GPS script. Thirdly, there is no Category:Suburbs page, which is simply insane; all the suburb pages should be in a category!
I propose to remedy this by creating a Category:Suburbs page that will list all the suburbs etc, and also act as a maps portal. The current Suburb page would then be re-named and edited to reflect its primary focus (the {{DangerMap}} and related discussion). What do you think?  Swiers 20:06, 22 April 2008 (BST)

There is a Category:Suburbs, it lists all suburbs and then has sub-cats that, should, list all buildings in that given suburb. --Karek^maps?! 20:09, 22 April 2008 (BST)

I remember it did surprise me when I first saw the danger map here. I was probably expecting "Suburb" to be a short glossary item. --Toejam 20:35, 22 April 2008 (BST)

You want that stuff, go to the malton page.--Jakezing 00:18, 24 April 2008 (BST)

How hard is it to find your suburb on the map? Ctrl + F on your browser will highlight it for you. --Pdeq^Talk* 02:31, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Oh wow. I just discovered a new feature on my browser. Thanks for that! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:36, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Hey hey, no need to get all sarcastic. People were complaining and it is fairly easy to do...--xoxo 03:07, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Not sarcastic. :D --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:18, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Easy to do, but its a shit ass lazy bad design to force people to do that in a hypertext medium. Plus, a lot of newbies probably would not know that, or wouldn't know how to spell the word, and the Suburb page ought to be one of the most newbie friendly on the wiki, given its frequency of reference.  Swiers 03:24, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Apart from the gnome (who i refuse to believe is being serious) I'm pretty sure everyone knows how to cntrl-f. Maybe make a page List of Suburbs or something and have a link to it from the top of the suburb page but i like the suburb page the way it is. And i think the reason it has so many hits is that it has the dangermap on it, thats where i go to view the dangermap.--xoxo 03:31, 24 April 2008 (BST)

If anyone is more skilled at CSS than I am, perhaps a solution could be coded up where there'd be buttons at the top of the suburb page that changed the map type. All the map types use the dangermap coloring, I think, but overlaying NT status (from Salt the Land) or EMR reports (from External Military Report Map) could make this page much more useful to everyone. Iunnrais 17:32, 24 April 2008 (BST)

wow, that would be good. If your doing that couldnt you select burbs by first letter, click Ba nd all the B burbs are highlighted. Cos if you dont know the first letter of a suburb you aint never gonna find it.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:38, 24 April 2008 (BST)

I like that idea. And ross, i have absolutely no idea what choo talkin' 'bout :P--xoxo 00:36, 27 April 2008 (BST)