Talk:Suburb/Color System Archive

Reforming the suburb & building status systems

After more discussion on Discord and elsewhere, it seems clear to me that the incumbent system is both not-quite-NPOV and also unnecessarily unwieldy for the Late Malton era (when both human and zombie populations are significantly lower than critical mass of past eras). In reading the above, I think the following system, that combines the infrastructure & population systems above, probably works better:

• Survivor-Controlled — occupied by humans, well-caded, few zombies, significant lit buildings
• Contested — significant human and zombie populations, changing control or significant holds by each
• Zombie-Controlled — occupied by zombies, largely in ruins, few humans
• Intact — largely structurally intact, few humans or zombies, few lit buildings
• Ghost Town — largely ruined, few humans or zombies

For buildings, an equivalent system would be:

• Survivor-Occupied — caded VSB+, occupied by humans and/or lit, no zombies in block
  • Intact — caded VSB+, but unoccupied by humans and probably unlit, no zombies in block
• Under Attack — humans & zombies in the block, which is actively contested (would subsume "Under Siege" which is basically unused these days)
• Ruined — in ruins with no zombies or humans in the block
  • Zombie-Occupied — zombies in the block, uncaded, ruined (roughly equivalent to "In Zombie Hands")
  • Piñata — ruined and above VSB cade level
• Rot Revive would continue as a specific status for NTs

Does this make sense? Thoughts? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Note: Edited to replace "human" with "survivor"

Seems alright. This is just a thought, not really possible, but would be great if we could somehow incorporate the various gradients/dimensions into a single colour range. Barricade levels, zombie numbers, survivor numbers, ruin/lit, etc under a single colour range. Those are the important, objective info that players would want to know. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, at the suburb level, ruin & cade levels correlate very strongly, as do survivor numbers & lit buildings. The axes are then "cade/ruin level", "survivor numbers/lit buildings", and "zombie numbers". The five-option system is designed to cover all three of these axes: High-Survivor & High-Zombie = "Contested"; High-Survivor & Low-Zombie = "Survivor-Controlled"; High-Zombie & Low-Survivor = "Zombie-Controlled"; Low-Survivor & Low-Zombie but High-Cade = "Intact"; Low-Both and Low-Cade/High-Ruin = "Ghost Town". Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 16:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

But definitely keep things simple, especially for the suburb status. Building status updates can be a little more complex since we are already going into lots of detail by examining 1 building out of thousands. It's where you get the nuance. Suburb reports are the overall picture. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

And a bit of a nitpick, the distinction between Zombie-Occupied and Ruined really rests, in my view, between what the zombies want to do. Some zeds just want to ruin a place and move on, not really caring about rebuilding efforts; that's a ruined building. Zombie occupied (I prefer the term "Squatter") means the zombies are actively trying to keep the building ruined by piling inside and get back inside when they get dumped. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, this is a failing of the EMR system, the main source for suburb danger levels these days, which only counts zombies outside buildings. This is why, for example, the DHPD/Dead zone around Dunell Hills frequently shows as "ghost town" under the current system even though there are actually dozens of zombies in the suburbs — they're all inside so they don't appear under EMRs.

Thus any suburb-level system has to deal with the fact that EMRs and on-the-ground reporting can show very different results. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 16:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, I don't share other people's hesitance toward using "safe" from a survivor perspective. It's biased, certainly, and not a hill I'd die on. But "safe" for a survivor does not mean the same thing as "safe" for a zombie. If a building is under siege, it's unsafe for the survivors because they can get eaten and "switch sides" until they get a revive. Zombies just need to stand up again. There is more of a cost to killing a survivor for the survivor than killing a zombie for the zombie. Anyways, I like calling things "safe" from a survivor perspective because it's thematic. It fits the zombie genre. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

A lot of this conversation was prompted by confusion by or objection to "safe" by longtime zombie players. I'd love some zombie players of the "stay-in-one-place" type to weigh in here; I generally agree with you, but I've only ever played "mobile" zombies (or survivor/dual nature/etc characters). Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 16:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with them and agree with AHLG. A think an important component to this system should be simplicity and it's worth noting there's nothing simpler at this stage than having it labelled as 'safe'. It's simpler because it's less words, it's simpler because it's been in the game for 15 years so everyone knows what it means. It's not NPOV sure, but it is simpler. But as AHLG it's really not something I would fight to save. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, if "survivor-controlled" -> "safe" (which I'm a-ok with), then "zombie-controlled" -> "occupied"? so at least the POV will be a mirror. Or some other suggestion? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Look, I like it, but I don't really update or rely on the dangermap much anymore so if regular users of it don't like it then I'll just go with them. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 01:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

AHLG's colour spectrum is a great design idea. Also make it Survivor controlled. Because calling survivors 'human' is so 2006. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 21:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Changed. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 16:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Ghost Town adjustment?

In line with the policy change of several months ago, the definition of Ghost Town got freed up. Was its definition altered, or the definition of the other statuses? Am I missing the discussion where that occurred? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 21:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Woops, I think I found it. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 21:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding new status: "Intact"

Hi! Over in the EBD Discord we've been having some discussion about reviving revision to the suburb danger levels. Our proposal is to add a new status, "Intact". This would take over parts of the old "Safe" and "Ghost Town" statuses, as follows:

• Safe — The suburb is structurally intact and inhabited by survivors, with significant lit buildings, and few zombies.
• Intact — The suburb is structurally intact with few zombies, but has a very low survivor population and few to no lit buildings.
• Ghost town — The suburb is mostly ruined, and devoid of significant survivor or zombie populations.

So, for example, Darvall Heights and Penny Heights would be safe, Gatcombeton and West Boundwood would be intact, and Ridleybank and New Arkham would be ghost towns.

My proposed color for "intact" is #9ed with a #5eb boundary (cyan-gray).

The other statuses (Moderately, Dangerous and Very) would be revised to remove explicit statements of zombie numbers, to better reflect the dynamic and low-population state of the current game.

Thoughts? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 17:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Bump. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable move to me User:McChesney/Sig 19:39 14 April 2017 (EST)

Might as well just do it and see if anyone kicks up a stink. I doubt people will really mind. A ZOMBIE ANT 05:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Already done ^_^ Nobody's complained yet, so... Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 12:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I am formally lodging a lack of complaint. Looks nice! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest we just change the name of the status Ghost Town to Ruined. That way Ghost Town will be effectively have been replaced by Intact or Ruined, but with infrastructure being the primary indication of its status. EMR reports are a generally terrible indication of actual population anyway, but very accurate when it comes to infrastructure.--Sister Katie (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding new Building Danger Status "Intact"

I was thinking that since there is a suburb status for Intact, we could also add this status for single buildings. Safe is subjective and not really the opposite of Ruined. Often when I am updating the danger status of buildings I don't bother to actually step inside, but just notice that it is unruined and mark it as Safe. This new status may be a better indicator for any building that is not ruined but its actually "Safety" is in question. I worked this graphic up, though someone with better graphical skills could almost certainly do better: --Sister Katie (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow, great work on the graphic!

Can I ask, what would the threshold between safe and intact be? Would "safe" require there to be survivors in the building (or adjacent buildings?) Or would the difference be the presence of a (lit?) generator? Or would it be more general: "intact" being used for buildings that aren't ruined but are not actively maintained? (I normally use "safe" or "rebuilding" for this middle area of coverage.) Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 02:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking it would just basically mean unruined, so it could indicate anything from ransacked to EHB caded really, unless you are sure its Ransacked or Safe. I guess it just annoys me that Ruin is an objective status, while Safe is subjective. You're right though, it would probably be better to define what Safe really means, like it must be unruined, caded to some degree and inhabited by at least so many Survivors (more than 1 anyway, maybe 3+ or 5+). The statuses on the Survivor side all seem a bit lacking in NPOV to me really. Safe means, of course, Safe for Survivors. While the Zombie side is a lot more objective in its statuses. I dunno, I like the In Zombie Hands status (which for some reason is not on the main update pages, even though you can still use it), and think perhaps the opposite should be In Survivors Hands rather than Safe. That would make Intact just the opposite of Ruined, and then in the middle there could be a Contested status (rather than the Under Attack or Under Siege statuses, which having two seems redundant) for any building inhabited by both Zombies and Survivors, or any building with a certain number of Zombies outside of it clearly trying to get in through a concerted effort.--Sister Katie (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

On this note, there isn't really a good status for vacant, un-barricaded junkyards either. They can't be Ransacked or Ruined, and they aren't In Zombie Hands if there aren't any zombies there. I've been marking them Unknown for lack of a better option EthrDemon (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I mark them Ransacked anyway. Check out MDU/T#Danger Reports for more details on how I mark building statuses, beyond what's listed in the regular descriptions. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 11:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This was a point I was going to raise as well, EthrDemon. Yeah, for now I mark them Ransacked as well, but it always bothers me! :D--Sister Katie (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I was working on this thing here based more off infrastructure than danger:

Building Danger Levels
	in survivor hands	The building is barricaded with few to no zombies outside the structure and at least 3 Survivors inside.
	intact	The building is unruined.
	contested	The building has at least 3 zombies outside, or is inhabited by both Survivors and Zombies.
	ruined	The building is ruined.
	in zombie hands	The building is ruined and at least 3 zombies are inside.
	ransacked	The building is ransacked.
	rebuilding	Survivors have recently recaptured the building, but zombies still pose a threat.
	pinata	The building is above very strongly barricaded and ruined.
	unknown	The building's status is currently unknown.

--Sister Katie (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The colors line up with the Suburb Danger levels as well, so more unified.--Sister Katie (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Updating the DangerMap System

This is probably the most updated system of any we have. It's not the easiest to update though and could also do with some other minor tweaks. So here's a few suggestions I'd like some discussion/agreement on before changes are made. Each of these points is independent of the others.

1. Change the code on all 100 suburb danger reports to this.
This is intended to:

• Make it easier for users to update the map correctly by providing the options, with a legend and an example on page so they can tell what the change is as soon as the page saves. This also makes errors dead easy to spot.
• Prevent confusion when using the special/map variations by making it an option the average user will not need to edit.
• Provide flexibility for other pieces of coding by allowing the techie types to call their own formatting templates.
• Make it easier to provide instructions by adding it in a template.

Other notes:

• The current map templates would be renamed to something more explanatory, since the user needs no longer know the name.
  Proposed: "DangerMapNotorietyStatus" where Notoriety would either be 'normal' or 'notable' and Status would be the status.
• After a quick inclusion limit test, I found this code would not endanger any existing templates and force them over the limit. The pre-expand include size, the important one, was unchanged between the current template and the code above. Post-expand and template arguments went up, but these are not factors towards the limit.
• Note: The link on the test page, "2", will link to the suburb when actually used, and not a red page.

2. Change the available status text to one form of English. EG: 'safe' 'moderately dangerous' 'dangerous' 'very dangerous' and 'abandoned'/'a ghost town'

• To allow text based status to be shown, such as in tooltips, without odd English. 'Havercroft is safe' works now, 'Havercroft is moderate' does not.
• For the sake of being uniform.

3. Change the suburb border colour and unify it with the block border colour
Proposed: A darker shade of grey for the cell border and fill. Not as dark as the block one, somewhere in-between probably.

• This makes it easy to distinguish from the ghost town colour at a glance.
• Making the colours the same is a sensible thing to do.

--  RoosterDragon  19:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

All good. But do we need a separate danger report for notorious suburbs? Really? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean you want to get rid of the 'special' status that gives bold text for such suburbs? That's another discussion. Anyway I'm going to go ahead and implement No.3 since it's not particularly major and easy to revert. 1 and 2 will happen in a few more days in some discussion doesn't show up between now and then. --  RoosterDragon  12:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain to me in practical terms how this will be easier to use than the original? I still don't get it. Regardless, I am for a change in this system, and if you want I'll help change the templates for you. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You get to see the output as soon as you save, so spotting a wrong status or total muck up is easy. The legend gives you a list of available statuses and their meanings on site so you don't have to trawl around to check what they are (Great for the new guys). If the available statuses change or definitions are adjusted, they can be propagated by template in one edit rather than 100. That's about it for the updating user, but the coding bunch can make the template work for them even more. Right now you're stuck to just using the table info the template gives, the new one can allow you to actually use the status to work for you allowing you to reference images or other pages or output text strings or all sorts without resorting to switch hackery which inflates the template cost of the system needlessly and also breaks if anybody changes the colour definitions, even just a little. --  RoosterDragon  13:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Right well, it's been done. I'm still darting about the wiki updating documentation and keeping an eye out for broken maps. Seems to have gone smoothly for the most part. --  RoosterDragon  16:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting change in danger level

Can we put in a rule for the suburb reports that they shouldn't suggest changes to the danger level and should instead just do it themselves? We can easily provide a link to the instructions for changing it at the top of this page, but the fact that almost every report that comes in says, "Suggest change to X danger level" is ludicrous. Just change it, people! Don't suggest it! —Aichon— 20:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is that section even there? ~ 21:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's an even better question than what I had. Since we have reports on every single suburb page, it seems like these are all redundant. About the only good use I could think of for it would be to post the locations of the hordes as they move around, but the hordes all post their locations in other ways, so this section is essentially useless. —Aichon— 22:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, its useless. Just doing a precursory search of the history for that section, it's just like you said; it is only used by people to suggest changing such and such suburb to such and such danger level. It doesn't appear that those suggestion are ever taken to heart, either. Reports are rarely updated based on news in this section from what I can tell. Hell, suburb news is rarely even updated with this info from this section. I say eliminate the section, or replace the rules with instructions for updating Danger levels. ~ 22:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of changes to this section of the Suburb page, would anyone be opposed to the idea of placing links to the suburb danger level pages instead of just instructions on how to update them. The links could be stealthexternal so that it goes directly to the edit page for each suburb's danger update page (for example Eastonwood). I'm thinking a table of ten by ten alphabetically listed suburb names. This would make it so much easier than clicking on the suburb name, then clicking on the update danger level link, then clicking edit~ 07:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I had in mind

Barrville Brooke Hills Brooksville Buttonville Chancelwood Chudleyton Crooketon Crowbank Dakerstown Danversbank Dartside Darvall Heights Dentonside Dulston Dunell Hills Dunningwood Earletown East Becktown East Boundwood East Grayside

Eastonwood Edgecombe Foulkes Village Fryerbank Galbraith Hills Gatcombeton Gibsonton Greentown Grigg Heights Gulsonside Havercroft Heytown Hollomstown Houldenbank Huntley Heights Jensentown Judgewood Kempsterbank Ketchelbank Kinch Heights

Lamport Hills Lerwill Heights Lockettside Lukinswood Millen Hills Miltown Mockridge Heights Molebank Mornington New Arkham Nixbank North Blythville Old Arkham Osmondville Owsleybank Pashenton Paynterton Peddlesden Village Pegton Pennville

Penny Heights Peppardville Pescodside Pimbank Pitneybank Quarlesbank Raines Hills Randallbank Reganbank Rhodenbank Richmond Hills Ridleybank Roachtown Roftwood Rolt Heights Roywood Ruddlebank Santlerville Scarletwood Shackleville

Shearbank Shore Hills Shuttlebank South Blythville Spicer Hills Spracklingbank Stanbury Village Starlingtown Tapton Tollyton Vinetown West Becktown West Boundwood West Grayside Whittenside Williamsville Wray Heights Wyke Hills Wykewood Yagoton

The thought also occurred to me to format it like so:

Barrville danger - news Brooke Hills danger - news Brooksville danger - news Buttonville danger - news Chancelwood danger - news Chudleyton danger - news Crooketon danger - news Crowbank danger - news Dakerstown danger - news Danversbank danger - news Dartside danger - news Darvall Heights danger - news Dentonside danger - news Dulston danger - news Dunell Hills danger - news Dunningwood danger - news Earletown danger - news East Becktown danger - news East Boundwood danger - news East Grayside danger - news

Eastonwood danger - news Edgecombe danger - news Foulkes Village danger - news Fryerbank danger - news Galbraith Hills danger - news Gatcombeton danger - news Gibsonton danger - news Greentown danger - news Grigg Heights danger - news Gulsonside danger - news Havercroft danger - news Heytown danger - news Hollomstown danger - news Houldenbank danger - news Huntley Heights danger - news Jensentown danger - news Judgewood danger - news Kempsterbank danger - news Ketchelbank danger - news Kinch Heights danger - news

Lamport Hills danger - news Lerwill Heights danger - news Lockettside danger - news Lukinswood danger - news Millen Hills danger - news Miltown danger - news Mockridge Heights danger - news Molebank danger - news Mornington danger - news New Arkham danger - news Nixbank danger - news North Blythville danger - news Old Arkham danger - news Osmondville danger - news Owsleybank danger - news Pashenton danger - news Paynterton danger - news Peddlesden Village danger - news Pegton danger - news Pennville danger - news

Penny Heights danger - news Peppardville danger - news Pescodside danger - news Pimbank danger - news Pitneybank danger - news Quarlesbank danger - news Raines Hills danger - news Randallbank danger - news Reganbank danger - news Rhodenbank danger - news Richmond Hills danger - news Ridleybank danger - news Roachtown danger - news Roftwood danger - news Rolt Heights danger - news Roywood danger - news Ruddlebank danger - news Santlerville danger - news Scarletwood danger - news Shackleville danger - news

Shearbank danger - news Shore Hills danger - news Shuttlebank danger - news South Blythville danger - news Spicer Hills danger - news Spracklingbank danger - news Stanbury Village danger - news Starlingtown danger - news Tapton danger - news Tollyton danger - news Vinetown danger - news West Becktown danger - news West Boundwood danger - news West Grayside danger - news Whittenside danger - news Williamsville danger - news Wray Heights danger - news Wyke Hills danger - news Wykewood danger - news Yagoton danger - news

So that you get suburb link, edit link to danger report and link to suburb news. Thoughts? ~ 15:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Seems a bit clunky, but I can't think of anything better off the top of my head. —Aichon— 23:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What if we put tiny letter-links, like Wikipedia does on it's navigation templates, right on the dangermap? Like so: Wyke Hills^{u n} --VVV ^RPMBG 02:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer that, but this is for wikinewbs, keep in mind. They'd have no clue about it and would just ignore them. —Aichon— 03:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What about links below the burb name, like this? Maybe even adding BIC (using the new BIC pages of course).

Wykewood BIC - news - danger Yagoton BIC - news - danger

~ 22:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I had actually been considering something like that as a compromise (I assume we're talking about putting it on the map, right?), but it seems like it's then too much to add to the map. The problem is, I wouldn't cut any of those three, since they're all useful to have links to. It might be worth mocking up to see how it looks though. It'd certainly be more utilitarian, and it wouldn't eat up half the page with additional links. —Aichon— 22:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't considering putting them on the map, though I know its been suggested and I could see the benefit from it. What I'm suggesting is that this goes in the section currently labeled Danger Reports along with some sort of preamble or instructions for updating news and danger. As far as mocking up, I am traveling at the moment and just realized I don't have Excel on my new laptop. Unless someone else wants to take over for now, it'll have to wait until after the new year. ~ 23:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

So it'd be a slight redo of the thing you posted? I see that as better than what we have, but not ideal still. It'd be best if we could work it into the map, but doing that in a sensible way is what's difficult. Maybe we can defer this until after New Year, since I'm guessing others might want to chime in but aren't because of the holidays. —Aichon— 01:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and mocked something up. Personally I think it looks a bit cluttered but I can see it as something I could get used to since it's so much more user-friendly. At the very least, I'd like to have it added to the list of maps at the bottom of the Suburb page.

Dakerstown news - BIC - danger	Jensentown news - BIC - danger	Quarlesbank news - BIC - danger	West Boundwood news - BIC - danger	East Boundwood news - BIC - danger	Lamport Hills news - BIC - danger	Chancelwood news - BIC - danger	Earletown news - BIC - danger	Rhodenbank news - BIC - danger	Dulston news - BIC - danger
Roywood news - BIC - danger	Judgewood news - BIC - danger	Gatcombeton news - BIC - danger	Shuttlebank news - BIC - danger	Yagoton news - BIC - danger	Millen Hills news - BIC - danger	Raines Hills news - BIC - danger	Pashenton news - BIC - danger	Rolt Heights news - BIC - danger	Pescodside news - BIC - danger
Peddlesden Village news - BIC - danger	Chudleyton news - BIC - danger	Darvall Heights news - BIC - danger	Eastonwood news - BIC - danger	Brooke Hills news - BIC - danger	Shearbank news - BIC - danger	Huntley Heights news - BIC - danger	Santlerville news - BIC - danger	Gibsonton news - BIC - danger	Dunningwood news - BIC - danger
Dunell Hills news - BIC - danger	West Becktown news - BIC - danger	East Becktown news - BIC - danger	Richmond Hills news - BIC - danger	Ketchelbank news - BIC - danger	Roachtown news - BIC - danger	Randallbank news - BIC - danger	Heytown news - BIC - danger	Spracklingbank news - BIC - danger	Paynterton news - BIC - danger
Owsleybank news - BIC - danger	Molebank news - BIC - danger	Lukinswood news - BIC - danger	Havercroft news - BIC - danger	Barrville news - BIC - danger	Ridleybank news - BIC - danger	Pimbank news - BIC - danger	Peppardville news - BIC - danger	Pitneybank news - BIC - danger	Starlingtown news - BIC - danger
Grigg Heights news - BIC - danger	Reganbank news - BIC - danger	Lerwill Heights news - BIC - danger	Shore Hills news - BIC - danger	Galbraith Hills news - BIC - danger	Stanbury Village news - BIC - danger	Roftwood news - BIC - danger	Edgecombe news - BIC - danger	Pegton news - BIC - danger	Dentonside news - BIC - danger
Crooketon news - BIC - danger	Mornington news - BIC - danger	North Blythville news - BIC - danger	Brooksville news - BIC - danger	Mockridge Heights news - BIC - danger	Shackleville news - BIC - danger	Tollyton news - BIC - danger	Crowbank news - BIC - danger	Vinetown news - BIC - danger	Houldenbank news - BIC - danger
Nixbank news - BIC - danger	Wykewood news - BIC - danger	South Blythville news - BIC - danger	Greentown news - BIC - danger	Tapton news - BIC - danger	Kempsterbank news - BIC - danger	Wray Heights news - BIC - danger	Gulsonside news - BIC - danger	Osmondville news - BIC - danger	Penny Heights news - BIC - danger
Foulkes Village news - BIC - danger	Ruddlebank news - BIC - danger	Lockettside news - BIC - danger	Dartside news - BIC - danger	Kinch Heights news - BIC - danger	West Grayside news - BIC - danger	East Grayside news - BIC - danger	Scarletwood news - BIC - danger	Pennville news - BIC - danger	Fryerbank news - BIC - danger
New Arkham news - BIC - danger	Old Arkham news - BIC - danger	Spicer Hills news - BIC - danger	Williamsville news - BIC - danger	Buttonville news - BIC - danger	Wyke Hills news - BIC - danger	Hollomstown news - BIC - danger	Danversbank news - BIC - danger	Whittenside news - BIC - danger	Miltown news - BIC - danger

Do we need an Open Discussion to get more opinions about the proposed change? ~ 05:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I rather like it and would likely bookmark it instead of the danger report, but I suspect others may not, and your suggestion of merely linking it might not be a bad idea. Personally, I'm inclined to say "no" on the Open Discussion, since any stakeholder of this page should already be watching it or checking RC, and Open Discussions just slows decisions and invites delays and poor critiques from uninvolved/uninformed individuals, but that's just me (can you tell I'm not a big fan of Open Discussion for design changes and decisions that should be handled by knowledgeable people with a vested interest?). Also, it looks like all of the bolded suburbs (the noteworthy ones) line wrap with those words. Not a problem, but just pointing it out. —Aichon— 06:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I like this map.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I fixed the bolded links, templatespaced the map and added it to the list of "Other Maps". So that just leaves the original question: what to do about the section labeled "Danger Levels" on the Suburb page? ~ 17:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It's time to get rid of it, I think (and it's "Suburb Danger Report", incidentally). —Aichon— 22:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The ghost town problem

Ok, I'm sending this to you, because it seems you're the only sysop here with an IQ higher than 80. I've been updating the status rapport of Dakerstown recently. Please take a look at it here, and notice how it hasn't been changed since medio 2009, when Urban Dead had twice as many players as it has now. Note that at Ghost town it says "At least 2/3 of the suburb's buildings either empty of Survivors or Ransacked/Ruined AND max 60 zombies in suburb and no zombie groups above 10." I've made a quick calc based on the stats page which says right now there are 5942 standing survivors. That gives an average of 59,42 survivors per suburb. This means that - according to the present rules - it's fairly easy for a suburb to become a ghost town, and there probably are a lot more of them than the suburbs page says. I don't know the average number of buildings per suburb, I mean, in theory we could be good, but practically there could be over 20 ghost towns right now. If you tell me how many buildings Malton has I'll make another calc and make an advise.

Also there are just a little over 3000 standing zombies in Malton, so 30 per suburb on average. That problem is even more severe than the survivor problem, because there can be only 50 suburbs with 60 zombies. That means that there's a big chance that suburbs marked red now are actually ghost town as well.

In my opinion ghost town should be an exception, not a rule. Thanks--User:Generaloberst 18:35 9 December, 2011 (UTC)

The suburb danger levels are heavily outdated. There have been a few attempts to revise them, but none of them was carried through. -- Spiderzed█ 20:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not? User:Generaloberst 20:19 9 December, 2011 (UTC)

"Human inertia" is the right answer to a surprising lot of wiki questions. -- Spiderzed█ 21:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please forward me a link to that, I'd like the check it out. User:Generaloberst 22:51 9 December, 2011 (UTC)

Just some recent attempts. -- Spiderzed█ 23:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I do like what Zombieload had in his sandbox might be a tad too busy on a giant map though.        23:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Spiderzed, those are all just suggestions. How do suggestions usually process before being accepted as wiki law? User:Generaloberst 23:22 9 December, 2011 (UTC)

actually agree with Generalobese ...danger reports/levels need to reflect current pop. & also be situational & make sense...safe: The mall is barricaded with less than twenty zombies throughout the structure. ...~20 zombies "throughout" (inside) a barricaded structure is safe? 4 zombies can bring down barricades & ruin each corner of an empty mall easily (8 zombies if survivors are inside). did a zombie player pin the descriptions?

but back on-topic ...suburb danger status descriptions should be

• ["safe": Infrequent break-ins, max. ~15 zombies in a suburb and no (hostile) zombie groups]
• ["moderately dangerous": Quite frequent break-ins (zombies inside any type of building) and no zombie groups above 10]
• ["dangerous": Frequent break-ins (zombies inside many (any type) buildings) OR hostile mobs 20+]
• ["very dangerous": Zombie-infested buildings OR hostile mobs 30+]

"ghost town" is tricky because you have to rely on eye witness reports from questionable players, same with all reports, but especially this 1 ...zombies can leave a "very dangerous" suburb & survivor groups can swiftly reclaim the suburb within 24 hours ...unlike Dunell Hills which probably can't be reclaimed because zombies idled out inside every building, waiting for survivors to begin reclaiming.

statuses should reflect situations also ...30+ hostile zombies can be at a fort or mall while the rest of the suburb is peaceful ...so there should be a "special" status for suburbs with big targets. →Son of Sin← 03:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

these pages need modifications & examples: Green, Red, Ghost Town ...and mod. dangerous, dangerous, and very dangerous need pages in the glossary. User:DangerReport pages should link to each danger level page (safe - Break-ins rare, max 50 zombies in suburb and no zombie groups above 10.) →Son of Sin← 05:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

or better yet ...there should be 1 danger level page for the glossary, not 5 separate pages ...duh ...i'll work on that right now ...if it's rejected, oh well →Son of Sin← 05:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

What you proposed for "safe" makes no sense. 2 zombies standing in the same block is already a group. Also, what if you have a zombie group consisting of 11 zombies that rarely breaks in? Then it's not safe or moderately dangerous because it's more than 10, but it's also not dangerous because it's less than 20 and doesn't break in 'frequently'. On other words; your current proposition is not convering everything. Also, what if we have 29 zombies that invest the suburb as a whole? Then it's dangerous and very dangerous at the same time. Also, in my opinion it makes completely no sense to judge the danger level of a suburb as a whole based on the presence of a group of zombies. We have building statuses for individual blocks. Those are two completely seperate things.

There is many contradiction in both your suggestion as the present guidelines. We need to turn this one into a nice, easy in use page.

I suggest we judge only - and only - by the survivor-zombie ratio in the suburb. In Malton this is exactly 2:1 now, or 66% survivor, 33% zombie.

• ["safe": 0-33.3% zombie]
• ["moderately dangerous": 33.3-50% zombie]
• ["dangerous": 50-75% zombie]
• ["very dangerous": > 75% zombie]

Plain and very simple, no contradictionaries, great standards, and always up to date no matter how far the number of players drops - the way a Nazi likes it. User:Generaloberst 18:28 10 December, 2011 (UTC)

Should you have any problems with this suggestion please say so. User:Generaloberst 20:02 10 December, 2011 (UTC)

feel like we're wasting our time ...the current system won't be improved ...but i agree with you ...percentages will work better but who will count all survivors & all zombies in a suburb ...and scan each zombie to differentiate pro-survivor zombies from hostile zombies? the external military only sees outside & is inaccurate ...i compared an EMR to a NT scan taken immediately after an EMR was broadcasted ...eye witness estimates will be inaccurate too ...no single person checks every single building/block in a suburb ...and even your ghost town change in Dakerstown was inaccurate ...you think your zombie group had the only standing zombies in Dakerstown ...but you failed to add up all of the survivors that died & stood as zombies ...they're included in the zombie population ...but they aren't "hostile" ...therefore, they don't make a suburb very dangerous for any survivors who will go in to reclaim after hostile zombie groups leave. →Son of Sin← 23:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You can simply explore half of the suburb and assume the rest of the suburb would be somewhat the same. It's not Dakerstown what were talking about here so i'll keep it short. I've documented 45 survivors in the suburb before the battle started, of which 12 were in Swearse. There are 57 buildings in the suburb. I made a quick calc with that and yeah, the suburb actually was a ghost town even before the battle started. So if I'm gonna go by the rules I'm going to edit the page and remove the bit that says the suburb became 'very dangerous'. But the rules are very outdated. Sleeping in Dakerstown simply ment death at the time, which makes 'very dangerous' a much better representation. If there was any suburb that deserved 'very dangerous' it was Dakerstown.

no, that's a problem ...exploring half of a suburb & assuming the rest is the same is false/inaccurate reporting ...i've seen suburbs half ruined & half "safe" especially in suburbs bordering red suburbs ...be 99.9% accurate or don't change a report (although i'm guilty of doing this, rarely) ...seems like your agenda is to make the suburb map white (all ghost towns) after your group ruins everything, kills every survivor & leaves immediately ...a suburb should be deserted for at least 48 hours before the status is changed to a ghost town unless it was a ghost town already but wasn't accurate on the map ...and i agree, Dakerstown looked like a ghost town before your group wreaked it, but i didn't check each building or block, so i didn't change the status ...and i'm biased ...if 10-20 survivors are "holding a suburb down", keeping buildings powered & 'caded, i don't feel comfortable changing their suburb's status to a ghost town →Son of Sin← 00:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to ask Ross if I can update the guidelines for editing the suburb, since it seems no one has objection against the thing I suggested. User:Generaloberst 0:14 11 December, 2011 (UTC)

erm, you do realise you barely left it a day. And didn't even put it on the main page or anything, to actually notify stakeholders. Perhaps waiting a bit longer for people to comment would be a bit more responsible D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 00:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There are no guidelines for that. But I told you already. I'll put it on the mainpage though. User:Generaloberst 13:27 11 December, 2011 (UTC)

I've put it on Wiki News, though it seems I can't edit this page so that it will appear on the main page. Any help would be appreciated. User:Generaloberst 13:45 11 December, 2011 (UTC)

No problems, I've put it up for you D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So for everyone that got here by following the link on the main page: we want to update the suburb danger levels, or, to say it better, the definition of the danger levels on the suburbs page. This is needed because the number of players in Urban Dead has steadily dropped over the years. For that reason it's now very easy for a suburb to become a ghost town. Also, we feel like the presence of a mob in a suburb doesn't make the suburb more dangerous as a whole; we have building statuses for that.

The proposition is:

• ["safe": 0-33.3% zombie]
• ["moderately dangerous": 33.3-50% zombie]
• ["dangerous": 50-75% zombie]
• ["very dangerous": > 75% zombie]

Ghost town will be scratched as a whole! Working with ratios is easier in use, holds no contradictionaries and is always up to date no matter how far the number of players drops. User:Generaloberst 16:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This is crap. Who would want it to be based on percentages of zombies. First, it completely ignores the NPOV issues that many on this very discussion page had. Secondly, it would require not only all of the known zombie numbers in a burb but also the survivor numbers. You essentially block half the population from accurately updating danger reports. Zombies. You may believe that you can effectively report on survivor numbers while in a burb with your horde but do you really think that anyone is going to be capable of this? The current system is difficult enough to accurately report. This is exponentially worse. Any changens to suburb danger should be infrastructure oriented and NPOV. ~ _{16:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)}

I play in a zombie group myself, and have repeatedly checked the total amount of survivors in a suburb. Also, as I said, you don't have to check the entire suburb. Sometimes it's clear what the status is like after having checked only a portion of it. Furthermore, you're free to not like my idea, but I'd appreciate it if you, rather than simply botting it out from the start, come up with a suggestion yourself. User:Generaloberst 17:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes and your zombie group also led by a known alt abuser. For the zombie groups that don't cheat, their option for checking survivor numbers 1) smash in doors and take a peek inside or 2) use a death cultist/CR'd member to scout. You're trying to stack odds in your favor so you can turn the city map red. Your plan is utterly transparent. If you want to see my contributions to a better suggestion, all you need to do is look a couple of section above this one. ~ _{18:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)}

There are more factors in making a suburb safe or dangerous than just the number of zombies. For instance had FOD focused their assault on the whole suburb instead of just The Abandoned it would have been considerably more dangerous for survivors in the area. Also as Vapor stated not all zombies are that hostile. Mrh? cows are considerably safer to be around than a RRF strike team. The safety of a suburb must be measured by the rate of break-ins and how much of it is ruined. Break-ins directly show the strength of the survivor resistance and how strong the horde/ferals are and the number of ruins tell how active the survivors are in the suburb. PKer presence and effectiveness is hard to quantify and is normally marginal but none the less an important thing to consider.        19:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

lol Vapor do you really think that's what I'm trying to do? Implement new rules so I can turn the entire city red? I thought people always call nazi's conspiracy believers, but you just made a good attempt. No. This is NPOV. I want new rules because technically there likely are over 20 ghost towns now. Since there are only 3000 zombies, there can only be 50 suburbs that have more than 60 zombies. So that leaves the buildings, if 2/3rds are empty, it is - by the (current) rules - a ghost town. And I'm sure that there are suburbs that don't even have enough people to fill 2/3rds of the buildings, let alone if they stack up in the same building. And no, you haven't given any suggestions what the definition of the danger levels should be like. All you came up with is 'how to make the suburb page easier to update/check detailed records'. That's something differend. We need new definitions. And we need to work something out together or we will keep experiencing this problem. So I suggest you stop making personal attacks on me and start coming up with a suggestion that (by your opinion) is better.

Oh, and for your information. Our groups has four death cultists. That's how we check. User:Generaloberst 19:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Mazu, same for you, you can bot something out, that's fine, but please come up with new (worked out) suggestions. Botting something out alone won't change anything. User:Generaloberst 19:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A) pay attention to your indents and do them right. B) I don't have a particular solution in mind, I'm just telling you things to consider to improve your idea. Personally, as I have voiced on Ross's talk page first and it's on here because the convo has be C/P, I liked the idea in Zombie Lord's sandbox (Although I might remove the mobile phone mast icon, and the number in the middle right, I think that's the number of zombies maybe?). It is based off the state of buildings which is reasonably accurate for judging the safety for survivors to be in that suburb. More importantly EMR's can be auto updated via a bot and with the coding of some templates the suburb page might be able to auto update when the EMR's are updated. (I'm not quite sure how or if that would work though..). If the EMR obtained status is obviously inaccurate you could manually change the color.        04:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly the icons could just be placed on the template proper and noincluded. Perhaps provide a link to the danger template on the with include only. Keeps the map clean. ZL's project is actually about 90% complete it just needs some tlc, some technical tweaks and some community approval. ~ _{04:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)}

I don't really see this as a problem since, as you state quite clearly, it reflects the reality of the game when actually updated and the only practical solution to that specific problem is automatic graying when there's been no update for a number of months, or even possibly only a month. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 19:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but the status of a suburb usually doesn't change that fast, except when groups move from suburb to suburb once a month is acceptable. Once every two weeks would be good. User:Generaloberst 20:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Read some of the discussion up higher on this page for some good ideas regarding how it would be better to redo the suburb danger levels. Those are the ideas that you should be basing your work off of, rather than trying to start something from scratch. Basing it on the percentage of zombies vs. survivors is not a good reason for a wide variety of reasons (it reflects numbers rather than the effect of those numbers (i.e. who cares if there are 2x more survivors in the suburb if they are 10x more incompetent and have let the suburb fall apart?), doesn't address NPOV concerns, can't be verified via the automated broadcasts, can change drastically without any important change in the suburb having occurred, and would require exorbitant effort to be accurately updated, all just off the top of my head). As for Ghost Town, you need to be aware that, unlike the other danger levels, Ghost Town was created via a policy, so you would need to get the policy rescinded (yes, that's ridiculous, but it is what it is) before you could change it or remove it. To do otherwise would be to go against policy. So, basically, go read the stuff up above and add to those discussions, since they got a lot further than this one will if it keeps going in this direction. You're going down a dead end with the current proposition. —Aichon— 04:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And to be clear, I do think that the suburb danger levels are in need of an update. I just don't think that this is it, and I'd rather stick with what we have until we come up with an idea that is more than just marginally better. —Aichon— 04:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Following Mr. Karek, I do think, all other level classifications aside, an automatic update of "unknown" and an associated graying for any suburb without a manual update within a month would be delightful. Not perfect, not without the potential for abuse, but nevertheless better than what we have at present. Barbecue Barbecue 05:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

so NPOV is about the information zombies AND survivors can report in a suburb ...ohhh ...so danger levels reflect what any player (zombie or survivor) can see, basically from outside ...the state of buildings (ransacked/ruined, powered, barricaded or open) ...yeah so, now that i know that ...Zombie Lord's idea is great ...and i agree w/ Kiki Lottaboobs who voted against the ghost town policy ...if you are alone (or think you're alone) in a deserted suburb, it's the safest place to be for a survivor or zombie ...so technically, it would be safe & a ghost town, depending on who you ask ...suburbs are either safe/deserted or variants of dangerous ...therefore, the policy is unnecessary & needs to be abolished →Son of Sin← 06:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No, NPOV means Neutral Point of View. The DangerMap levels are notoriously POV. Safe? Safe for whom? Survivors. Not safe for zombies. Very Dangerous? For whom? Survivors. Zombies probably feel pretty safe in a burb marked very dangerous. What you see in Zombie Lord's sandbox is a culmination of suggestions to make danger levels both NPOV and relevant to the game that it is today. And yes, Ghost Town would probably go away as part of any change, though provisions could still be made for burbs that are ransacked and uninhibited.~ _{07:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)}

the danger map shouldn't be NPOV ...zombies don't have to be (or have to worry about being) safe ...buildings are safe houses for survivors, not for zombies ...therefore, the state of infrastructure is more (or only) important to survivors ...zombies don't (or shouldn't) lurch gait from safe/survivor-dominated suburbs to (moderately/very) dangerous/zombie-dominated suburbs to hide from survivors →Son of Sin← 09:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I could agree with using Zombie Lord's idea if we scratch the ghost town part. Does anyone have any objection against this? User:Generaloberst 12:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I kind of do. That project is not finished and still needs work before being implemented. Then there is the problem of the absurd amount of wiki coding that would need to be done (about 150+ template updates). That includes mocking something up and checking to make sure the template include size limit isn't hosed on Suburb after the changes. Best if for now the project is moved to a more public space and discuss it until after the holidays. We can begin earnest trying to implement it in the new year. ~ _{14:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)}

Then changing the numbers only should statisfy for now. What I mean is that we temporary change (lower) the numbers to something better than it is right now, until we implement the new system into the wiki. The number of players is 2 times lower than it was at the last update, so how about this:

The proposition is:

• ["safe": Break-ins rare, max 25+ zombies in suburb and no zombie groups above 5.]
• ["moderately dangerous": Active zombies and break-ins, but no 25+ hostile hordes]
• ["dangerous": Zombies inside many resource buildings; OR hostile mobs of 25+]
• ["very dangerous": > Most buildings wide open or zombie-infested; OR hostile zombie mobs of 75+]

It's bad, but good enough as a temporary solution to the problem. User:Generaloberst 14:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

75+ is too high ...a small mob (25+) can ruin a suburb if it's "a ghost town" (mostly empty buildings w/ few survivors to repair/kill zombies or even notice a mob is in the area) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Son of Sin (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC).

I'm not very keen on putting in a stop-gap change to the system to appease one "group" that feels slighted because they don't have the numbers to technically make an impact on danger reports but if it will stop cornhole from more zerging then have at it. Every other zombie group has just dealt with it until now but whatever. Honestly if you just mark your suburbs red when you enter, I don't think anyone is going to contest it. ~ _{16:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)}

Do you seriously think I was having a chat with my... other personality on the talk page of Nazi Zombies? Given the present rules I don't think Nazi Zombies can make any suburb red. We can keep the resource buildings in hands which would make it orange, but from there on it would go ghost town. Though that is if you exactly go by the rules. Of course when I made Dakerstown red, it really was a very dangerous place. And no, that is no hipstering. Rosslessness has turned Dakerstown yellow now while it is actually still a ghost town. So, Vapor, seen that you have a hand of judging nationalists differend than 'other' people, call me a hipster and you're calling Ross one as well, since he's doing the same thing. Not that I could care a lot if you call us hipsters though. 1. The present rules suck. and 2. Because we got worse hipsters in malton (Cobra :x) User:Generaloberst 18:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC

Or or or or, we could leave it as is, because, as we all know, we wont be here much longer. Misconbitragnarok...-- •הבוס• ♥ ^CGR 02:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Please explain that? User:Generaloberst 21:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

doomsday 12.21.12 ☺ →Son of Sin← 21:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That too. -- •הבוס• ♥ ^CGR 00:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Suburb Levels

Since we're on this NPOV kick with the SuburbGroups template, we may as well tackle the notoriously biased Danger Reports. These reports go from "Safe" to "Very Dangerous". Now lets see..."safe" for who? Pro-Survivors of course! Probably not so "safe" for zombies though, not unless they want to get headshot every day and somehow consider that "safe". Now "very dangerous" for who? You get the idea. So in the spirit of "NPOV" how about we go on a new scale:

Cell	Level	Description
	Survivor Controlled	Zombie break-ins rare, Survivors hold practically the entire suburb.
	Survivor Advantaged	Daily Zombie break-ins, but Survivors hold most buildings.
	Contested	Many buildings ruined, ransacked or inhabited by Zombies but Survivors hold a significant area of control.
	Zombie Advantaged	Zombies inside most resource buildings, with small pockets of Survivor holdouts.
	Zombie Controlled	Most buildings wide open or Zombie inhabited, Survivors hold little to no ground.
	A Ghost Town	At least 2/3rds of the suburb's buildings empty of Survivors or Zombies.

--

| T | BALLS! | 15:47 13 February 2011(UTC)

I second this, and third it. I've wanted to see something like this implemented for a long time, and this seems the best exeuction of it. 19:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It's more precise as well. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ghost town needs rewording slightly, to explained the ruinous nature. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on the exact wording (it seems a little clunky to me) but I'd say something like this can work. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 19:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the green for Survivor Controlled and Survivor Advantaged are too similar. And I'm not too keen on creating more sublevels when there is already a lot of confusion between yellow and orange - I'd rather leave it at Survivor Advantage/Contested/Zombie Advantage using the three traffic light colours, with Ghost Town as odd man out in grey. Other than that, I agree that the system has to become more NPOV. -- Spiderzed▋ 19:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As a firm believer in localised zombie groups, I quite like survivor advantaged. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

How about percentages? Just for example - Survivor Controlled: 90% harman, Survivor Advantaged: 65% harman, Contested: 50%, and vice versa. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

God thats terrible. 90% of what? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Survivor controlled versus zombie controlled? Or keep with numbers like what we have now e.g. 50+ zombies, or 50+ survivors. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

How are you defining survivor controlled? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

By numbers of survivor versus number of zombies. When that reaches close to 50%, it's contested, and when it reaches one extreme or another its controlled or advantaged or whatever. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Kind of makes it hard to update the wiki if you're a zombie. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Or buildings ruined or buildings open. It's always going to be harder if you're a zombie because zombies can't freerun. Defining the suburb levels is little vague with what has been proposed.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As Spider, I'd go with a different color than using two greens. Maybe a background of #bdf with a border of #3df (it looks better when used in his table above than it does right here), with the shade of green we're currently using getting bumped to the second level instead of being the first one?

As for the names and the wording, the idea is sound, but it needs a little tweaking, I'd suggest that the definitions be along the lines of intact and lit, mostly intact with sparse ruins, pockets of ruins and frequent break-ins, mostly ruined with sparse repairs, entirely ruined, and then ghost town. I think that by pairing pockets of ruins with break-ins and not mentioning break-ins until that far down, we'll avoid some controversy that I've seen in the past, where zombies want to move things to the current yellow level because they break into 1-2 buildings each day, even though they are getting repelled and their work is undone on a daily basis. Also, mentioning break-ins there and not earlier gives hordes an obvious level that they can set a suburb to when they first move in, that way others can see that something is happening in the suburb, even if it's not wrecked yet. Also, I wouldn't use the term "Contested", since you can bet that as soon as some asshat moves into a suburb to fight the incumbents (this applies both ways, incidentally), they will say that it is contested, even if they're making no noticeable impact on the suburb. And we can't touch Ghost Town, since, as I recall, it is dictated by policy or something.

Finally, someone needs to ping Rooster on this if he hasn't been pinged already. We'll need to get his input on the technical side of things, since this sort of change will require, at a bare minimum, changes to around 105 templates that I can think of off the top of my head, and potentially many more that I don't recall immediately. He would know better, but some of the templates actually depend on having the current names for the danger levels being used, so if you were to change the wording of the level names, you'd have to move or create additional templates as well. Plus, these changes would break at least one of his bots too. —Aichon— 21:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I demand these changes be implemented immediately without consulting Rooster for the sole pupose of seeing how much chaos his bots cause!--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see about test boarding some of the ideas to see if they work. As for implementation, who needs ab ot when you have a Ctrl, c, and v button? ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 23:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that its about damn time this is implemented. Blue instead of green would be nice. As Aichon, maybe keep it more break-in oriented instead of zombie/survivor controlled oriented (although that may be difficult for people to grasp at first since it is diametrically opposed to the current system). Am I the only one that thinks "Advantaged" is an ugly word? Its proper, but just looks and sounds awful in my opinion. I think just "Advantage" conveys the same meaning and isn't as grating. Maybe I'm just being a grammarphile. ~ 06:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Less break-in oriented, and more ruin/repair oriented, actually, since it's quantifiable. The mention of break-ins with the current system is actually a source of controversy, as I mentioned. I seem to recall arguing about it with zeug a year or two back when he and I almost got into an edit war over Judgewood. And people already think in terms of ruins now, but there are so many numbers and ambiguous terms in the definitions that people can shift things around pretty willy nilly. Making it solely or mostly based on ruins and less on zed vs. survivor numbers just seems like it's less open to problems. —Aichon— 07:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Acid Test for any suburb danger system is Kempsterbank. I look forward to your proposals. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Since its such a subjective thing we're trying to categorize, there will always be controversy / drama, but I like Aichon's idea for minimizing it. Also agree with Vapor on Advantage vs. Advantaged. I think I would like to see: Survivor Control, Survivor Advantage, Stalemate, Zombie Advantage, Zombie Control, Ghost Town. --Zarneverfike 05:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually started out with those in mind (except Stalemate) but changed it because of the way people generally talk about Suburbs, as in: "This Suburb is Very Dangerous". "This Suburb is Survivor Advantage" sounded clumsy to me so I changed them a bit to reflect how the terms would probably most often be used when describing a Suburb.--

| T | BALLS! | 15:13 16 February 2011(UTC)

Cell	Level	Description
	Survivor Fortress	At least 90% of buildings are Repaired.
	Survivor Stronghold	At least 70% of buildings are Repaired.
	Battleground	Ratio of Ruined/Ransacked buildings to Repaired buildings is 69% / 29% either way.
	Zombie Ruin	At least 70% of buildings are Ruined/Ransacked.
	Zombie Wasteland	At least 90% of buildings are Ruined/Ransacked.
	A Ghost Town	At least 2/3rds of the suburb's buildings empty of Survivors or Zombies.

More Ruin/Repair based. I didn't mess around with Ghost Towns. Maybe someone has some better ideas on that one.--

| T | BALLS! | 14:50 16 February 2011(UTC)

Question: What if 70% or 90% of the buildings are ruined/ransacked, but at least 2/3rds of the suburb buildings are empty of survivors or zombies? Which level would it be? It would be meet both criteria. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I imagine Ghost Town takes precedence. 00:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Why change the names to POV/rhetoric strangeness? I liked the wording further above. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

With the shift of focus to Ruins/Repairs I just thought these names reflected that better. It's not POV in any way that Safe/Dangerous is. Instead of subjectively judging whether a burb is "safe" or "dangerous" its objectively judging the state of its infrastructure. Seems pretty NPOV to me. But whatever, either way works for me.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:03 17 February 2011(UTC)

As much as this change is needed, and I like this latest version as a gauge between zombies/pro-survivors, this danger level still ignores PKer threats. Add something (like black stripes, or some such) that can be added to any of the existing colors signifying a very significant PKer presence. Given that PKer attacks have emptied entire suburbs in the past, this might even be relevant for Ghost Towns. --DT^PK 01:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just don't like the "stronghold" and "fortress" stuff, it seems a little trenchie. Some may say the example higher up is sterile, but IMO it's a better option. If worst comes to worst, either do what you think (since you're doing the work) or just have a vote, either way's good. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Append "PK" to each status and let that replace the border with a black one instead, to signify mass PKing or an organised PKer event like Silent Night, etc. Also, I think "Survivor held", "Contested" and "Zombie held" would work best, though in a five-tier system there obviously needs to be another term too. "Controlled" for the stronger level, and "held" for the weaker level? 01:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I foresee a "PK" status indicator being very problematic. Its like trying to count survivors vs. zombies in a suburb, but even worse because PKers can be completely anonymous. Also, whether there is a big Pk event, or just a small group of PKers moving into an area, the PK status will be changed, thus negating its usefulness. Further, most PK attacks and events are concentrated in malls, forts, etc. While those attacks would effect the safety of the particular large buildings, they wouldn't necessarily mean the the whole suburb was subject to PK attacks. --Zarneverfike 02:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I was really taken with Aichon's Ruin/Repair focus, since its easy for both Zombies and Survivors to judge, rather than the population thing. So it's hard to work PKers into that. Not that I don't sympathize. Have to think on it. Survivor Held/Controlled(Dominated?) could work but that leans us back into more of a population thing. We could just drop all reference to Survivors/Zombies and name them after the Infrastructure entirely. Get rid of Fortress/Stronghold (that's pretty population focused too) and go with descriptions of the buildings status. Intact, Dilapidated, Devastated, etc. In that case Ghost Town could probably be dropped all together. Of course this all could lead to some wildly complicated things like multiple maps, one for infrastructure, another for population, etc.--

| T | BALLS! | 12:53 17 February 2011(UTC)

This really. Building status rather than "control" is more NPOV, and less prone to edit wars probably. Otherwise, you will get haggling back on and forth as "Survivor Fortress"" and "Zombie Wasteland" are loaded terms. I would shy away from "Zombie" or "Survivor" based names as well.-MHSstaff 17:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I like ZL's suggestions and would work off of those ideas. Maybe something like Unscathed, Mostly Intact, Damaged, Mostly Ruined, Destroyed. As long as we quantify those, it should take most of the opinion out of things and leave it mostly up to scouting and observation in-game. Getting them to correspond to specific EMR would be nice as well, that way bots and folks that are distant can do something useful with the information. —Aichon— 07:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want a truly neutral way to classify the danger in a suburb, you should base them off the info supplied in external military reports. They arn't really done often enough to give a day by day account, but at least you will have the occasional report for each suburb to give an accurate, and undeniable snapshot. Others can fight about percentages in between the EMR's, but at least you'll have somewhere solid to start at -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:42 17 February 2011 (BST)

Never paid much attention to those things. I do sometimes get annoyed with people 20 suburbs away updating a suburb I'm familiar with when they have no on the ground evidence to support their update(more often than not they are not all that accurate). However, I'll research the EMR thing and get back to you.--

| T | BALLS! | 12:53 17 February 2011(UTC)

Frankly... unless someone devotes their entire daily AP to scouting a suburb, or has a large well organised group, or a zerg army, it's impossible to know what's going on in an entire suburb. Hence many of the "differences of opinion" (of course a few are also caused by bullshitters... but still) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:06 17 February 2011 (BST)

^ Perhaps a system could be devised to clearly objectify what danger report would mean what suburb level. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

^^If you decide to go EMRP, I'd think about dropping the Ghosttown (or its equivalent), since I *think* that the EMRP does not count zombies inside buildings. EMRP does give infrastructure though, which ties into perfectly to your idea about basing this on "building status" rather than populations. -MHSstaff 19:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Haet it. Blue is not a good color. I'd strongly suggest you guys to move with something more greenish, as the military thing --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 01:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Some people called for blue so I thought I'd try it. :) Would be a little tricky as far as the links go, since they all seem to be in blue as well.--

| T | BALLS! | 12:53 17 February 2011(UTC)

I think I like your first color scheme a bit better, though I think either is fine. Not too keen on the second green color in the first scheme though. It doesn't seem to quite match. As for names, what about dominated or controlled, held, and battleground? --Zarneverfike 23:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, my suggestion for blue was just so that we didn't have two shades of green to deal with. It makes it easier to reference, since I hear people calling them "green suburbs" or the like. Two shades of green would have made that tough. Also, I picked the shade of blue I gave earlier carefully so that the links would still show up on them just fine. Anyway, I like the original colors better, but would bump green #1 to #2's spot, and then would use a blue for the #1 spot. —Aichon— 07:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As above, not a fan of the blue indicators. So, is there enough consensus now to mock something up? I think a sandbox demo is in order. Just keep it to a 3x3 or 4x4 suburb grid and give others permission to play around with it. ~ 17:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If 'safe' to 'dangerous' descriptions for suburbs are too much of a pro-survivor viewpoint, perhaps green to red backgrounds are too? Also, green and red can be particularly difficult for colour blind people to distinguish. --Toejam 01:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

POV Suburb Levels

While I like where ZL's head is currently at on this project, given that the "Pro-Survivor" version has been around since the beginning of the game, I think we should swing that bad-boy POV pendulumn back the other way for a couple of years. You know. For balance and karma.

Cell	Level	Description
	Harvest-Ready	Most buildings are closed, but full of delicous, buttery harman flesh. Delicious. Buttery. Flesh.
	Harman-stock rebuilding	Some buildings are open, but for the most part, harmanz are being recultivated for the upcoming Fall harvest. Hordes, as always, are welcome to begin feeding.
	Feeding Frenzy	Most buildings are open, and full of delicious, buttery harman flesh. Hordes, as always, are welcome to continue feeding.
	Harmanz are Endangered	Harman numbers have fallen rapidly, and the species is now in endanger of becoming extinct. Zombies should continue drop-kicking that dead horse.
	Harmanz are Extinct in the wild	Harmanz are nearly extinct, except in isolated, controlled populations. Zombies should move on to greener pastures.
	Harmanz Atrocity Zone	Harmanz have been eradicated from the suburb, and their corpses have been left to rot in the streets. Zombies should move on to greener pastures.

-MHSstaff 19:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I heartily support this proposal. --WanYao 04:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Given Recent activities this probably reflects the current status of the game better than the pro-survivor version. -- |||||||||||||||||||||||||| 17:46, 29 May 2011 (BST)