Template talk:BarricadePlan

General

Looking to start some discussion on ways to either improve the template or to include on a new template. Obviously we would want something that is both easy to read at a glance, but also informative. Some things that I think can be easily changed:

• Remove monuments as a separate color, since aside from tagging purposes they are no different from any other empty block.
• Remove the unique color for Auto Repair Shops since they have been deemed non-essential by UBP since the update.
• Maybe add a new color to represent dark buildings on plans?

Again I'm looking for input on changes, and current plan templates that people like that we could use as a starting point for a template that can be used for all suburbs. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 09:55, 20 October 2009 (BST)

I'm not sure about the Auto-repair change. They are still the best place to get fuel, and as such are important in keeping a suburb running. They may be less important to low-level users, but to a team trying to operate a mall or an NT, more so.--Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 11:10, 20 October 2009 (BST)

That's kind of the point though. Since schools and fire stations are labeled as non-TRP building to keep at VSB for low-level characters, there isn't really a need for ARS to be kept at VSB other than location. Better to keep them protected so higher-level folks can get fuel without worrying as much about getting eaten overnight. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 11:44, 20 October 2009 (BST)

I see. But in combination of my suggestion below, a seperate colour would remain valuable even for EHB buildings, hence the misunderstanding. --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 11:48, 20 October 2009 (BST)

Really, I don't think that there was any need for a change, and was surprised that anyone would wanted it changed. I think that it's fine just the way it is. If anyone is interested, I could create an alternitive template made with suggestions as they come up, just to see what we have as it goes along.... -Poodle of doom 13:38, 20 October 2009 (BST)

I say go for it, the more examples the easier to see how best to improve it. --  RoosterDragon  16:11, 20 October 2009 (BST)

Noted. See my latest comments below.

I'd like to see this template receive some attention to make it more readable where possible, and maybe look nicer. You might need to phase over plans to a new template though, as it sounds like some of the changes being discussed would break the current usage. I'd like to put in my two cents into the template itself once you settle on a new scheme.

To address your points:

• Yeah that makes sense.
• Fuck the UBP, it's just one methodology for creating cade plans. It shouldn't have a bearing on a template intended for any cade plan. Instead you should go by TRPs. ARS's are important, and schools are not (I mean seriously UBP, schools are essential?!? pff)
• A reasonable idea, though it should be reasonably subtle.

--  RoosterDragon  16:11, 20 October 2009 (BST)

I figured that we would probably have to create a new template once we get it nailed down what everyone wants to see as far as changes. I would like to go by TRPs, but then we have to come to a consensus as to which buildings are TRPs. I think everyone agrees that PDs and hospitals are, but what about ARS? Factories? Fire Stations? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 20:01, 20 October 2009 (BST)

Check the article. On the other hand, if a certain scheme wants to highlight building type X I guess they should be able to. So it makes sense to include whatever is needed. Let's see what people want from the template first though, otherwise we're speculating on the design based on speculation about the specification. That wouldn't end well :) --  RoosterDragon  20:12, 20 October 2009 (BST)

The problem I have with the current UBP, is that it goes against the meaning of Tactical Resource Point. Tactical means just that: Tactically important. If it's important, it is NOT the place to have your weakest defences. I understand the need for easily accessible point to facilitate those without free running, but a newbie won't have much understanding of the wiki and BP's in the first place, so won't expect anything. The people who use and enforce BPs are generally the groups that keep a suburb in order. For that, having to replace the generator in your hospital every two days isn't a very efficient strategy, especially if the same goes for your factory. In suburbs with multiple versions of TRPs, leaving several at low cades might be nice to new users, but if not, keep it high. People who can't get in will automatically migrate to another suburb. (I'll post this rant in the UBP discussion as well, as it belongs there) --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 09:53, 21 October 2009 (BST)

Building type colours for EHB buildings

One thing lacking in the current template is the ability to distinguish between building types for buildings marked unenterable, these are all yellow. I think the designation between enterable/unenterable should be seperate from the type designation. Maybe something like a dashed border for an enterable building and a solid border for an unenterable building, with the colours of the cell the same regardless of barricade level? --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 11:10, 20 October 2009 (BST)

That is a good point. Or perhaps something along the lines of an 'X' in the block for EHB and blank for VSB. Definitely something that would help. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 11:42, 20 October 2009 (BST)

An example of what I have in mind:

EHB PD	VSB PD
EHB H	VSB H

--Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 11:47, 20 October 2009 (BST)

The solid/dashed line is a great idea. It works better with a dark color as the border instead of a white line. Also, the barricade plan is currently cluttered with colors. I feel that only PDs, Hospital, NTs and Malls should have a distinct color. Maybe blue, red, purple and green? And I agree there should be some way to designate in the barricade plan that a building should be left barricaded and dark.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 14:45, 20 October 2009 (BST)

Another option is to dispense with the current two-colour schemes for PD's and fire stations altogether, and have a single border colour denominating the barricade level: absent for none, dashed for VSB and solid for EHB. The colours can be drawn from the Uniform Color Policy (and I have preference for the 'Prettier by Name' versions). It would look something like this:

EHB PD	VSB PD	Open PD
EHB H	VSB H	Open H
EHB FD	VSB FD	Open FD
EHB NT	VSB NT	Open NT

We may have to play with the border-colour a bit for optimum visibility, but you get my idea I think.

Dark buildings can be done by using a gray colour for the text instead of black maybe? --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 15:36, 20 October 2009 (BST)

Grungi, check out some examples I put together in my Sandbox. If you want to play around with the colors a little bit you can copy/paste and leave examples on the same page. I kinda like the two-color scheme for buildings and the dashed line idea. Let me know what you think.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 15:52, 20 October 2009 (BST)

After thinking about it, the dashed line is really growing on me. Easy to understand at a glance. Great thinking guys. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 20:05, 20 October 2009 (BST)

I tentatively agree, but I'd prefer to see a full example plan first to be sure. --  RoosterDragon  20:13, 20 October 2009 (BST)

Righto. When I'm farting around tomorrow I'll put together a Foulkes Village example. I'll base it on the assumption that people prefer to see a yellow background for EHB and that firestations are antiquated. Perhaps I'll go with a lighter shade of yellow for VBS non TRC buildings. And it seems factories and auto repair shops should at least be designated by letters, thanks for pointing out the article rooster.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 20:36, 20 October 2009 (BST)

Personally, I'd avoid yellow and would go for something more neutral since the color of a block is now being used to denote the utility/type of the building, rather than the barricade level. While people may be used to yellow at this point, intuitively, I think it conveys the idea of designating something specific, whereas we're looking for a color that can be used to blanket characterize any non-TRPs. Something not as strong as yellow seems to be in order, otherwise people might wonder what the yellow buildings are, only to find out it's just the generic color assigned to buildings with low utility. —Aichon— 00:11, 21 October 2009 (BST)

Ok, just to illustrate what something might look like, here's a quick test case I rigged up for Darvall Heights. If you check my Sandbox I also have a larger version with all of the building names, since someone earlier mentioned that idea and I kinda liked it (EDIT: I rigged this one up to display building names on mouseover). Darvall's barricade plan includes quite a few buildings that deviate from the UBP, so it makes for a decent non-conforming test case. I made factories brown and ARS orange. I made the Mall white to match the suburb map. All of those are obviously subject to change. Also, when you give hospitals borders, they look like FD, so it's probably for the best that we don't have FD on the map.—Aichon— 01:58, 21 October 2009 (BST)

I've removed the map from here since my later tweaking caused it to take up way too much space on this page. Please see my Sandbox instead, since it's still over there. —Aichon— 08:26, 21 October 2009 (BST)

I like the color variation, but the white borders bother me. It almost makes the empty blocks easier to read. I don't see any distiction between EHB and VSB though. Then again I'm at work right now and this computer is all kinds of funky. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:36, 21 October 2009 (BST)

Just checked out the larger version in your sandbox. Love it. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:38, 21 October 2009 (BST)

I agree, especially the full-map version (last on the page) is very clear. Doing away with seperate colours for FDs is counter-intuitive, but pretty logical, and solves a lot of the problems I was having :-) --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 11:04, 21 October 2009 (BST)

I made a draft version for Shackleville (in hindsight, not the best choice because of its low number of TRPs, but whatever), check it out in my sandbox. I'm not yet happy about the colour scheme, but you get the general idea I think. --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 11:02, 21 October 2009 (BST)

POV

I couldn't care less what colours survivors use on their cade plans so long as it's legible to the colour-blind in the same way that the scents were.

Given that any barricade plan is POV they have no business being on suburb pages at all, hopefully we'll be removing them at some point in the near future. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:00, 20 October 2009 (BST)

Colour-blind is a good point, though the current version isn't very accessibly either in that regard. The dashed-border idea will actually improve on that, I think. The POV thing is valid, though one could argue that it's easy for zombies to know where there's the least wood to gnaw through before you get to the tasty BRAAAAAINS! --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 16:05, 20 October 2009 (BST)

POV or not, it would good to improve the template. And even if they are removed from displaying in the suburb page there will always be a link to it there and people will continue to use barricade plans.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 16:11, 20 October 2009 (BST)

I would like to get the plans taken off the suburb pages as well and just leave a link. Or, create zombie barricade plans as has been done in suburbs like Ridleybank. The colour-blind argument is a good one though. Let us know how some of the various shades work and which ones need changing. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 20:08, 20 October 2009 (BST)

Zombie "barricade plans" are a joke. Equal time =/= balanced representation.

Anyway... I thought the barricade plans were taken off all the main page suburb pages!!? I thought it was agreed a long time ago that they don't belong on the main page ... sigh. --WanYao 03:01, 22 October 2009 (BST)

I had thought so too, WanYao, but then when I started sprucing up and updating the UBP page I noticed that a number of plans were right on the main suburb pages. It's a small project to move them all, and could probably be done in a few hours if somebody gets the extra time. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:54, 22 October 2009 (BST)

stoopid question

Probably cos its late but, does this allow for identifying building type and desired cade level as separate entities? There are a lot of reasons why 2 PD's (for example) might be wanting different cade levels and it would be important for a universal template to recognize this and be easy to implement for Tech idiots like me! --Honestmistake 22:56, 20 October 2009 (BST)

That is one of the issues being addressed above, yes. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:31, 21 October 2009 (BST)

Template Creation (to view progress on the new template.....)

At this point, Rooster agrees that building the template as suggetions are accepted by the community. If anyone disagrees with this let me know above, where I suggested this. I will personally head this up. Now, what does everyone think to maybe making the template use the suburb map, with the boarder of each square being various colors to represent how they should be barricaded? -Poodle of doom 23:33, 20 October 2009 (BST)

Personally, I'm in favor of the dashed line suggestion that Grungni has been talking about above since it seems much more intuitive. I'd start with that and then go from there. —Aichon— 23:48, 20 October 2009 (BST)

Sounds like a good place to start. I will see what I can't do to implement this. It's a little late where I am now, and templates are a bitch for me, and take a while to code.... I will start on it tomorrow after I get out of work.... Maybe we'll acquire a few more suggestions in addition to this. Thanks! -Poodle of doom 02:22, 21 October 2009 (BST)

I tossed something together up above, incidentally. It's not perfect, but hopefully you can look at it and get some ideas for what you want to improve, instead of having to start with a blank slate. —Aichon— 02:35, 21 October 2009 (BST)

I'm all for more templates put up initially so that we can look at them and decide what we like and what we don't. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:42, 21 October 2009 (BST)

Aichon's template example is the best one so far. Dude, that is fucking fantastic!!! It conveys more useful information more effectively and it is easier to look at. And the small example doesn't clutter a suburb page. I have two tiny tiny improvement suggestions. Include buildings left intentionally dark in the legend. You could use this color scheme. Also, I'd like the NT's to look a little more purple, like this. Other than that it's perfect.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:04, 21 October 2009 (BST)

At the moment, everybody seems to favour the borders for barricades model which makes setting the wanted level of cades nice whilst displaying key types of building easy. I'm all for that. Aichon's example is pretty awesome already, though I'd like to make the following suggestions/comments:

• The small version with the large dashed borders gives a crappy result since the boxes are so small, maybe reduce the width slightly, or change to a dotted border on the small version?
• The colour scheme is pretty good, but hospitals need to be more pink (EHB hospitals may as well be FS's at the moment) and I think factories could be differentiated more from generic buildings. NT's could probably be a shade purpler too.
• In general, do we like the relatively muted colours, or would we like a slightly more lush scheme like Giles'?
• Forts/Malls colour - I find it a bit boring personally, maybe a green or something.

And in general, there are still the following issues to address:

• Dark buildings, are we marking these? How would we in a way that doesn't interfere with the current setup?
• Non-TRPs that some cade policies care about (eg: FS's and schools), do we want to provide custom colours for those or not?
• Revive points. Are we marking these? If so, how? Just a textual footnote ("RP") or maybe marking them green in some fashion like some maps?
• Phone Masts, do we care enough to mark them in any way?

--  RoosterDragon  13:56, 21 October 2009 (BST)

Right, good points. I copied Aichon's code and made a few changes. Check it out here. Tried dots instead of dashes, made it a little bigger, added buildings intentionally left dark, (Darkened buildings aren't listed on the map unless intentionally left dark).and tweaked the colors a tiny bit. In the small map, a phone mast could be designated with ☎ as I've done in the example. Similarly, buildings with the potential to be darkened could be denoted with something like ☽, also in the example.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 14:56, 21 October 2009 (BST)

Not everyone can see those symbols. - User:Whitehouse 15:05, 21 October 2009 (BST)

Ah, good point. Maybe we could find some very small icons which represent a phone tower and darkness, then include the images in the relevant buildings.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 15:25, 21 October 2009 (BST)

A more reliable way is a small image with a phonemast, the rest of the image transparent (png or gif), which is set as background-image for the cell, together with the background colour for the building-type. It will overlay the image on the backgroundcolour. That way, the type of building stays the same and recognisable, and text can be added without being hindered by the image. This is the same way it is done on the map of malton. --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 15:49, 21 October 2009 (BST)

The setting of a background image is prevented. You could include the image with the cell's text at best. --  RoosterDragon  16:06, 21 October 2009 (BST)

Quickly going through all of The Rooster's points...

• I'd suggest keeping the width of the border around 4px, since it provides good visibility. I like Giles' solution of using a dotted border instead of dashed, since it's more apparent which are which.
• I agree with your stance on the hospital color. Making it pinker is fine by me, though recoloring the border might have a more profound effect since the color I have now is actually pinker than the current template's pink.
• For the lush/muted idea, I'd meet in the middle with the color scheme. I think Giles' hospitals are too fuchsia, but his NT are spot-on, in my opinion.
• For the Malls/Forts, I chose the white because that's how they show up in the suburb map, but I'm okay with changing it. I'll try a shade of green or green-yellow in my next version of the template.

As for the issues that you mention need addressing...

• None of the dark buildings are TRPs, so we could give them their own unique color (Giles' color is good, though I'll toy around with some others). The question then is if we want to do that, and I don't see a reason why not. It leaves more options open for alternative barricade plans.
• For non-TRPs, aside from dark buildings, I don't think they should get colors. At that point, we'd have to provide colors for every single type of building, and that'd be a nightmare.
• For RPs, we'd need an indicator other than the background color, otherwise we'd lose building type information. Giles and I used text, though I toyed with the idea of a bright green border as well. The problem with the green border is that many RPs are outside, and slapping a border on them indicates that they should be barricaded, which is inconsistent.
• Regarding masts, I personally don't care, but I know that some do. Whatever designation we come up with for RPs should probably be shared for masts (i.e. use text/icons/etc. for both RPs and masts).

I'll go ahead and post an updated version of my template with different colors and borders in a few minutes. —Aichon— 17:39, 21 October 2009 (BST)

Good suggestions (and examples!), guys. I've updated the small version of my template. I changed the colors for the hospital, fort/mall, and NT, and added in dark buildings (I borrowed Giles' NT color, and muted his dark building color a bit). I've also switched to dotted borders, made it slightly larger, and reworked the legend a bit. Thoughts?

Also, going back to the earlier points, I've actually changed my mind from a few minutes ago in regards to dark buildings, and don't think that they should be marked on the map. As far as I can tell, since the only dark buildings we would want to indicate on the map are the ones that are kept intentionally dark, they can just be marked "Unbarricaded," (i.e. no border) with no need for a special designation of any sort. I've left them in my template for now, so that people can see how they look, but I'll probably remove them whenever I change it again unless people just think we need to have them. —Aichon— 18:26, 21 October 2009 (BST)

The presence of dark buildings matters. Everyone needs to use different tactics in the dark, particularly zombies and PKers. Question is: does this important feature belong on a barricade plan?.... --WanYao 03:05, 22 October 2009 (BST)

I wholeheartedly agree. Dark buildings are important, but the question here is if they are important to show on barricade maps, and I'm currently not convinced that they are (though I've already changed my mind once, so I'd be up for it again if someone had a good argument). —Aichon— 03:56, 22 October 2009 (BST)

I like the color scheme we've got going with Aichon's latest template. My only concern with color is the one that Iscariot brought up earlier, and that being is it still discernable to the color-blind? I do not think that dark buildings need to be displayed for the reasons mentioned, but I do think that masts and RPs should be. The biggest problem with RPs though is that there are both indoor and outdoor RPs, so a separate color might not be the best solution for them. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:13, 22 October 2009 (BST)

I used a color blind simulator on a screenshot of my template (I dumped images of the results here). The Mall/Fort color ends up looking almost identical to the Auto Shop color for the most common forms of color blindness, but otherwise, while the colors might look wonky, they're all distinguishable from each other. In a rare type of color blindness, the Auto Shops look like Hospitals and the Factories look like NT. I'm thinking that making either the Mall/Fort or the ARS more vibrant might handle the common forms of color blindness. No clue how to deal with the rare type though. —Aichon— 07:33, 22 October 2009 (BST)

Half the shit that everyone posted here could of been placed else where,... and now it's to jumbled for me to discern what's been talked about above, and generally accepted by the community, and what's just BS....... -Poodle of doom 23:06, 21 October 2009 (BST)

Very much liking Aichon's suggested scheme. As for dark buildings, I'm not sure if it's feasible with code alone (though I guess it could be done in a roundabout way with images), but how about shading half of the square diagonally for them? Keep the square as standard, with a grey or black lower half, like this. Just a thought, but it's visually distinct enough to be instantly recognisable. 00:16, 24 October 2009 (BST)

Template colours

In order to clean this page up a bit, a seperate place to discuss building colours. What buildings need to have their own colours, and what colour should that be.

Common concensus at least agrees on hospitals (pink/reddish), NTs (purple) and PD's (blue). Other TRPs many people want to be discernable on the map are Auto repair shops and factories. Streets should of course all have the same colour. Most agree that monuments don't need a seperate colour, I'd add wastelands to this as well.

Another point that may need to be taken into account: Currently on the UBP discussion, there's talk about making junkyards a fixed VSB point for beginners. In that light, giving these their own colour might be wanted/needed. The same might go for churches, maybe (source of FAK's) --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 08:49, 22 October 2009 (BST)

I would agree that giving all blocks that can't be barricaded the same color. I also agree with the other colors you mentioned, and would point out my current template for examples of auto repair shops (orange), factories (brown), and malls (green-yellow). I'm open to suggestions on those three.

Regarding junkyards, I don't think they should be colored. The barricade template should work well with any barricade policy, so unless we plan to colorize every building in order to accommodate all possibilities, we need to colorize based on some other criteria. TRPs make the most sense.

Also, there are dark buildings. I mentioned it earlier, but I'm against giving them a color. Similar to junkyards, dark buildings are non-TRPs who are only special if a policy says they're special. They can be designated as Unbarricaded on a map, which is already handled without extra colors. —Aichon— 09:44, 22 October 2009 (BST)

I am against junkyards and other non-TRCs having a different color. The template should be flexible to any plan, as Aichon stated. I like the colors in Aichons latest template. Now, as for coloring darkened buildings, let me make my position clear.

• Buildings that can be darkened should be marked discretely. (perhaps with a D or an icon)
• Buildings that are intentionally left dark should be designated by a color change.

This allows further flexibility and provides additional useful information at a glance. It also addresses the darkened building update, which is completely overlooked in the current template.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:15, 22 October 2009 (BST)

My two cents: The green/yellow for forts/malls was a bad suggestion on my part. I don't like it (and it seems to be giving you problems for color-blind chaps) so maybe find another for that. Junkyards as EP's, well just mark them as VSB, isn't that the whole point of the damned plan? For dark buildings, I'm leaning towards not including them, but I can buy noting all buildings that are dark (since when ruined they stay like that longer)). Noting buildings left dark on purpose seems beyond the scope of a plan dedicated to cade levels. --  RoosterDragon  16:06, 22 October 2009 (BST)

Agree with you across the board. I made the Mall/Fort more green-blue on my template, which seems to make it more distinguishable for the common types of color-blindness (not as good as normal vision, but at least it's distinguishable), and I'm okay with dark buildings getting an indicator other than a color if they're dark. —Aichon— 21:42, 22 October 2009 (BST)

That one looks pretty good Aichon. And the letter system makes the most sense. I like "Dark" and "RP", how do you feel about "Cell" instead of "Pho"? And while I like the powered/unpowered idea I seem to be in the minority. If no one objects I'd say this newest example is a winner.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 21:54, 22 October 2009 (BST)

Cell isn't bad. I was also thinking of Mast. I tried Phone and Phon, but both of them started to stretch the table in my browser. I'll give Cell a try in a sec. Also, strangely enough, now that you've divorced the idea of unpowered/powered from dark buildings and convinced me that dark buildings behave different strategically, I may be okay with giving dark buildings their own color again. That said, we're running low on color choices for the color-blind reasons, so we'd have to be careful. —Aichon— 22:29, 22 October 2009 (BST)

The standard is "MPM" for Mobile Phone Mast. --  RoosterDragon  22:33, 22 October 2009 (BST)

I'll go with that then, and will add an extra section to the legend for these terms. —Aichon— 22:38, 22 October 2009 (BST)

What is our goal?

We should have done this earlier but in order to decide how to go about improving the barricade template, we really need to have a consensus on what needs to be improved. I suggest that the new barricade template should be able to do the following things:

• 1. Highlight the TRC buildings and work if you're color blind.
  
• 2. Designate open, vsb and ehb for ALL building types.
  
• 3. Show RPs, Phone Masts, and darkened building types.
  
• 4. Designate if a building is intentionally left unpowered.
  
• 5. Be flexible to any kind of barricade plan.
  

So far we've already figured out 1 and 2 with colored TRCs and dashed/solid borders. I think 3 is really important because darkened building types aren't even mentioned in current barricade plans and they're more critical to the overall free-running structure than where a phone mast is. Finally, 4 is a new bit of information that currently isn't indicated on any barricade plan but it bears consideration and I'm willing to discuss it.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:39, 22 October 2009 (BST)

Ok, now I'm confused: Isn't a darkened building one (a cinema, club or bank) that's intentionally left unpowered? From your description, what you refer to as a darkened building is what I refer to as a ruined building (otherwise, what's the impact on free running lanes?). Am I correct in that? Otherwise, what import is it whether a building is left unpowered? (aside from being slightly less interesting to Zombies) --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 14:05, 22 October 2009 (BST)

Sorry, I'll clarify. When I say "darkened building" I mean a club, cinema or bank. And I'm introducing a new terminology into barricade plans: powered or unpowered. So a barricade plan could specify that a bank is powered and vsb while a different bank is unpowered and ehb, or maybe a warehouse is vsb and unpowered. This doesn't mean those buildings are ruined, they're just unpowered (no genny). It's true that probably only banks etc would intentionally be left unpowered for tactical reasons, but I've seen examples of other buildings left unpowered for rp purposes. Remember the barricade template should be flexible enough to accomodate any barricade plan, even a plan for pkers.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 16:59, 22 October 2009 (BST)

I don't believe the intention to leave a building unpowered on purpose is common enough to warrant noting it on a cade plan. --  RoosterDragon  17:14, 22 October 2009 (BST)

I agree with The Rooster. This is a barricade plan, light/dark are not vital to a good barricade plan. - User:Whitehouse 18:02, 22 October 2009 (BST)

You both have valid arguments, but different arguments. Rooster is saying intentionally leaving a building unpowered is not common enough, so it should be left out of the template. But many suburbs have at least a couple of buildings that are intentionally left dark by survivors, whether they be PKers or otherwise. It's actually more common than rotter relief clinics and indoor RPs. The tactic is already commonly in use and the template should be flexible enough to be reflected in barricade plans of the future.

Whitehouse is saying light/dark is not vital to a barricade plan, so it should be left out of the template. But revive points don't have anything to do with barricades, and we mark RPs. Same with phone masts. Banks, clubs, and cinemas are more tactically significant than phone masts, and so they should be marked as well.

Finally, darkened buildings are vital to a good barricade plan, especially when they connect free running lanes since they are more difficult to reclaim from ruin. Even if you wouldn't personally find such a barricade plan useful, I'm sure you'll agree that the updated template should be versatile enough to allow other people to pursue that option.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 19:17, 22 October 2009 (BST)

Personally I disagree with marking revive points and phone masts. I only agree with marking indoor revive points because that's where it is relevant to a barricade plan. I might have considered phone masts, but only to inform as to why the barricade level is what it is, in most cases that is heavily, as many other standard buildings, and in most cases probably not needed.

As for dark buildings being vital to a barricade plan, I disagree. I can really not see why they are vital, they have the same barricade level possibilities, barricade plans denote optimum barricade levels, and are not there to inform how difficult a building is to reclaim. - User:Whitehouse 19:47, 22 October 2009 (BST)

Fair enough. How do you feel about Aichon's most recent example?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 21:58, 22 October 2009 (BST)

I agree with Giles' 1, 2, 3 (yes, I changed my mind again), and 5 points. Regarding (un)powered, I don't think that should be indicated with a color, if at all. The (un)powered idea does not just apply to dark buildings (i.e. any type of building could be (un)powered), so giving it a color would conflict with existing colors. And as I understand it, unpowered is synonymous with Unbarricaded, which is already indicated.

With RPs, masts, and dark buildings, they can play a significant role in determining a barricade plan. Entry points tend to get placed near RPs, masts are intinsically valuable, while dark buildings need to be considered carefully since they do not behave the same as other buildings. Dark buildings may not be inherently valuable, but they are inherently different in a way that affects suburb strategy.

The question then becomes, "is it good to mark locations that affect strategy?" and I would say yes, for the same reasons that we mark TRPs. These locations are intrinsically valuable or different from other locations, which makes them worth indicating. I'm against marking intentionally (un)powered ones, since those are based on policy rather than intrinsic differences, but indicating all dark buildings with some sort of marker is okay. —Aichon— 22:18, 22 October 2009 (BST)

I think the current small plan example is more or less where we want to be. Dark buildings marked with text and unpowered stuff not noted. Even if you disagree, you could enter any text notes you like for a plan if the policy calls for it, so that should provide the flexibility people wanted. One last thought, do we want the co-ords displayed along the left and top side like at current? (I'd vote for along all sides, but in a more compact fashion) --  RoosterDragon  23:06, 22 October 2009 (BST)

I know that I would like coordinates. I just hadn't added them yet since I didn't want to get bogged down by additional code. I've added them to the small template at this point though, so see what you think. In regards to the legend, should I leave the stuff for the text (RP, MPM, and Dark) in there, or should that be removed? And it seems as if differences in browsers make the legend appear at different sizes...hrm... —Aichon— 02:04, 23 October 2009 (BST)

I'm fine with Aichon's example. Since the text in boxes is optional, I have no objections. - User:Whitehouse 23:51, 22 October 2009 (BST)

I also like Aichon's example as it is right now. Are there any other changes that need to be made before a generic template page is created for it? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:15, 23 October 2009 (BST)

I think it's perfect, even without the legend, it's almost immediately clear how it works. Well done. --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 08:58, 23 October 2009 (BST)

This is perfect. A little text can be used to tweak any exotic barricade plan, and it's entirely optional. I think the coordinates should be optional as well, since to me they just add clutter. Great job everyone, good community input.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 11:21, 23 October 2009 (BST)

Technical Implementation

Since we have examples for both a large and small barricade plan. I am thinking it would be awesome to be able to specify one template and choose the size when you include it (defaulting to large, probably).

Thus my intended method of achieving this is thus:

For small template locations (in this case local 0,0):

|style="border:4px dotted #00F; background:#DDF" title="Example Place Police Department"|MPM

resulting from this code:

|style="border:{{BPS-{{{cade00|None}}}}} {{BP-{{{type00|Street}}}}}" title="{{{alt00|{{{name00}}}}}}"|{{{text00|}}}

For the large template locations:

|style="border:4px solid #444; background:#EED"|[[Junkyard 0,0|a junkyard]]<br />(RP)

resulting from this code:

|style="border:{{BPL-{{{cade00|None}}}}} {{BP-{{{type00|Street}}}}}"|[[{{{name00}}}|{{{alt00|{{{name00}}}}}}]]<br />({{{text00|}}})

To clarify, the above would occur on two separate templates, say "Template:BarricadePlanLarge" and "Template:BarricadePlanSmall" intended for large and small plans respectively.

To define a suburb's plan, you might use "Template:<suburb> Barricade Plan", which seems to be the system at current.

You'd define it like so:

{{BarricadePlan{{{1|Large}}}|
|x=0|y=9

| name00=Example Street
| name10=Example Place Fire Station | cade10=VSB | type10=Generic
| name20=Junkyard 2,90 | alt20=a junkyard | cade20=None | type20=Generic | text20=RP
| name30=The Ambiguous Building (Suburb) | alt30=the Ambiguous Building | cade30=EHB | type30=NT

etc

}}

• Each location would default to an uncaded street, allowing you to declare streets just by name.
• A typical location, this fire station needs a name, cade level and building type.
• This junkyard needs a name and an alt name. Here cade is specified (though "no cades" declarations can be skipped), then the generic building type (for non-TRP buildings) and some text indicating a RP.
• This NT has an ambiguous name, and so needs the full name so you don't see a disambiguation page, and then an alt name so the extra text is removed.

You always need to declare name, and usually cade and type. You may need to declare alt occasionally, and can optionally declare text

Then finally, when including it you would type

{{<suburb> Barricade Plan}}

which produces a large plan by default, or you can type either

{{<suburb> Barricade Plan|Large}}

{{<suburb> Barricade Plan|Small}}

to specify a large or small plan at that instant.

Hopefully this makes my initial code a little more self explanatory. Say you define a Hospital for type00, {{BP-{{{type00|Street}}}}} becomes {{BP-Hospital}} which calls a template named BP-Hospital which returns the colours need for a hospital.

In the case of say VSB cades. {{BPL-{{{cade00|None}}}}} becomes {{BPL-VSB}} which calls a template named BPL-VSB which returns code for VSB cades on a large plan. BPL is used on large plans and BPS on small plans solely so we can have dotted borders for VSB on large plans, and then dotted on smaller plans. The EHB and None versions would be the same for both large and small.

I hope this is all not too confusing, anyway the main bit is defining the plans. It's a touch more complicated so you can get away with doing the plan once, and yet get two outputs. It'll also look a little more confusing. Hopefully the defaults will speed things up. Streets tend to be a third of suburbs, so after doing the name you can kill the other stuff and save some time there. --  RoosterDragon  15:16, 23 October 2009 (BST)

After all that, I forgot to say what feedback I'd like:

1. Did I even manage to get my idea across, or was I just confusing?

2. Do people like the idea of "define once, but be able to use two versions"?

2.1 Does the proposed way of defining the plan appeal, or is it too complicated?

2.2 Would you prefer an easier method to define it, even if you have to do it twice (once for both small and large)?

3. For those with the know how, is planned code well thought out? Is it the best method?

4. How much did you enjoy the colour coding?

--  RoosterDragon  15:25, 23 October 2009 (BST)

I'm not used to building templates on this scale, so I'm a little unclear on a few points. First off, I don't see why we need both {{BPL-VSB}} and {{BPS-VSB}}, since you said that we separate them so that we can have dotted borders on each, but if we have the same for each, then what's the distinction? Did you mean dashed on the large and dotted on the small? If so, the large template that I still have posted in my Sandbox hasn't been updated since the very first round of changes I implemented based off of suggestions here. Originally, I used dashed borders on both, hence why it still has dashed borders. There's really no reason why it shouldn't have dotted borders as well, in which case I don't see the need for the distinction between {{BPL-VSB}} and {{BPS-VSB}}, unless people want to keep the large version dashed.

(EDIT: Figured these out.) And sorry for needing a little hand-holding, but what is the purpose of {{{name00}}} in {{{alt00|{{{name00}}}}}} in the large template?

Where do the coordinates for the coordinate display (assuming we're going to display the coordinates, of course) get defined in all of this? I know we set a start coordinate and then increment each block. Is that all that's required? (again, apologies for the hand-holding if this is an obvious thing). I'm also assuming that the width of the cells would be defined with the coordinates since I don't see it handled here. Is that correct?

I do like the idea of "define once, use both." Makes a lot of sense to me, and though I haven't worked on the barricade plans before this discussion, I think it looks like a good method for defining things. I also like the colors that you've used to describe it, since otherwise it would have been much more difficult to follow.

We'll need to do a little checking of the colors with the large version, since I haven't seen whether or not the newer colors provide enough contrast against the wiki's links' shade of blue and purple, but I suspect we'll be okay there.

Truth be told, this was the phase I was worried about, since I didn't have the wiki background and knowledge to put something like this together on my own, so thanks for taking this on yourself. I know that I really appreciate it.

—Aichon— 19:20, 23 October 2009 (BST)

I understood most of it. I'll read it again when I'm well rested and in better health (currently fighting a cold). I do like the idea of "define once, use both". Then it's easy for say, the large one to be displayed on <suburb> Barricade Plan and the small to be used on other pages. I think the method of defining it will be fine, especially once we get it on a Template: page and get instructions up so the less wiki-savvy folks can help with replacing old plan templates with the new one. The colours are great, and again I will be able to comment more when I'm feeling better and my head doesn't feel like an over-stuffed melon. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:36, 24 October 2009 (BST)

When people finally define the details of their barricade plans, the first example is easy for me to follow:

| name00=disambig location name | alt00=display name | cade00=cade level | type00=building type | text00=optional text
| name10=disambig location name | alt10=display name | cade10=cade level | type10=building type | text10=optional text

Most users have experience entering data into fields of a table like that. And while the table specifies x=0 and y=9, it might be nice to clearly explain to users that they are entering data for the suburb locations from left to right. Maybe it would be useful to provide them with a small example listing 00, 10, 20,...90. then 01,11,21,...91. etc so they could use that as a guide and not get confused.

EDIT:This is what I mean.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:04, 24 October 2009 (BST)

However, I can see people having problems with the second example {{BP-{{{type00|Street}}}}} because of all the {{}}s, and it might not be clear to people what they're actually doing. In the table example the logic of what I'm editing is easier to follow, at least for me.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:51, 24 October 2009 (BST)

If I'm not mistaken, the part with all of the curly braces is the code of the template itself, and won't actually be seen by the people using the template, so I don't think it should be confusing to the end users of this template. —Aichon— 13:18, 24 October 2009 (BST)

Correct, that's just template code. --  RoosterDragon  17:46, 24 October 2009 (BST)

Ok -

• The reason to have a separate {{BPL-VSB}} and {{BPS-VSB}} was indeed so we can have dotted borders on one and dashed on the other (my mistake if I said dotted twice in the earlier post) but if we're going for dotted all the time then yeah, we can simply this code to {{BP-VSB}} for both versions and be done.
• If the colour scheme is off, it will be easy to adjust. Just change "Template:BP-SomeBuildingType" with new colours and all entries will get updated. Also makes it easy to quickly test changes.
• As far as providing an example so people can enter data, I was considering copying the current idea on the template page itself (scrool to the bottom), where it provides the code allowing you to copy paste it and fill in the blanks. Obviously I'll add some explanation as well.
• The template entry legend isn't a bad idea. Would be worth including.

I'll start working. --  RoosterDragon  17:46, 24 October 2009 (BST)

Ok, it's done! I've usurped Template:Roywood Barricade Plan and altered it to the new version. The code on that page is done by hand and thus is an efficient example. It deals with ambiguous buildings and I marked the MPM and lone RP. I haven't marked dark buildings at this time.

If you want to see the smaller version in action, edit the section on the top line from {{{1|Large}}} to {{{1|Small}}} and show preview to see it. Alternatively, you can include the plan somewhere and do {{Roywood Barricade Plan|Small}} on some page which works too.

I'll add the legend and center both plans in a moment, if there's any errors or last minute problems then shout, otherwise I'll finish up and do some proper categorization in due course. --  RoosterDragon  20:35, 24 October 2009 (BST)

It looks great. For the large version there's really no need to mark dark buildings, since the names "bank" "cinema" etc, show up on the map. And nice job with the legend, it makes more sense to have the barricades illustrated with generic buildings instead of factories.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 21:45, 24 October 2009 (BST)

Ditto on the nice job, Rooster. And everyone for making this happen, I had thought it would take much longer than it did. Go Wiki Team! --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 23:01, 24 October 2009 (BST)

INCREDIBLE work. Much faster than I was expecting, and it's even for a suburb I know well. I really like the way you changed the spacing of the legend and increased the font for the word "Legend". But, of course, someone has to bring up some questions.

First, the large one doesn't seem to have a fixed width. I don't think it's an issue, but it's something that we should probably discuss briefly. The large version I built previously had a fixed width that matched the size of the suburb maps, that way there would be a uniformity of appearance between larger maps. Again, just something to consider, but I personally don't have an issue with it being 100% width. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't ignored as a decision.

Second, I just wanted to mention that the reason I used factories for the barricades in the legend was that the Unbarricaded example provides poor contrast against the white background. It was something I had thought about quite a bit, and never really liked either answer, since the one (factories) made no sense, while the other (non-TRPs) didn't look great. I'm hopeful that there's a third option available that's better, but, if not, either way will work for me.

Even without these considerations taken into account, I think it's ready for prime-time. And I heartily concur with Maverick's statement. Great job everyone! We got the new idea nailed down early, examples up quickly, feedback and refinements flowing in rapidly, and a final result pulled together in a jiffy. Couldn't have asked for a better outcome. —Aichon— 00:58, 25 October 2009 (BST)

The large map is fixed size, though I've achieved this by specifying the sizes for each row and column. I chose the numbers to match the 700x600 suburb map (this excludes the blue borders). Though I think once you do the math you'll get 704x604 from the black border and cellspacing. The small map is also a fixed size through a similar method. Considering this we may want to make the text a fixed size as well, rather than 75%. Since the map doesn't scale up people with larger text would just get nasty overruns. (Alternatively, have the 75% but cleverly specify the map in ems such that it looks the same to us folk but scales up depending on people's font size (and then hope they have enough resolution to see it))

If you still want to use factories in the key, just change the legend to reference them instead of generic buildings. Alternatively you could code any custom colours that work since it doesn't really matter what's used for the cade example.

I'll clean up the templates a bit and then all you guys have to do is upgrade the remaining 99 templates. Enjoy :D --  RoosterDragon  08:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the use of ems, that probably would be the best way...but I think we've done enough here already. Unless you're feeling particularly altruistic, I'd just leave it as it is. With the width issue, I did some more checking, and I think it might be browser-specific (Safari). If I look at the large template, it appears to be fixed width, but it's large enough to force horizontal scroll bars on a 1440x960 screen. If I look at the Roywood barricade plan, it stretches/shrinks to fit the window size, until the window is probably around 16-1800px wide (big enough to go beyond my monitor's edge) at which point it stops stretching. Go figure. I suppose Chrome might let you reproduce the issue, but it's not that big of a deal, I think.

As for the factories, I really didn't want to use the factories for the legend, since they made no sense in the first place. The custom color idea appeals, but then it just might introduce more confusion. Unless some better alternative comes up, I think the way you have it done right now makes the most sense to someone who sees the legend for the first time, so I'd stick with it.

Again, major thanks for this work. It's absolutely incredible seeing it come together like this. —Aichon— 09:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Aye, thanks for all the work you do, Rooster. I don't know about any of the other people here, but starting later this week I'll be putting all my other side projects on hold until this template is put up for all suburbs. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 05:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)