Talk:Santlerville Barricade Plan

Problems? Questions? Concerns?

Just contact the Dribbling Beavers on their forums. http://dribblingbeaver.proboards49.com --Moss12 17:05, 1 October 2007 (BST)

Formal objection to provisional Santerville BP

Necrotech Corp. R&D, on behalf of non-Dribbling Beaver units inside of Santlerville, objects to the unilateral barricade policy formulations issued by the Dribbling Beavers. No region of Malton can legitimately be claimed by any one organization or group. The novel precedent of opening up an indoor revive point in a non-NT building is of questionable tactical wisdom. No Necrotech Corp. R&D personnel is known to have been harmed by Dribbling Beaver units at this time. No other Necrotech Corp. R&D are active in Santerville sector at this time, and no NT Corp. R&D personnel have been authorized to attack non-PK listed human units at this time, or known to have been authorized previously. - Mstcrow5429 19:41, 1 October 2007 (BST)

As a leader of the Beavers, let me try to address all the points you bring up, mstcrow.

• Nobody claims Santlerville for the Beavers. However, as one of the most active groups in the Santlerville area, the Dribbling Beavers took the initiative to create the barricade plan for the suburb. The plan was reviewed and approved by members of DEM in November 2006 (see old plan discussions here). Any changes made to the Plan were communicated back to the Santlerville residents, and all Santlerville resident has been encouraged to make suggestions for improvements at any time.
• To my knowledge, there is no controlling authority in Malton who regulates Uniform Barricade Policy or Optimal Defense Plan. Most of the updates on the UBP or ODP pages are several months old. If you know of a group or authority who is monitoring this, please have a representative of the group contact me.
• St. Emelia's was converted into an indoor revive point in July of 2007. Using a church as an indoor RP is a strategy suggested by the RESCUE protocol. In particular, the residents of Santlerville saw the following benefits of using a non-NT indoor RP:
  • The combination of a RP with an Entry Point
  • Free-running access to and from the RP
  • St. Emelia's location is closer to Dowdney Mall and the Dewes NT building but not too far away from the Hall NT Building
• Overbarricading and griefing issues have been experienced at St. Emelia's, but has not been any more problematic than any of the other Entry Points within Santlerville. Zombies standing outside St. E's are often revived quickly, compared to other outdoor-only RPs in Malton.

The majority of the feedback we've recieved regarding using St. Emelia's as an indoor RP and as an Entry Point has been overwhelmingly positive. Revive times at St. Emelia's are very fast; on average a zombie is revived within an hour of arriving inside or outside the church. These fast revive times are a product of Santlerville's residents using St. Emelia's with little or no problems.

Could you please expound on how using St. Emelia's as an indoor RP and EP consists of "questionable tactical wisdom"? --Sexy Rexy Grossman 20:46, 1 October 2007 (BST)

SexyRexy, the Department of Emergency Management takes the lead in Malton in trying to promote and disseminate the UBP. Uniform Barricading Policy/Plan Reviews outlines some of the reasons why Santlerville is currently not considered in compliance. I have some sympathy for RESCUE, and have no objection to St. Emelia's designation, but this suburb could use more VS points for survivors without free running, especially one of the auto shops at 76,20 or 77,20. Doing so would also assist the suburb to the north, Pashenton, in maintaining a wise BP and having neighboring entry points to defend the island in the NE part of the suburb. Also, you have no designated mall entry points, and while there may be something in Heytown the lack of a plan makes that hard to assess. Designating the NT building at 74,28 as enterable, in accord with the principles of the overall UBP, would make the mall more accessible for all survivors, not merely those with free running. That is part of the goal of the UBP.

I would only add that while the DEM takes the lead in promoting, disseminating, and ranking the various BPs on their compliance to the UBP, groups that claim to support it should take it to heart and actually support the plan. You have a large number of resource buildings in this area which are supposed to be designated VS that are not. For instance, if St. Emelia's is going to be your indoor revive that you maintain, which people can free run out of, is there a reason to have an Entry Point at the Anthony Building right below it? It might be better to make the hospital VS for survivors coming in from the East and the South to find FAKs, and also maybe the school directly to the NE. That provides an net increase of 1 Entry Point, one of which becomes a source for new survivors to get FAKs and contribute to healing the sick.

Just some thoughts, I hope you consider them. I think, however, you should remove the line about the DEM approving the plan in 2006, or at least add a disclaimer that according to current DEM assessments the plan is NOT UBP-compliant.PreacherTheodore 21:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. As I said before, I had no idea that the DEM or anyone was actually updating UBP policies or whatnot. Allow me to address your points:

• "this suburb could use more VS points for survivors without free running, especially one of the auto shops at 76,20 or 77,20." -- I think we would be willing to discuss this idea with other Santlerville residents. My problem with Auto Shops being VSB resource buildings is that they contain items that are of use for high-level survivors and tactics (fuel cans, spraycans) and very few items that are of use for low-level survivors (crowbars, fireaxes). That is a issue I have more with the UBP definition.

I feel the same way about schools being "resource buildings" when there is hardly ANYTHING useful for a low-level survivor in a school. (I don't know anyone who would level up with books in this day and age.) The only school that is VSB is at 79, 22. We were asked by regular occupants at the PD 1W from the school to make the school an EP, since the PD is a frequent target of small zed sieges (requiring constant raising of barricades for defense) and we need a dedicated EP to access Santerville's only factory 1N of the school.

• "Doing so would also assist the suburb to the north, Pashenton, in maintaining a wise BP and having neighboring entry points to defend the island in the NE part of the suburb." -- I agree that Barricade Plans should be made with neighboring suburbs in mind. However, we already have one EP (Holmshaw Hotel) on our most-northern border, about 2S of the Bagehot Way Police Department and 2W of those Auto Repair shops (link to Pashenton BP). If the block of SE Pashenton needs another EP, shouldn't one of those buildings next to the factory be made into an EP, and should be INDEPENDENT of the Santlerville EPs? That seems to me the best solution for Pashenton.
• "Also, you have no designated mall entry points, and while there may be something in Heytown the lack of a plan makes that hard to assess." -- You missed this, methinks.
• "Designating the NT building at 74,28 as enterable" -- We have considered that, mainly for allowing low-level Scientists access to needles. However, with 3 of the 4 enterable buildings around the mall designated as EPs, I don't feel the need to make Dewes VSB for EPs' sake. This is again something we're willing to discuss.
• "You have a large number of resource buildings in this area which are supposed to be designated VS that are not." -- Not all resource buildings are forced to be VSB, as is clearly stated in the UBP Policy exemptions. And there are some other barricade policies that are respected by our BP: for example, Burrough Row FD at 71, 26 is not VSB because it is (or was) a MFD HQ. We have not been instructed by the MFD or anyone in DEM that Borrough Row should instead be VSB. Could you contact the MFD and see if they need Borrough Row to maintain EHB? We have had very little luck with contacting those in the MFD division.
• "if St. Emelia's is going to be your indoor revive that you maintain, which people can free run out of, is there a reason to have an Entry Point at the Anthony Building right below it?" -- Again, you missed that the Anthony building is a Mall EP, and traditionally, UD players know that buildings adjacent to a mall will be EPs. When we created the St. E's RESCUE RP, we had no intentions on shutting down Anthony as an EP, because it is the best-known EP for most of northern Santlerville.
• "It might be better to make the hospital VS for survivors coming in from the East and the South to find FAKs," -- You missed Sixtus Hospital as the Mall EP. We have also found that it is better to consolidate low-level players into a few key resource buildings until they get the Mall skills. That way, the VSB resource buildings are packed tighter with new players, who help meat-cade buildings. Once they acquire the Mall skills and Free Running, they hardly ever search for FAKs in a hospital again. As it stands currently, we have 3 (counting Heytown's Sixtus) of the 5 hospitals VSB. I think that's plenty for our newer players.

The school at 79, 27 will not be an EP because of the Cinema EP at 79, 25. The Cinema was chosen as the EP due to its location in the middle of the suburb and its connection to buildings in Gibsonton.

• "I think, however, you should remove the line about the DEM approving the plan in 2006, or at least add a disclaimer that according to current DEM assessments the plan is NOT UBP-compliant." -- I won't remove the line currently because 1) up until right now, I had no idea the DEM was still maintaining the UBP, 2) The DEM and the Beavers agreed in Dec 2006 that the plan was approved and considered compliant to DEM standards, and 3) I believe you contacting us with your thoughts is part of a new audit cycle, which should not negate the current compliance statement until the audit process is completed. As I've mentioned above, you failed to completely read our Barricade Plan page (completely missing the Mall EP section), and I cannot consider your assessment a judgment of non-compliance if you did not consider our complete BP. Also, I don't think we claim anywhere on our BP page that our plan is UBP compliant; nor did I state that the DEM agreed to call it UBP-compliant. Again, please check the Dec 2006 discussion I linked to.

As I mentioned, I am willing to discuss further the benefits and drawbacks of making one of the auto repair shops in the North VSB, and making Dewes VSB. However, you have to remember this; we currently have 10 EPs within the burb -- not counting the 2 EPs in Heytown we maintain as well. We don't have the resources to continuously check many more EPs for compliance, along with spraying tags on the outside directing folks to the EPs, etc.

I would appreciate your response, and your re-assessment once you have reviewed our Mall EP information. --Sexy Rexy Grossman 23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear that while I am a part of the MFD, I am not speaking for the MFD, merely as an individual interested in the UBP and helping promote it around, so to speak. Any comments I make are based on my perception of the plan in tandem with the information I have available about the current status of the UBP review process. You're right, though -- I did miss the mall entry point stuff available, and for some crazy reason I wasn't thinking of St. Anthony's as a mall EP.

My point vis-a-vis the resource buildings doesn't really matter in a few places: for example, unless someone from the MFD officially contacts you regarding Burrough Row FD and its designation, it does fall under the exemption rule for TRPs, given the proximity of a number of EPs in that area. My larger concern is that you don't have any NT building designated as an EP. Whether you make it Dewes of the Hall building, it seems to me that keeping one NT building EP is a valuable thing for a suburb to do -- furthermore, there is no exemption in the UBP in this regard, and in fact it implies that every suburb should at least have one VSB NT.

Most of my discussion here, I might add, stems mainly from work I'm doing on the Pashenton plan; as a neighbor, I thought it would be a good idea to try to mesh some work together. The corner that concerns me most is still the NE of your 'burb and the SE of Pashenton, where the only closest EPs I see are Cotterrell Crescent PD and Holmshaw for a substantial sized block of buildings that sort of exist at the corners of Rolt Heights, Santlerville, Pashenton, and Gibsonton. On the Pashenton side, I'm working on getting either a factory at 77,19 or Werwyck Bank at 78,19 designated VSB for more coverage in that area and more ways to spread out the survivors. However, I understand your problem with the Auto Shops and your concerns with their designation of UBP, no low-level survivor should be wasting their time going gen-hunting. If the Beavers have a feeling in that vein, that's a discussion local groups can have themselves; I still think there's room for designating one more VSB in that area, but if you have an inclination to lockdown the autoshops I can just redouble my efforts for the VSB designation on the Pashenton side. I might be inclined to Thicke Towers just based on placement, but I tend to oppose VSB designations for buildings from which people can commit suicide.

I think the school designation of TRP is not as related to the resources they provide, because you're right: they provide virtually none. Their usefulness, though, is that they are a common building type that exists throughout Malton, and therefore is easily remembered. When you see a school in your line of vision, you can generally expect it to be an entrypoint. Thus, keeping schools at VSB, while not useful from any resource-gathering point of view, is useful from the point-of-view of having easy heuristics people can use to figure out where nearby EPs might be. That said, it seems to me that the school next to the Cotterrell Crescent station is a bit redundant, but if locals have reasons for keeping the VSB designation then I see no reason to gainsay their wisdom.

In conclusion, let me just say that my perceptions are based not off consistent work as a local in your area; any BP must be ultimately designed and maintained by a dedicated local group like the Beavers, and as an MFD member I appreciate your hard work. But also, as someone who isn't a local, I do get concerned when I see the following note in the Uniform Barricading Policy/Plan Reviews, regarding Santlerville: "this plan makes Santlerville a death trap for new survivor players." To be fair, since this comment was made you've added a school EP and a hospital EP, and have evidenced good reason for maintaining EHB auto shops. But at the same time, as a member of a traveling group, I have to be concerned about people who are just passing through your suburb; maintaining their safety could also save you some time over at St. Emelia's, from revivifying people who might not have died in the first place. And we should especially consider new survivors who may not even know about the UBP -- every VSB we add increases the chance that they might bumble upon an EP and live another night, and every building we tag with the BP increases the knowledge those new survivors glean regarding the plan. So while your local situation calls for local jurisdiction, I think you should also work harder to consider where new EPs could be designated to broaden the survival rates of the newbies.PreacherTheodore 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would definitely not recommend making that SE Pashenton factory VSB, as it is an important tactical resource point. My suggestion would be making the warehouse at 77,19 an EP, because that's right next to the factory and kinda inbetween the two PDs.

The north Santlerville Auto Repairs would not need to be reduced from EHB due to your warehouse EP being adjacent. That would allow us to maintain Holmshaw Hotel as an EP for the middle of the Pashenton/Santlerville border. I do know that most of the regulars who work that border know Holmshaw as an EP and I am leery to move it.

Also, regarding that Policy Plan Review from Feb 2007 -- it was done by someone other than our contact in the DEM (again, look at the Dec 2006 exchanges). After the Beavers had worked hard to satisfy our DEM rep, another DEM rep arbitrarily decides its a death trap. At that point, the Beavers were too busy with other issues to address the issue, and a few leaders were frustrated that our audit process was wholesale ignored.

Of course, as you pointed out, the whole "death trap" assessment now is no longer apt, as we have increased EPs not only in number but in placement. So I don't consider that assessment valid any longer.

Outside of an case of making Dewes VSB, I see no other EPs that are "necessary" for the burb. I will say that I expect some resistance of making Dewes VSB, since it and Hall NT are separated by 6-12+ blocks by other NTs. Traditionally, Dewes is a primary target of an incoming horde. With as many active survivor players in and around Santlerville, the difference between holding and losing Dewes has come down to Dewes starting at EHB instead of VSB. However, I do think there are some valid points with making Dewes VSB -- Mall EP, great for newbie survivors and rot revivers, easier access to SW Santlerville, etc. I'll have my Beaver Leaders discuss this and bring it up to the rest of Santlerville.

If Dewes were to be VSB, would that effectively satisfy the UBP in your and other UBP-maintainer opinions? --Sexy Rexy Grossman 21:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your suburb -- and considering its street-to-building ratio -- I think that would be part of it. Would there be a local concern I'm unaware of for why Dewes and not Hall should be designated an EP? If, as you say, hordes strike Dewes fast and hard, it might seem a wiser tactical move to designate Hall as an EP NT. In addition to that designation, I think there *might* be some wisdom in designating St. Boniface's as EP, even given nearby hospitals...and what about the Cosenes Building at 77,21? Possibly also the warehouse at 72,27. However, if one NT was to change, I could see reason for arguing that the plan is compliant with UBP standards. Given the fact that you have fewer buildings to work with than a lot of suburbs, I think you've done a fairly good job of distributing the VSB buildings appropriately. One more NT would satisfy my concerns over the plan, even if my preference is for more VSB buildings at the places mentioned: 72,27; 77,21; Hall/Dewes (local concerns should dictate this; and St. Boniface's.PreacherTheodore 17:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would rather not make St. Boniface's an EP, mainly because the Anthony Building is 1NW and Club Hesse is 2SW, both of which are manditory mall EPs, and Sixtus Hospital (Heytown) is only 4W2S.

Cosenes is something we've discussed before, specifically with the constant attacks on CCPD. I think we felt that making Beer Place School the EP would be better due to its location next to the closest (and only) factory for Santlerville. Since we have Beer Place as an EP, I think making Cosenes an EP would be a little too much to maintain.

The warehouse at 72,27 would be unnecessary since Dennis Row FD (1SW) is an EP. Also, traditionally that whole cluster of buildings in the SW corner of Santlerville sees constant zombie activity. Before a few months ago, St. Spyridon's Hospital was EHB and none of the locals or our neighbors complained, due to the normal zed activity. We did change St. Spy's to be VSB because we recognized that Eastern Heytown and Northern Randallbank were devoid of hospitals.

As to why we choose Dewes as the VSB NT over Hall... it is a tactical decision. Traditionally Hall has been the primary NT of Santlerville -- in the past, Santlerville's primary EP was Finch Monument, 1N of Hall. Most local residents primarily get their needles from Hall.

Thank you for the suggestions -- I haven't thought about that warehouse, so it was good to consider. Again, I think we may be able to make a case for making Dewes VSB to Santlerville residents. The Beavers will start the discussion in-game and see where it leads. I can contact you in a week or two to let you know what we heard and what was decided, so that way you can complete your audit. --Sexy Rexy Grossman 04:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to post a formal objection to making Dewes VSB. Looking at the Pimbank Barricade Plan (which is listed as UBP compliant on the UBP page), Pimbank has 2 NTs - both of which are EHB - and yet it's compliant with the UBP. Other suburbs with all NTs at EHB and yet compliant with the UBP include North Blythville, Ruddlebank - with no less than four out of four NTs at EHB, Lockettside, Tapton, Shackleville, East Grayside, Gulsonside - here all three NTs are EHB (although the plan says that there's only one at EHB, looking at the individual pages for each NT, all are listed as EHB), Roachtown, Spracklingbank, Gibsonton - three out of three again, even Millen Hills - whose barricade plan states that all the FIVE NTs should be at VSB and yet the individual pages of each of these 5 all say that they should be at EHB, etc. So why should Santlerville be an exception? Although most of these suburbs listed above only have one NT, there are still a few with two or more NTs, all at EHB, whose barricade plans are listed as UBP compliant. Can't we just keep Dewes at EHB? --_LH779 10:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Zombie Barricade Plan

I have included a zombie barricade plan, please feel free to edit it, my wikifu is awful. Do not delete it from the page, it has as much right to be there as the survivor barricade plan.--Thekooks 17:13, 22 October 2007 (BST)

Haha, I was wondering when we'd get a zombie barricade plan. Honestly, I think the "barricade plan" for zombies is pretty simple; ruin every building, clog every RP. You don't need a big map for that. Can we drop the map and leave the details? --Sexy Rexy Grossman 22:57, 21 October 2007 (BST)

The zombie barricade plan serves several purposes, during a siege of Santlerville, or Dowdney Mall, zombies will want to overbarricade several buildings, they will want to stategically ruin and overbarricade buildings, to keep survivors outside etc etc, zombie statergy relating to barricade leves is probably even more complex then survivors, keep these at ehb, these at vsb. I agree that the map which just shows all buildings "ruined" is perhaps abit silly. Over the coming days I will alter the zombie barricade plan to show which buildings should be over caded. I hope that is acceptable. --Thekooks 17:13, 22 October 2007 (BST)

I think the zombified map is the best part. It looks very cool. My wikifu is passable. Maybe we could set up a page of your own with a link from the Santlerville page. Like Rexy said above this is not really the 'Zombie Barricade Plan'. Some zombie is going to stop by and take offense and want their own plan listing the suburb as completely ruined. That would make it three plans on one page. Something like 'Santlerville_Barricade_Anti_Plan'? or 'Santlerville_Barricade_Griefing_Plan'? We could each maintain our separate strategies and make each eaiser to read. Private Damage 13:20, 23 October 2007 (BST)

I disagree still with the zombie map. The idea behind a barricade plan is to show the "ideal" barricade levels in the suburb. This barricade plan map for survivors -- or any other barricade plan -- is not intended to be an up-to-date situation/strategy map. What Thekooks is proposing is a actively-changing strategy map (hit these buildings here first, overcade the rest, and THEN ruin the overcaded buildings), which I don't feel should belong on a mostly static "barricade plan" page.

If you want your own page that focuses on better organizing zombie groups/ferals, then create a Santlerville/Zombie_Strategy page or something similar. We would gladly link to any sort of strategy page you make (on this page and on the main Santlerville page) because we want our zombie friends to have equal representation. But I feel having some sort of often-modified strategy map pretending to be a "barricade plan" would just be confusing for both zombies and survivors alike.

Also, my inital offer stands -- the zombie "barricade plan" on the Barricade Plan page should be listed as "all buildings ruined, all RPs clogged." That way the zombies "ideal" BP is represented fairly.

I'm not trying to be condescending at all; I have many friends in the RRF and I understand their point about the wiki pages being survivor heavy. At the same time, I don't want new and regular players overwhelmed with conflicting information. Is my suggestion a valid compromise? --Sexy Rexy Grossman 21:13, 23 October 2007 (BST)

You make a good point rexy, I agree a "stratergy map" should not be on this page, however I have not seen a reason for not having the map showing every building WO. (basically what is on the page now). Yes, it will show conflicting points, that is the nature of a zombies vs survivor game, I can not see why a new or old player would get confused, if you wanted we could work on a little explanation onto the two different maps, and the different aims. --Thekooks 21:36, 23 October 2007 (BST)

Thekooks, Would you like me to help create your 'Santlerville_Zombie_Strategy' page and put links to it from the main Santlerville page and this one too? I like doing this stuff and I have been working on it for the Beavers for a while. I haven't made one from scratch yet, but my first may has well be for the 'enemy'. Let me know here. It's on my watchlist. Private Damage 04:56, 24 October 2007 (BST)

Sure, lets get the page set up, "Santlerville Zombie Stratergy" seems as good a name as any. From there we can work on its content.--Thekooks 10:17, 24 October 2007 (BST)

Great! I knew we could find a good compromise. Private Damage and I will assist you later in the week. --Sexy Rexy Grossman 22:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks great, thanks Private Damage. I'm sorry I have not been able to be on until now. Look forward to munching on your brainz soon :) --Thekooks 22:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm really glad we linked your zombie strategy page on the main Santlerville page. --Sexy Rexy Grossman 01:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternate Entry Point: Club Routh?

After spending a few weeks meandering around Santlerville and West Santlerville, I'm fairly convinced that we need an alternate EP that isn't a major resource point. As such, I'm proposing that the little-used Club Routh be designated an EP on the barricade map for the following reasons:

1. It's not in a critical location. It's not on a free-running lane or any other kind of survivor-required lane. 2. St. Spyridon's is consistently maintained at EHB by the survivors inside, when it's not in Zombie hands. As such, it's functionally useless as an EP. 3. Zombies need light entertainment and refreshment on an extended siege. It could also function as an accepted negotiation point for both surivor and zombie groups to meet at.

Therefore, I propose that Club Routh be designated a Wide Open, Not Ruined building. If Wide Open, Not Ruined is not acceptable to all involved (zombies love to ruin, survivors love to 'cade), then I alternately propose it be maintained at VSB+2, then brought down to Wide Open when negotiations and/or entertainment are required.

As a side note, I'd also state that St. Spyridon's should STILL be set as an EP with the goal being VSB+2 as the official entry point for the area... when it's possible for that to happen.

Opinions are appreciated! --BLusk 20:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)