Template talk:BuildingDangerLevels

Slight Tweaks

In the interest of NPOV, perhaps should be replaced with and perhaps add a new one that would go between Under Siege and Ruined: ---

| T | BALLS! | 19:18 23 February 2011(UTC)

I like the general idea and and the lessened POV, but building status is volatile, and we want vauge predictions of how it will be when the reader comes around. For example, if there's 300 zombies outside a building, it doesn't matter how many layers of cades there are, that place is doomed. Rewording is needed, but these specific statuses wouldn't describe it from the right angle. --VVV ^RPMBG 21:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Breached is a bit too immediate for use. The other one is good. But isn't Caded, the same as "rebuilding?" --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the status that can be seen from the inside and the status that can seen from the out side should be independent from each other. I should be able to update without going outside to count zeds. If a building status says ruined, but I'm inside and can see EHB with no zeds inside, I know that it needs to updated, but I can say whether it is safe, under attack or under siege. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaputt (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 April 2013.

Stronghold level?

There are levels for the number of Zeds in a certain building but not survivors, which might be important if someone wants to get healed. I propose a "Stronghold" status for if survivors regularly use the building and it is caded and lit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeebie (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

If it were to become so it would need a much much less trenchie name than "stronghold" -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Contested/Invaded buildings?

How should a building be marked if Zombies have smashed the barricades and entered, but there are still survivors and the building is not yet ruined or ransacked? Whilst one might say "just wait till either the survivors or zombies are victorious, and then it will be obvious", it might be that an "invaded" label might encourage somebody to go to the rescue in time - they might not be in time to save the survivors but they might be able to kick out the zombies and re-barricade before the building is ransacked.--Mayhem2010 21:29, 3 June 2010 (BST)

Under attack or under seige usually work. If zeds outnumber survivors, I've seen "in zombie hands" used as well.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:31, 3 June 2010 (BST)

Yeah usually somewhere between under attack and in zombie hands depending on how good/bad the situation is for either side. Actually the "barricaded" part on attack/siege was an arbitrary addition by myself a while back (in line with safe) but maybe changing that to "contested" would help cover some of these edge cases? --  RoosterDragon  21:36, 3 June 2010 (BST)

Numbers

The numbers 25z for "attack" and 100z for "siege" are leftovers from copypasting template for Malls. In case of simple buildings they would be too big - NT with 24z outside cannot really be called safe... Anyway, i've adjusted them to 15z and 50z. If there are better propositions - they are welcome --~~~~_T^''' 17:59, 31 August 2007 (BST)

I propose new numbers. To me 15 means the building will be ruined within 12 hours. Even 5 outside is not safe; that's easily enough to penetrate and destroy the generator, and/or infect inhabitants. 50 means it's been ruined and in zombie hands already.

I propose

• Safe: Barricaded with no more than three zombies outside.
• Under Attack: 4 - 20 zombies attacking, but survivors maintaining control.
• Under Siege: More than 20 zombies attacking.
• Ruined: Ransacked or ruined with three or fewer zombies in or out of the building.
• In Zombie Hands: More than three zombies inside and no survivors.

--ZaqWer 22:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Revising Numbers Further Down and Reverting "throughout the block"

Time to revise the numbers for asserting "safe/not safe" etc to reflect lower players.

Also, there was a revision which changed "zombies outside" to "zombies throughout the block" with the justification that "a zombie inside is the same as a zombie outside." No it isn't. A zombie outside is harmless to humans behind barricades. A zombie inside can create more havoc. Perhaps the user was looking for a way to deal with the situation of "zombies inside, but survivor controlled." But that situation won't last long enough to worry about. Either the zombies are about to take the building, or the zombie is about to be clobbered. Judge who has control.

I propose the following modified descriptions to be more consistent with current game play:

• Safe: The building is barricaded with no more than one zombie outside this building and the surrounding buildings are mostly safe.
• Under Attack: The building is barricaded but there are two to seven zombies outside and/or some of the surrounding buildings are zombie controlled.
• Under Siege: The building is barricaded but more than eight zombies immediately outside.
• Ruined/In Zombie Hands: Will change threshold to two.

There could be further complicated formulas depending on survivors available to defend, etc. But there's little point since the whole thing is more volatile than the update rate. Updaters should use their judgement. If there are two zombies outside, and thirty survivors inside, that's "safe". If there are 5 zombies outside, and no survivors inside, but it is not yet breached, that's "under siege." "Under siege" basically means, "not in zombie hands yet, but it will be by the time you read this." --ZaqWer 15:34, 24 April 2012 (BST)

There being no comments after over a year, I guess I ought to implement this. --ZaqWer 17:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

For some reason I thought this got discussed on another talk page at the time. *goes off to look* —Aichon— 17:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well, I can't find anything, but I have a distinct recollection of discussing this stuff with Bob Moncrief not too long ago. Anyway, for now I'm going to rollback the changes, since I do know some other alternatives have been discussed and this is the sort of thing that begs more discussion. Plus, I'm not certain that having references to the surrounding buildings makes sense. I like that you took the initiative, but poking some more people to get opinions would probably be the thing to do at this point. —Aichon— 18:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The (brief) conversation I was involved with is here at Cat:Danger Reports. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Abandoned

Since ruining a building makes it useless even without a zombie presence, (unless you have a toolbox) I was thinking if the new "Ruined" tag would work for empty ruined buildings. --Rogue 22:28, 5 September 2007 (BST)

If it has zombie - it's clearly "in zombie hands" (if survivors think otherwise - they should retake it). If it doesn't - it's 1 click by survivor with toolbox from becoming "rebuilding". i don't see a need in such status. And if it's to be added, why wouldn't it cover abandoned but not ruined buildings too? they're not safe if there's no population to support them --~~~~ [talk] 08:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That and zombies don't hold buildings by holding them except in very rare cases. Zombies hold buildings by ransack/ruining them then sleeping in the streets near them because when indoors zombies are passively nerfed.--Karek^maps?! 09:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how often a (block of) building is ransacked but not ruined? maybe we should change text on "ransacked" status? --~~~~ [talk] 21:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

new danger level: breached

i expect to be ignored but oh well...

i see it has been mentioned above ...but was not implemented ...but it would be useful in times when a (1) zombie is inside a building with opened doors but has not ransacked/ruined the building at the time it was checked by a survivor updating danger levels/reports ...the current danger levels do not fit the status of buildings w/ opened doors, 1 zombie inside and/or no survivors inside rebuilding barricades ...thus wouldn't be safe for newbies w/o the skills/equipment to barricaded and/or kill a lone zombie or any survivor w/ 0 AP to move.

or re-word the current danger levels' descriptions ...if a zombie is pounding on barricades of an empty (no survivors inside) building, the building is not safe once the 'cades are destroyed nor is it under attack/siege (according to the descriptions) & it may never be ransacked/ruined if the zombie inside the building doesn't have the ransack skill ...so there is no danger level template for the status of the building. →Son of Sin← 18:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems like i forgot to add this page to my watch list... there is no breached danger level because there are already enough danger levels for the harmans to play with, while zombies only have two --piñata is something for Death Cultists to play with --. Seeing how easily situation change in a siege, having a 'breached' status wouldnt last long, since as soon as the building is breached, it either falls or is promptly retaken --hagnat 01:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Junkyard, a special instance?

While updating block statuses in Roywood, I happened to discover a Junkyard that was neither Barricaded nor Ruined/Ransacked (chiefly because Junkyards are immune to being ruined/ransacked), but which was also occupied by neither Zeds nor Survivors (i.e. deserted).

My dilemma is that I couldn't label it "Safe," as there were no Barricades. It certainly wasn't "Under Attack," "Under Siege," or "In Zombie Hands," just as it was not "Ruined" or "Ransacked" (as I explained above). With no Barricades or Survivors, I didn't feel right saying it was "Rebuilding." I ultimately classified it as "Unknown" and commented as it existed "No barricades, can't be Ruined, and empty inside & out; JUNKED."

I propose the creation of a special status (only) for Junkyards to represent this state of being unbarricaded, deserted, but (obviously) not Ruined. Perhaps Junked or Junk. Small distinction, I know, but I figure I might as well put the idea forward. Thank you for your attention in this matter. PyroSadist 00:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right that none of them really apply in that situation (as I recall, there are a few other edge cases like that as well). I generally just label them as ruined or rebuilding, depending on the surrounding buildings and zombie presence in the area (i.e. ruined if it's clear it was just ruined, rebuilding if it looks like the area is getting rebuilt). Even so, rather than add a new status, it seems like it might make more sense to simply expand one of the existing ones to include that condition or something similar, otherwise people are likely to simply not use it because they're unaware of it. Besides which, adding a new status would cause problems for all of the various color-coding systems in place on the wiki that key off of the existing status names, which would mess up stuff like the Danger Center, for instance. —Aichon— 04:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this! I've always had some trouble with updating building statuses, especially with junkyards. In general, however, I feel as if the current danger level indicators can use a bit of a revamp, to reflect the much lower playerbase in Urban Dead. Break-ins no longer have 4 zombies as a bare minimum in a strike team - a fairly effective zed strike team can be had with just 2 zeds. I can't say a building that has constant break-ins with 2 zombies (with real-time action, to boot) is "Under Attack" under the current situation. There are still times when the current descriptors are accurate and/or relevant, however.
For this, I second Aichon - I'd rather see the current statuses have their descriptions revised to adapt to the current state du jeu (that word most likely doesn't exist; oh well.) Failing that, they can just be appended to. -- ^{(stalk · KT · FoD · UU)} 17:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I got a solution. Let's take danger levels off every non-TRP and hope with less filler-danger reports, the TRPs actually stay updated. This would de-facto make junkyard status a moot point. --_K 18:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, people have an interest in knowing about free-running lanes or other notable buildings at times. Even so, I wouldn't mind seeing non-TRPs simplified to just a few statuses instead of how many we have now. —Aichon— 19:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There was indeed a time when TheRooster deleted all status templates for non-TRPs, but then some people (Namely jerrel) decided to reverse it and add them all back. I'm indifferent to either solution, in fact, I prefer having one for every building that can be occupied. However, for junkyards, just make it ruined and add a description. It's what the comment is for. A ZOMBIE ANT 08:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that for the sake of ease and simplicity. So, no chance for a color-congruent map/icon to Ruined/Ransacked with an image of a Survivor Hobo with stubble and a bindle on a stick with the words JUNKED? Okay, just checking. :) PyroSadist 17:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The mental image of that template is adorable. -- ^{(stalk · KT · FoD · UU)} 14:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm one of those people who find danger reports for non-TRPs useful. Some of these places are taken as the headquarters of a group (or "residential zombie groups",) de facto. Likewise, some non-TRPs mark the single EP in a broken free running lane. I can think of a way to possibly "simplify" the status templates, so that the suburb building danger maps can still "call" the colour blocks depending on the buildings' status (ruined, in survivor hands, in zombie hands, pinata) can still be made, but the true status of the building will be exposed through the comments. Of course, that might not be a favourable solution for the lazier ones among us, but it still keeps the suburb danger report maps pretty functional.
For ransacked junkyards, I tend to use the ruined descriptor, with a clarification on the comments line. That's what it's there for.
Maybe I'll expound on the "simplification" idea I have... if I remember, but I think many people are too used to the current system as it stands. -- ^{(stalk · KT · FoD · UU)} 14:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Breaking this soon

This is what I plan on changing. Here are the new descriptions...probably:

• safe - Intact, barricaded, and with no noticeable zombie or PKer presence.
• under attack - Under repetitive attack by zombies or PKers but the building appears to be holding.
• under siege - Under repetitive coordinated or large scale attack by zombies or PKers. Staying in the building should be considered dangerous.
• ruined - The building is ruined or ransacked with no or an unknown number of zombies inside.
• pinata - The building is ruined and barricaded to the point that it cannot be entered.
• unknown - User_talk:Aichon

I've thought for awhile if we can drop some descriptions how about another one:

• safe - Intact, barricaded, and with no noticeable zombie or PKer presence.
• under attack - Under repetitive attack by zombies or PKers.
• ruined - The building is ruined or ransacked. It may or may not contain zombies.
• pinata - The building is ruined and barricaded to the point that it cannot be entered.
• unknown - The building's status is currently unknown.

Do two under attack/siege's provide any useful information or is simplicity more valued at this time? I wrote descriptions for both, but honestly I don't know what the defining point is between them. --_K 23:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I love the way you shortened the descriptions from the discussion and combined the best of the various ideas. I thought about removing one of those two you mentioned as well. At first I was opposed, but the more I think of it, the more pointless it seems to be to have an Under Attack and another that is basically just Under Attack+. Even so, I still think there should be a status for those rare occasions when an actual, proper siege is taking place (which, in my mind, includes both traditional sieges (e.g. Blackmore) and multi-day massacres (e.g. Samhain)). Riffing off of what you just posted and trying to distinguish between them a bit more:

• Safe - Intact and barricaded. No noticeable zombie or PKer presence.
• Under Attack - Persistent attacks from zombies or PKers, but the building is in no immediate danger.
• Under Siege - Survivor defenders are under siege from unusually coordinated and/or large-scale attacks by zombies or PKers.
• Ruined - The building is ruined or ransacked.
• Pinata - The building is ruined and barricaded to the point that it cannot be entered.
• Unknown - The building's status is currently unknown.

The only other notable change I made is to remove the "it may or may not" bit from Ruined, since it became obsolete with the removal of In Zombie Hands. —Aichon— 00:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

So, it and NTs are changed. I left malls and forts for now. It seems there may be more justification for the additional statuses for them, but we should probably still drop mention of specific numbers. Thoughts? --_K 14:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed regarding the numbers. And if we could figure out some way to condense the ransacked/ruined statuses for each to be just one status while also dropping in zombie hands, I think it'd simplify things. —Aichon— 16:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

missing `rebuilding` and `in zombie hands`

did i miss some policy voting ? when did we vote them out ? some danger reports still show as rebuilding --hagnat 06:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you missed some stuff. With the exception of Ghost Towns, danger levels/map/center have never been controlled by policy, so what you actually missed were infrequent conversations scattered across the wiki and a handful of Open Discussions that took place over the span of several years. More or less, there was a growing concern that these systems were becoming obsolete as they went without updates while the game's population dwindled. Moreover, there were a lot of well-meaning statuses that really were deemed unnecessary or redundant for the way that the game is played in practice. Without providing an exhaustive list (which I couldn't possibly do), here are the links that seem most relevant when it comes to these sorts of danger map/levels/center changes in recent years:

• 2011 Open Discussion - Lots of good ideas (mostly about the DangerMap's levels), but talks stalled, as far as I can recall
• 2014 Open Discussion - Consensus regarding changes to DangerLevels; Ghost Towns interfered with DangerMap changes
• Policy to Abolish Ghost Town Policy
• Last-minute discussion - Final touch-ups to DangerLevel language
• Edits to building danger levels

To summarize the key points, those statuses weren't removed from the code (we had no bot available, so it would have been a big task, but we figured it was a self-correcting problem), so for people who know the old status and think they're appropriate, they can still use them, but they were considered redundant for single-block structures and were removed (though they're still there for malls/forts). The reasoning is explained in the second link above, but the gist of it is that for any building marked "Rebuilding", that's functionally no different than "Safe" in 99% of cases, and in cases where it's not, it should be marked as such. As for "In Zombie Hands", we talked about reducing it from 3+ zombies to 1+ zombies to keep up with the times, but at that point we didn't see any benefit over "Ruined" for single-block structures, since it's rare that there's more than 1 zombie holding a ruin, and it's just not worth saying "In Zombie Hands" on account of one zombie inside.

The plan was basically just to make the changes and see how things shook out in practice, then make additional changes until things worked for most everyone. Because we haven't had any complaints in the nearly 2 years since the change, it seems like things went pretty smoothly, but it was an amicable set of discussions that got us here, and the plan was always to adapt as new concerns arose, so if you have any input, it'd be welcome. —Aichon— 15:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I've always used the full set in DangerReport updating, and I wrote a summary of what I use to define the different statuses for the MDU tools page. For "Rebuilding" I mostly use it if a building is undercaded, i.e. QSB or less, but unruined and without zeds outside. It's mostly a signal to survivors that a building needs to be brought back up to VSB, or to zeds that it's an easy cadebashing target. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 17:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

makes sense not having policy discussion for the danger report stuff. I created it without ever using PD, and i even was the one who tailored PD. Heh. It simply makes it easier to improve the tool in order to fit how the game is being played. I will miss the happy worker and happy zed, though.

Heh. I still remember when i created the icons, living in my parents house in my home city, using an old and noisy P3 650MHz computer with Corel Draw! on while i was downloading some animes via torrent. UD, my genetic algorithms studies, and the weekend parties/bbq were my only concern back them. Those were simple times.

... gosh i am getting old --hagnat 15:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

also, there was a reason these statuses were names as `mall-STATUS-small.jpg`. They were created to be used only for malls, but i don't remember who was the first to use them for other reasons. --hagnat 15:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, we noticed that as well. And the statuses still seem applicable to malls and forts, hence why they remained in use for them, since it's fairly common for multi-block structures to be actively held by zombies, even in the best of times. —Aichon— 16:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

New status: "Safe entry point"?

Okay, so I'm thinking, with the general lack of following barricade plans nowadays, it would be nice to be able to tell at a glance on the map if a certain building was an entry point or not, without having to click into each and every building's danger report individually, to see notes which may or may not tell the barricade level. So I'm thinking it would be good to have a new status of "safe entry point" that designates a building as safe and VSB++ or less, and which would show up as blue on the suburb colour map. MicoolTNT (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)