Talk:Barricade Plan

2018 Barricade Template

So I started paying attention to what the UD wiki has for a "barricade policy template" and I finally understand why I am getting fellow pro-survivors messaging me in game about whether or not it's okay to destroy generators inside the buildings I'm in.

The reason is the barricade policy template labels all buildings capable of being "dark" as dark. SO when folks not affiliated with the RCC check the UD wiki for Roftwood's barricade policy, they see Neal Cinema listed as dark. Believing they are enforcing the "barricade policy", they destroy the generators making the building EHB + dark.

My question is why does the barricade policy template list every single building capable of being dark as dark? This seems incredibly irrelevant unless the plan actually proposes enforcing "dark" status. In fact, it seems misinformative as pro-survivors dutifully seek to enforce "dark" buildings wherever listed in the template.

Why not have the barricade policy template show which buildings have pistol clips and blue T-shirts? Because it's not information that has anything to do with barricade policy. Likewise, displaying every building capable of being "dark" is quite irrelevant to a barricade plan unless it actually has to do with barricading.

I only post this here because this is where Bob M and Stelar have directed me to do so. I am not sure whether it's easier for me to just create a new style of template for my beloved Roftwood or if it's easier to fix the template that's already been established. --ZombGG (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. You sure it's the barricade plan they're following? Sometimes people hide in dark buildings from PKers, or to keep them safer from zombies. But yeah, it doesn't seem necessary to have "dark" in the barricade plan, except as it affects the barricade rates. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

When ZombGG asked me about it, he was more curious as to why the darks were specifically shown on the map. The other building types aren't shown on there, so why the darks? It wasn't so much about the actual barricade levels for those particular buildings.

I've had people in my groups over the past couple of years get confused about what a "dark" building is. Many just believe it to be an unlit building (because no lights = dark), when that term specifically applies in-game/on-wiki to cinemas, clubs, etc. So I can see how it is confusing for new-comers (or anyone really) looking the suburb maps on the wiki. stelar ^{Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge} 09:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason why pro-survivors would want dark buildings? As a generic place to sleep so PKers can't kill them? THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 10:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Dark buildings half the hit-rate for all attacks made inside, human and zombie alike. Though as mentioned below, zombs with tangling grasp will be able to maintain grip (and thus +10% to hit) longer. But that just makes darkness 10% less effective against skilled zeds. It's mostly PK protection. Benaldo138 (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

In my experience, dark buildings are not safe areas to hide from zombies. They never lose their grip in the dark... oo spooky. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 11:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Even with tangling grasp a zed is still less likely to hit you in the dark than otherwise :o Benaldo138 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I think everyone is missing the point here - ZombGG wants the barricade plan changed to represent what the people of roftwood are agreeing on and possibly find a way to show that clubs etc. can be dark, but also the opposite. It IS a problem if people enforce the current plan when several groups are trying to maintain a more modern plan, especially if they think dark means kill the genny. Personally I say go for it, remove the old barricade plan, or put in a fresh one above the old. -- King AudioAttack (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It's actually "can the word 'dark' be removed from the barricade plans", not for the barricade plan to necessarily be changed. People look at the suburb map, see the word 'dark', assume there should be no generator and destroy it as such. It doesn't explain the functionality of those particular blocks being 'dark' buildings. stelar ^{Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge} 07:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I was focused on the last part of his question where he asked if he could change it or make a new one. Hail King AudioAttack (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your constructive comments! I am cool with either removing "dark" from the current template or seeing if we could combine brain power to design something even cooler

My first thought is like the transitional barricade plan EBD has depending on the suburb's danger status. Should we try to make that meta for suburbs with heavily coordinated survivor activity? I know Roftwood could handle it. I wonder if we can link the barricade templates to the actual suburb danger level? Meaning just updating a danger level would automatically transition the local barricade plan? I am a near - total wiki fool and if my idea sounds mad, I'm totally open to others! --ZombGG (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

As an aside- it's unbelievably comical to me that survivors destroy generators because they think it's for the best according to a barricade plan. It feels like if we could remove "dark" from the current template it would be beneficial considering. As for the more grand plan, I'm not good enough at coding to recommend a movement on that. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 11:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

First, I'm 100% in favor of removing "dark" from all barricade plans around the city. It serves not much purpose, and (as said above) leads pretty much only to confusion.

As for making other suburb barricade plans dynamic like East Becktown's — that was one idea behind EB's shift, was that if it went well we might try to implement such a system across the city. I think doing so in highly used suburbs with a lot of wiki co-ordination (Roftwood, maybe Darvall Heights) would be a good start, although for other suburbs it would either be a waste of time (Ketchelbank's been safe for years, so any dynamic isn't too helpful) or would require input from sometimes not-wiki-active but locally-powerful groups (e.g. SoC in Darvall, KT in Kempsterbank). It'd also be a lot of work, so I'm not putting my name forward for it — but if somebody wants to do it, I endorse. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 12:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

	OBJECTION!
	Spiderzed has an objection.

I'd like to point to the Roftwood Barricade Plan, where per 2010 consensus dark buildings have been made designated ruins as guaranteed entry points. Highlighting and quickly identifying dark buildings is still relevant for the barricade plan there. - There is also some edit-warring going on over the Dunell Hills Zombie Barricade Plan. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the current roftwood residents wanted it removed. Holy shit, it's just above us. Fuck. -- 18:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand the logic behind mandating that the zombie plan have survivor elements forced into the plan.-- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 18:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The darkness in certain locations aren't a zombie/survivor thing. Everyone gets shitty hit rates - which have nothing to do with the barricade plan themselves. That said - why not just remake the zombie barricade plan? This way you could indicate which buildings should be occupied and ruined, rather than where the nearest mast or NT is. It's just a thought.. If you work up some template stuff, then Im sure we can agree on implementing that on all the suburbs rather than just the current ones. -- 19:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. It sounds to me as if the subject of dark building designations is still a topic under consideration but someone has already changed the Scarletwood barricade plan. Have you made a decision or has someone jumped the gun? We've had no complaints from newbies, zombies, survivors or PKers about our dark buildings. Personally, I'm fine leaving the barricade plan, at least in Scarletwood, the way it is. At the very least, I wished I'd been asked before someone changed it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr Killdare (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Why hasn't anyone even bothered to ask WHY those darks were indicated to begin with ? I mean someone had the great idea to identify them for a reason don't you think ? Personally, I and my crew work out the map pretty much seeking and mapping darks and having them identified helped out a lot. If this "dark off" persist, maybe someone could launch another OP on those barricade plans and identify them by color as they are a "resource" such as NTs, PDs, Autos for certain play style that many go with ? Those are easy to identify, why not the group of darks ? It makes it quite annoying and time consuming to search for those darks as they are the same blend color as many other buildings. Its a matter of pointing them out clearly. I also never heard in all my years of any "newbs" or anyone else asking if they should destroy gennies or anything that went along with darks being a nuisance whatsoever. Hope you guys will consider a minimum of change to identify them for those that "work" around those darks. --Murderess (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I wish all y'all had chimed in before the decision was made (and yes, a decision was made) to remove "dark" from the cade plans. It's not our responsibility to seek out every member of the wiki community to comment; y'all gotta follow recent changes. Also, I can personally attest that I have encountered several people, both in-game and out, who GK'd buildings (or asked if they were supposed to) because they were labeled "dark" in the barricade plan. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 23:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see that my idea completely "wooshed" over your head as it is a legit proposition to identify resources that are important to a lot of players. There's a solution to this and the fact that they are labeled dark or not won't stop GKing, PKing, hiding. That is not the point. The point is to be able to easily locate them such as hospital, NT, PD, Auto... are. Hey even churches are important to some. Why not have them all colored ? Its a resource like everything else, no matter what players do with it. --Murderess (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The reason not to have them all colored is because there is an entire nother map for that. Each suburb has two maps — a general map that indicates what each building is, and a second map that indicates the TRPs and barricade plan. On neither is "dark" a relevant piece of information — the former because it's apparent from the type of building, the latter because it isn't an instruction, like cade levels are. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 12:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

To this I'll also add that Kildare has the right idea here as well. Where was this decision made ? In RCC/wiki discord ? Where a LOT of players aren't ? I mean it would have been nice to "request" comments on this issue instead of getting together as a tight knit group to decide on what's best for the whole population and just act on it without any disregard for those that couldn't be part of the decision making process. --Murderess (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Where was these complaints last month when a bunch of the darks were removed? Besides, you are complaining about something as tedious as which word to search for - I mean, did your group forget that banks, clubs and cinemas are dark?? I removed most of the dark thing, never coordinated anywhere but here but from the above I felt it was justified. -- 04:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This decision was made... earlier on this very page, back in August. Nobody objected and so we started changing the maps. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 12:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm mistaken but it was my understanding that the designation for a dark building came from a game change in 2008 or so from Kevan and had to do with any building, bank or otherwise, that sat too long without repairs. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Dark But just looking at the wiki a minute ago, this all seems like a whole lot of fuss -- and work -- for so few players now. [Standing Survivors : 1643 (59%)] All I can say is that I'm going to do what's best for my group regardless of whatever barricade and building designation changes are made (especially without my group's consent or input). We have Clubbed to Death above us, Feral Undead to our southeast and when they're active, LUE calls Scarletwood their home. At the end of the day, we'll do what's best for us. Just like we've had to do since December, 2005. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr Killdare (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

I think dark is for banks, cinemas and clubs where hitrates are halved due to no light. There has been a decent amount of time for inputs, and all I ever saw was that it could be removed which I did. If the problem for some is that the barricade plan lack info they should remake the template to represent the info they see fit; such as where to install gennies, where to dark out, pinata, ruin and all of that. Why not have a barricade plan for both teams? -- 04:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd just like to pipe in after reading the above posts.

Yes, this was discussed. It was agreed upon that it would be common sense to remove Dark from the barricade plans (seeing as specifying it serves no actual point being on a plan about barricades and lighting and therefore is simply confusing). Don't come in pretending it wasn't discussed because you didn't see it. It's not your fault, it's not their fault, it's just a misunderstanding.

No, it's not a universally binding mandate that forces every suburb to change it. If you're a pro-survivor group and others in the suburb can agree to keep it there, there's no reason why anyone on the wiki should feel obliged to come into your suburb to stop people accidentally destroying generators in your suburb. If that's what you'd prefer, then keep it. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 05:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I assume this also means if, say, a zombie group wants specific buildings kept dark, then it should be noted as such and not "removed for consistency". --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 02:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Do what you want. What I said also applies to zombie barricade plans, but I was focusing on survivor plans in the above one because survivor plans were the reason for this discussion in the first place. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 05:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

So it's voluntary, *not* a mandated citywide change. That's good to know! It still makes me wonder how a discussion involving Roftwood suddenly extended all the way to Scarletwood when supposedly this is an "option", not a mandate. It also makes me wonder what other suburb barricade plans were changed and what potential conflicts and misunderstandings this could cause for resident groups when they encounter others over these changes if the resident groups are not aware of the changes or it was their prerogative to participate (or not) in the changes. Someone might want to check to see how many pages were changed if this is not mandatory. It might be a little work but far less than what it must have taken someone to seek out and make suburb changes to dark building designations. Dr Killdare (talk)

Seeing that most of us agreed thay the entire dark part was not needed perhaps it should be the residents that change the barricade plans to whatever they want - I don't think any of them created the barricade plan template. All of the suburbs have been purged of "dark" buildings, which should be the default barricade plan. Why not make your own? -- 23:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I know you see this as some sort of weird overreach but it really is just not that strange of a decision. The reasons for removing Dark designations from the barricade plan are not specific to one suburb. It was a behavioural issue among survivors. Calling it voluntary is a generous interpretation of what I've said. Provided there's still a healthy portion of the community behind the move, I'd describe it more as opt-out. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 11:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that even "opt-out" is too broad. I've conceded on one plan (the zombie plan for Dunell Hills) but I'd say I'm not convinced keeping "Dark" should be acceptable on any of the standard survivor-oriented cadeplans, especially as the idea is to have them as unified as possible — historic projects like the UBP, however unevenly implemented, indicate a clear drive towards consistency of display. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 15:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree by the way. I'm finding it difficult to genuinely understand why people want "dark" to remain considering the benefits and consistency of removing it. Particularly when, in the case of holdout suburbs that want to fight to keep "dark" included, all it will take is for said groups to become inactive for a couple months for "dark" to be removed in those suburbs, as per the (by then) established consistency of not having "dark" in barricade plans.. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 05:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Not for zombie plans of course. Although why zombie plans exist in the first place is a whole other discussion IMO THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 05:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

So... could a compromise be that on the barricade plan the word "dark" is removed, but on the suburb plan it can be there instead? And even RP, etc, can be removed from barricade plans to make them consistent across all the suburbs to just show barricade levels, and the the suburb plans on each page get the RP, Dark, EP, whatevers? stelar ^{Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge} 02:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)