UDWiki talk:Open Discussion/DangerMap Version 4: Difference between revisions
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
:::::I'm also looking to remove the ratio based system if it doesn't get any support. Is burb EMR bot updated still? I don't know about Map auto updating but this would certainly open up the possibility of bot Danger updates. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>00:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)</sub> | :::::I'm also looking to remove the ratio based system if it doesn't get any support. Is burb EMR bot updated still? I don't know about Map auto updating but this would certainly open up the possibility of bot Danger updates. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>00:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)</sub> | ||
::::::I'm pretty sure rooster still runs the EMR bot to update all the pages every now and then. Although it hasn't been done in a few months judging by the page. {{User:Mazu/sig}} 00:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC) | ::::::I'm pretty sure rooster still runs the EMR bot to update all the pages every now and then. Although it hasn't been done in a few months judging by the page. {{User:Mazu/sig}} 00:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
Why do some of the terms have to be so... gay? Fortress? Battleground? The latter should ''surely'' be called something better like 'contested', and as for fortress, dunno. But it's lameness annoys me. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 01:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:18, 13 December 2011
Discuss the proposed changes to the DangerMap system here.
Goals
Currently I've set the goals at:
- Make Danger Reports more relevant to the game's decreased playerbase.
- Make danger levels more NPOV.
- Build on existing system. Don't reinvent the wheel.
Anything we would add as goals? ~ 15:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Needs to be somewhat clean looking. Like the map is now. Maybe a max of two additional icons in the map square. For example the map at that bottom end of this header with all it's links has too much stuff on it. 15:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think we could get by without any icons if we use <noinclude>. Just include the images on the template proper with a link to the template on the included version. One link and no images for the purpose of the map should be fine. ~ 16:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- So you mean no images on the map itself just on the suburb's danger report page? I'm referring to this page. On a side note would it be fair to say we should stick with the current color scheme (green-red) as it is what everyone is accustomed to and the meanings of those colors are pretty universally recognized (ie. red=bad, green=good)? Also, here is what I'm doing in my sandbox. 16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes that's what I mean. The map would look the same as it did now except for perhaps a link that goes directly to the danger template (User:DangerReport/South_Blythville for example). We can keep the same color schema as now. ~ 16:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- So you mean no images on the map itself just on the suburb's danger report page? I'm referring to this page. On a side note would it be fair to say we should stick with the current color scheme (green-red) as it is what everyone is accustomed to and the meanings of those colors are pretty universally recognized (ie. red=bad, green=good)? Also, here is what I'm doing in my sandbox. 16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think we could get by without any icons if we use <noinclude>. Just include the images on the template proper with a link to the template on the included version. One link and no images for the purpose of the map should be fine. ~ 16:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Relevant Discussion
Any topics of discussion that I've missed? ~ 15:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Ideas
Any that should be eliminated/merged from the list of ideas? Any to add? ~ 15:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
General Discussion
Go ahead and place new discussion under this header. ~ 15:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Just throwing this out there to make note of it. If we do happen to update our map with icons on it we should look at possibly upping the size of the map some for more space and to look less cluttered. I'm playing with stuff in my sandbox. 16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- What if instead of images, color coding is used as I've tired to demonstrate here? ~ 18:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Seems a tad ambiguous is the only thing. I'm in favor of more direct signage. I've got the full mock up using ZL's method here if you want to see how it looks, sooo many lightbulbs :P. We can debate the icons/colors/etc. later on, are we both in agreement to use Zombie Lord's EMR based ratings? Or a different method? Also, we might break the general discussion into sub headers where each person's favored idea can be refined into a final product if the idea has someone supporting it to do the work. 21:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah Infrastructure Based Refined seems like best option to me. Kind of a merger of Danger Report and EMR in a single map with new bells and whistles. Individual headers for each suggested map type sounds good but we could probably eliminate all but a couple of the suggestions, honestly. ~ 22:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think we could get rid of ZL's first infrastructure based system as it's the first rendition of the refined system. Is there a way we could tie a suburbs EMR to the suburb danger report page to make it auto update? I might play with that in my sandbox when I get some time. A map that auto updates itself would be nifty if it doesn't break the wiki. 00:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah Infrastructure Based Refined seems like best option to me. Kind of a merger of Danger Report and EMR in a single map with new bells and whistles. Individual headers for each suggested map type sounds good but we could probably eliminate all but a couple of the suggestions, honestly. ~ 22:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Seems a tad ambiguous is the only thing. I'm in favor of more direct signage. I've got the full mock up using ZL's method here if you want to see how it looks, sooo many lightbulbs :P. We can debate the icons/colors/etc. later on, are we both in agreement to use Zombie Lord's EMR based ratings? Or a different method? Also, we might break the general discussion into sub headers where each person's favored idea can be refined into a final product if the idea has someone supporting it to do the work. 21:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Why do some of the terms have to be so... gay? Fortress? Battleground? The latter should surely be called something better like 'contested', and as for fortress, dunno. But it's lameness annoys me. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)