Talk:Pashenton

Shades of Malton Moved

I'm not entirely sure if this is the right spot to report this, but we have moved to Pitney. If someone could take us off of the group list here and add us to the Pitneybank list, that would be great, or someone could tell me how. I'm a bit of a Wiki noob. --PFC 00:34, 13 September 2008 (BST)

Pashenton Rivitalization Project

I'm starting to completely overhaul this section, all of the location pages, integrating Malton Rail, standardizing police departments, fire stations, pubs, etc. in the manner of Rhodenbank and ROlt Heights. I think this will give Pashenton it's nice own character and make it more popular for survivor groups. Let me know if you're interested in helping... the most tedious job is adding everything correctly to Pashenton Streets. --Moskau Moskau 16:13, 12 May 2007 (BST)

Discussion on Barricade Plan (Below)

Upon initial examination I feel this is a good and workable plan. My only concerns are that there is a large area without an entry: (SE corner) however this is not large enough that I would say the plan doesn't work.

The largest problem I forsee isn't a fault of the plan as much as the people who built the neighborhood..is the island created by the seperation of the Peerless Arms and the Blatcher Lane School from everything else in the burb. This area will be hard to maintain in a seige, and suburb defense plans may want to consider not wasting resources attempting to defend it. NEPhillyGuy

From my perspective i think this is what the suburb should look like. once the entry points are tagged and we let people know it'll be easier to keep an eye out for them.. once again as stated above the little wasteland island in the middle of the suburb is dead land in terms of hiding space and i proposed we leave those two buildings at VSB, they are not important structures and it would be wiser to have them as enterable when one might be running from a horde. Apart from that the nerotechs should stay alternate between VSB and heavily as to allow our lower level revivers to enter sometimes and help out (while gaining xp). Me101 (BOW)

Just to clarify, by "the nerotechs should stay alternate between VSB and heavily" what exactly do you mean? Are you thinking that one necrotech should be VSB and one EHB, or are you thinking the status of the necrotech buildings should vary from day to day? Your idea about keeping both buildings on the island as VSB is good...but I'm wondering if it might be more beneficial to have one at VSB and one at EHB...and a little more secure. Thanks for the feedback.--NEPhillyGuy

I think what he means is this, should NT bldg A come under siege the barricades get raised to EHB while NT bldg B's cades come down to VSB, as needed. --Agrojagg 05:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That works pretty well because we encourage our players to get xtra xp by revives and if they can't enter the nerotechs then they won't be able to get any supplies.. As well about the island (new name from now on because it sounds better) a dual baricade would work too.. Me101 Sonic 05:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I tossed some minor edits into the discussion to make reading a little easier you can also use the signature timestamp button at the end of your post so you don't have to code out your name and what not. It'll look like this --> --Agrojagg 06:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so if I'm reading right, we're all agreed that the NT buildings will be VSB, unless one is under attack, then it is raised to EHB, while the other stays VSB. Sounds like so far everyone is approving of the plan.--NEPhillyGuy 00:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lacking any objections I say we implement the plan below with the caveat that the Necrotech facilities can be raised to EHB in the event of a seige, however at least one must be kept VSB at all times. Last call for objections?--NEPhillyGuy 14:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, posting just to say FEBU aproves the plan. We'll do our best to have it working. Good work -- Steve Krauser (FEBU)

Ok Based on this, I went ahead and posted the plan for review on the UBP Page --Agrojagg 10:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in so late, but I really hate this plan. A lot. There is no reason to have so many EH caded buildings in a safe burb. We're having a lot of trouble keeping entry points open as it is, and this plan simply doesn't have enough. It's beyond naive to not account for the fact that the resource buildings will inevitably become overbarricaded. An entry point should be placed next to every PD, Hospital, and Nechrotech to guard against overbarricading. (This would also give new players places to sleep that aren't already major targets.) I would add as VS caded entry points: The warehouses at (73,11)and (77,13), Balmain and Montagu Cinemas (71,18) and (72,17), and the Mines Building at 78,16). I'd also recommend VSing the 77,19 warehouse. Hope you find this helpful. -SJC Cato BOW

I appreciate the feedback Cato, and do find it helpful. Part of the problem at the moment is that this is not a "safe" suburb, mainly due to overbarricading. I am more than willing to discuss making more entrypoints, I am a huge believer in the need for many entrypoints in a burb. However as is, we cannot maintain the entrypoints we have now with any sort of regularity. Representatives of the DEM have only been in the burb about 2 weeks, and during that time we've spent easily over half our AP trying to keep the entrypoints open that are currently on the plan (and truth be told...we have yet to maintain any of them for any length of time). Currently there are only 3 DEM members assigned to Pashenton: Myself(MPD), Agrojagg(MPD) and Blackjack (MFD), and Blackjack only in arrived 2 days ago. We are trying to work with the local groups as best we can, and hope greatly for the support of BOW, and other local groups in maintaining the entrypoints we have in the plan at the moment. Once we do this, and establish consistancy, then by all means I feel we should look at possibly expanding entrypoints. One more point I feel I should make is that the large percentage of EHB buildings is to accomodate the majority of survivors, who do have free running. Many will not sleep in VSB buildings (with good reason), so in order to stop them from overbarricading the buildings we want to be VSB, we make sure there are plenty designated EHB. I liked most of your entrypoint ideas, excepting the Mines Building....which I think needs to be EHB due to being surrounded by 3 other entrypoints. Maybe one south of that though, in the stretch of EHB buildings on the southern border. Anyone else have opinions? Another consideration is marking the entrypoints, we're having problems marking the ones we have now, nevermind adding 5 more.(i've had three overwritten and returned to EHB within 2 days of my fixing and marking them VSB)--NEPhillyGuy 21:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your want for more entry points but with eleven that are already designated, the only area I could see needing more would be the western half of the zone since it only has two that are not TRPs but as both you and Philly have pointed out, attempting to maintain entrypoints in this "safe" zone has been difficult at best. Lets get the zone to a maintainable standard, before we go increasing our already considerable work load. --Agrojagg 03:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that the resource buidings in the eastern side are under attack and thus prone to overbarricading. I think you would find it easier to create a couple of entry points at non-resource buildings. Not ideal, but better to have some stable entry points than none at all. Anyways, I think each group in the burb should adopt an entry point. Haven Radio, BOW, Fire Brigade 47, FEBU, DEM, and the Bagehot Row Precinct if they're still around. I can reach out to those groups relatively quickly if need be. But I need specifics. Anyways, the Mines Building is a bad idea now that I look at it again. -SJC Cato 08:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you could get these groups to take a look at the current plan that's posted and weigh their thoughts in on it that would be great. I'm not opposed to opening up a couple of more entry points, though I still believe we should concentrate on getting the existing designated entry points tagged and maintained for awhile. Just so the locals get used to seeing a structured presence in the zone, the more the active groups in the area work together on this the faster the over barricading problem will get handled. If we want to coordinate efforts MatJack1 of the MFD was kind enough to section off a part of his Gibsonton forums for us to use just for purposes like this. The link is on the front page of the Pashenton Wiki. --Agrojagg 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we're all on the same page here. Agrojagg and I would just like to develop a little confidence that we can keep anything at VSB for a consistant amount of time right now, and nail down the basics: Resource buildings accessable, entry points marked and established as regular, consistant , dependable openings. After we dont have to spend so much of our time keeping the basics open, by all means, let's open some more up. I'm thinking that long term, Walwyn Bank should eventually be an entrypoint as well.--NEPhillyGuy 04:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As official notice I have been reassigned to Heytown. Agrojagg is now the inspector in charge of Pashenton. Please direct any discussion on the barricade plan to him. --NEPhillyGuy 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah Agrojagg, Peter Red, here leader of the Reds Roughnecks and propriotor of our sacred homeground of Blaxall Auto Repair. I was wondering if Blaxall Auto Repair could be listed as extremely heavily barricaded, and the useless factory to the south listed as an entry point. We will kindly maintain those barricades at least, but it is essential that we defend one of Maltons landmarks, Blaxall Auto Repair, from the mindless hordes. --Peter Red 11:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm copying Peter Red's comments to the current discussion on VSB buildings at the bottom of the page. --Soloman Frisbee 18:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pashenton Barricade Plan

Posted by NEPhillyGuy and Agrojagg for discussion

The below barricade plan has met with approval through initial discussion between the DEM and local Pashenton groups. If you feel something needs adjustment, please see the discussion above.

Following the UBP, all resource buildings are VSB, the rest EHB.

VSB Buildings under this plan would be Whitlock Boulevard School, Attrill Boulevard School, Dungey Alley Police Dept, the Lance Building, Cocker Boulevard Fire Station, Pillinger Auto Repair, St. Seraphim's Hospital, the Woolven Building, Blaxall Auto Repair, Blatcher Lane School, Breeden Way Police Dept, Rawkins Row Police Dept, AND Bagehot Way Police Dept.

Pashenton Barricade Plan

	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Legend

Unenterable Buildings
	Extremely Heavily Barricaded		Phone Mast
Enterable Buildings
	Auto Shop		Fire Station
	Hospital		NecroTech
	Police Department		School
	Other VSB Buildings		Unbarricaded Buildings
Other Locations
	Street		Monument
	Cemetery		Revivification Point

More Discussion on Barricade Plan

SEPTEMBER 29 2008 Hello people my name is y2k95 and I have been a long time resident of the Pashenton area, and I need your help to rebuild and repopulate the area. Currently I'm located in a factory above the Wollven Bulding (NT) I'm trying to rebuild currently and I need help. I have chosen this place b/c It's in a place that had few zoms and is above a valuable location I need people who can clear the zoms but also who can build. Slowly we can get Pashenton and the near by areas back to normal.

This looks good as a permanent barricade plan, but for right now, suggestions have meen sprayed in the game, and I think that adjustments should be made in the BP temporarily. The attack on the Lance Building should put it up to EHB, and Perrot Cinema should be the VSB entry point. --Ymihere 20:22, 5 December 2007 (EST)

But aren't temporary changes in the plan always permitted? I operate on the assumption that any building, even one designated VS++, can be caded up to EH in the event of an attack. I don't see a need to edit a permanent plan for a temporary situation, since the UBP already allows for a lot of flexibility vis-a-vis changing things around mid-stream. PreacherTheodore 20:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding VS Buildings

I think we need to add a handful of VS buildings -- maybe 3-4, one in each quadrant. Doing so would not only make this plan perfectly UBP compliant, according to the Uniform Barricading Policy/Plan Reviews, but would also provide neighboring suburbs with some entry points on our side of the boundary lines in places where they could use them. UBP does require that there be at least one non-resource building in each quadrant designated VSB, and we currently have none.

I suggest we designate the warehouse at [77,19] VSB. Look at the Santlerville Barricade Plan and you'll see that it would benefit a few of their non-compliant areas and make a whole island of no-entry areas in the southeast much safer for new people. [75,19] could serve a similar purpose.

On to the SW quadrant, why not [71,19]? Club Riste gives a good location and meshes well with Santlerville. In the NW, we could designate [70,14] as VS, which would provide an entry point in an area a few blocks from all others as well as free running avenues to Raines Hills . And in the NE, we could go with St. Luke's Church at [76,14], provides a spot removed from other VSs while still close enough for free running to a number of adjacent buildings. (We don't need to do much to try to connect to Earletown or Rolt Heights, as their current plans wouldn't need backup from our plan.

This would not only enrich the defense of the suburb for characters without free running, but would capitalize on the plans of adjacent suburbs for a more holistic approach to barricading policy. PreacherTheodore 21:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no new discussion on this forum re: the changes, I am editing the plan. I will be informing local groups as I am able. PreacherTheodore 21:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Preacher, I think one day isn't nearly enough time to allow for a change in the plans. A week would be more prudent. It's a big Wiki after all.

That said, I'd suggest making St. Luke's DWO, providing an entry point and revive point. I'm part of a traveling team however, and changing the revive point from Homer Street to St. Luke's should be a decision made by locals.

I also don't see the need for so many entry points. With all the TRPs as entry points, it's kind of redundant. Granted, you'll need more in case a large horde moves through, but if there's a large horde, there's bound to be lot's of ruined buildings to enter through.

As for the spots you suggest, they're kind of unecessary. THE ENRAGED PANDAS work to keep Walwyn Bank VSB, so you don't need the warehouse as one. With the bank (S, SE) and St. Luke's (Central, NE) as entries all you would need is something in the west; Stewkely Arms would work as suggested, but something a little further in like Factory 72, 15 might work better. --Soloman Frisbee 21:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Good points, I did make the edits to the plan, but if you think we need more time feel free to revert. But I disagree with some of what you say: having non-TRP entry points is extremely essential. The whole point of the development of Optimal (sometimes called distributed) Defense was that TRPs are obvious zombie targets, and while the UBP does not fully embrace that strategy, it does hold that other buildings than TRPs at VSB is far from redundant. For one thing, it provides new survivors without free running places to stay which don't overcrowd the TRPs and lessen the effect of coordinated strike on a TRP.

I hold by my argument for more TRPs throughout the suburb, and would suggest that the warehouse next to Walwyn Bank would be a better spot to maintain VSB, and would suggest as much to TEP. But, if TEP insists keeping Walwyn Bank VS, why not just edit the BP accordingly and designate that spot as VSB? Give TEP's efforts to hold the bank an official imprimatur. It would suit the efforts of a local group, continue to mesh with Santlerville's plan (and mesh even better should the powers that be in Santlerville redesignate one of the auto shops to the south as VSB), and promote what I described above: VS buildings to spread the load of the TRPs around somewhat. The warehouse I think is better, though, because it provides swifter access to a number of locations when compared with the surrounding suburb maps.

I don't really agree at all with the factory at [72,15], though. I don't see much of a need for it unless you're trying to save survivors the minimal amount of AP it would take to get from and into the NT building in the event of a siege. Furthermore, part of my goal is to get one extra VSB in every quadrant of the 'burb, and moving from Stewkely to the factory would mean the NW has no non-TRP entry point. If we were to move the entry point, though, the best place for it would be the warehouse at [73,11]. I'd suggest [72,11], but I'd rather not create an entry point to a building that allows for suicide.

As to St. Luke's, if there is a local group that wants to staff an indoor revive point, I'm all for that -- I actually thought of suggesting it, but decided it might be too much.

Part of my point, though, is also that the UBP is of great use to new survivors. Having just been one myself, being able to quickly check the UBP page and see which suburbs have the designation is a really great way to get a shorthand sense of how to survive when entering an area. If Pashenton could get itself the VSB entry points I've suggested, it would put us in line with the stated suggestions of the UBP and help us get that designation. PreacherTheodore 01:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter Red of Reds Roughnecks made these comments in an older discussion on BPs on this page. Coppied them down here for everyone's convenience. I'm in favor of his request since Auto Repairs don't offer anything useful to low level survivors. They need to focus on getting ammo, FAKs or needles, things that will garner them XP. Fuel and gennies won't do that. --Soloman Frisbee 18:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah Agrojagg, Peter Red, here leader of the Reds Roughnecks and propriotor of our sacred homeground of Blaxall Auto Repair. I was wondering if Blaxall Auto Repair could be listed as extremely heavily barricaded, and the useless factory to the south listed as an entry point. We will kindly maintain those barricades at least, but it is essential that we defend one of Maltons landmarks, Blaxall Auto Repair, from the mindless hordes. --Peter Red 11:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If we could keep Pillinger at VS, I don't see any reason not to designate Blaxall as EHB, especially if the Reds Roughnecks are keeping things nailed down in the region. I like having Auto Shops VS, not for the searching, but more for the benefit of being able to easily know which buildings in your area are VS without having to waste time searching through the wiki -- time that a zombie could easily use to chew on your brains. BUT, with the PD next door, it seems like an okay thing to do, especially if we redesignate the factory VS -- but why not redesignate Montague Cinema instead? It provides access to more EHB buildings than the factory, while still providing an EP for Blaxall?

From what I'm hearing, the changes that seem to be supported by current discussion are as follows:

• Walwyn Bank, [78,19], from EH to VSB
• Blaxall Auto Repair, [73,16], from VSB to EH
• Montagu Cinema, [72,17], from EH to VSB
• Club Riste, [71,19], from EH to VSB
• The Stewkely Arms, [70,14], from EH to VSB (warehouse 71,13 might be an alternative, but I think the freerunning path the Arms provides into Raines Hills is worth it)
• St. Luke's Church, [76,14], from EH to VSB (possible indoor revive should a local group have the time to take up this task]

Would anyone else like to comment on the plan taking on this form? PreacherTheodore 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Now we're making some progress. I really like the additions of Walwyn Bank, Stewkely Arms and St. Luke's to VSB, and changing Blaxall Auto Repair to EHB. However, if we make the changes listed above without dropping some current VSBs, we'll have 18 buildings (a little over 1/3 of the buildings in Pashenton) at VSB. This doesn't include make Pillinger EHB or the Factory VSB since it's not in the list. For comparison's sake, Santlerville has 9 VSB out of the same amount of buildings. Granted it has fewer TRPs, but it doesn't make all its TRPs VSB.

I'd recommend making Carew Museum, Blatcher Lane School and Whitlock Boulevard School EHB. I'm also a little confused with your goals in the SW Preacher. Club Riste and Montagu Cinema are very close, and I don't see the added benefit of having them both VSB, especially with both so close to VSB TRPs. I might be missing something, though. Personally, I'd prefer Club Riste being the VSB (Montagu is awfully close to Stewkely), but I don't think there's a massive difference. --Soloman Frisbee 23:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Carew Museum is already EHB, automatically designated as such by virtue of its status as a phone mast. Blatcher Lane school provides the sole entry point in an island -- and the UBP very clearly states that islands must have a point of entry. I also don't think Santlerville is a very good comparison, as the suburb generally seems unsafe from the perspective of a lower-level survivor without free running.

I think the benefit of a VSB Montagu is an entry point for the NT should it come under siege and get 'caded up and as an entry point for the Auto Repair shop for less EXP-needful survivors who are trying to restock building generators. Club Riste, though, is good for the sake of being a good entry point.

As to the EH status of Whitlock, I'm ambivalent. If you were reading the map as designating Carew VSB, then I can see why you suggested it, otherwise, it doesn't make sense to me. As I've said before, the benefit to a uniform policy is that it is uniform. Whitlock provides good, rounded, and solid EP coverage of the NW, and I don't see a reason to change that.

I'm not sure where you're getting your count of VSBs. Mine is as follows: the current crop of VSBs, minus Blaxall, makes a subtotal of 12--Whitlock Boulevard School, Attrill Boulevard School, Dungey Alley Police Dept, the Lance Building, Cocker Boulevard Fire Station, Pillinger Auto Repair, St. Seraphim's Hospital, the Woolven Building, Blatcher Lane School, Breeden Way Police Dept, Rawkins Row Police Dept, AND Bagehot Way Police Dept. When you add in the EH to VS suggestions I've made above, you're adding in 5 new VS buildings--Walwyn Bank, Montagu, Club Riste, Stewkely Arms, and St. Luke's. That means there are only 17 VS buildings under the proposed plan changes, not 18. Are you seeing an entry point that I'm missing? That said, I can see the concern with a dramatic VS increase, considering that the UBP Policy Review really only calls for 3-4 new VS buildings.

My goal in the SW, SE, NW, and NE is simply a net increase in VSB buildings, especially buildings that aren't TRPs and are thus less likely to be targeted. However, I can see your concerns. What if we proposed that the Woolven Building become and EH NT? That would make the Montagu Cinema designation more pertinent, remove lower-levels from crowding TRPs, while allowing Montagu to serve as EP for both Woolven and Blaxall for free runners? That would leave Lance in the north at VS (although from what I hear it could be under siege soon), keeping us in line with the UBP, and would remove some of the VSB density that concerns you at present.

In conclusion, I think this is the best summary of what I feel to be appropriate:

• From EH to VSB
  • Walwyn Bank, [78,19], from EH to VSB
  • Montagu Cinema, [72,17], from EH to VSB
  • Club Riste, [71,19], from EH to VSB
  • The Stewkely Arms, [70,14], from EH to VSB
  • St. Luke's Church, [76,14], from EH to VSB
• From VSB to EH
  • Pillinger Auto Repair, [78,15], from VSB to EH
  • Blaxall Auto Repair, [73,16], from VSB to EH
  • The Woolven Building, [72,16], from VSB to EH

That's a net increase of 2 VSBs. Not enough to get us to where the review suggests we go, but probably enough to suggest that we've met its requirements and can be considered UBP-compliant. PreacherTheodore 20:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was counting the phone mast for some reason. Minor brain malfunction. D'uh.

I like the Wolven idea, and it unclutters the VSBs in that corner. As you point out, some of the suggestions I'm making destroy the uniformity of the plan, and I guess I'll never be a fan of any UBP. That said,I like the plan as it is now. If no one adds anything within a day or so, feel free to update the plan Preacher. Nice job. --Soloman Frisbee 21:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead and updated it myself.--Soloman Frisbee 00:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Pashenton Defence Protocol

As of recent times (and forever before them) Pashenton has come under serriious threat of being lost to the hordes. We stand as a strategic gateway to the North East Green Zone. If the fight for Pashenton were ever to be lost, and our forces banished from the area, we would find it is an excellent starting point for an invasion into the safer and far more important zones, i.e. gibsonton, Dulston and Rolt Heights. We saw last month how easily Rolt Heights was sent into dissarray afer many of the strategic points of control were relinquished from our grasp in Pashenton. Clearly from this we should take it that reinforcements are in dire need if we are to hold, and continue to hold, Pashenton and it's surrounding areas.

A soldier fighting in Pashenton sees no end to the continual tide of Zombies migrating from the now ruined Southern and western safety points. As they move fromm already spent feeding sources in the more far flung suburbs we will see a larger shift in zombie populations towards our shining bastion of the North East Corner. It is strategically imperative that we, the stoic defenders of Pashenton, convince more fresh recruits to help cement our hold on this strategically important suburb.

The areas we should focus our defensive powers are primarily the Woolven and Lance Buildings. If we can maintain a strong militarised presence around these areas, including the buildings within a 3x3 block radius, then we can maintain our grip on the suburb. We should also attempt to station smaller, more mobile units around other various TP.

Radio communication is key, I suggest that we instate a series of clan run, listening posts as we have done at Blaxall, so as to provide updates on the highly important Woolven Building.

For your consideration,--Peter Red 03:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)