Category talk:Danger Reports

Ransacked danger level not listed with Building Danger Levels

This probably isn't so much of a big deal to everyone, but this is just something I found odd.

At one time, I saw an image for a 'ransacked' building status in a danger report, and seeing as it wasn't in the list of available codes for building danger levels, I assumed that this was a newer code and image. Of course if you're someone used to the wiki and updating building statuses, you would know that the code for this is ransacked. People who are very new to the wiki and editing building statuses will probably have a hard time finding out that such a code exists (as was with my case wherein I always used the ruined code even if the building is just ransacked, with an added comment of: "Building not yet ruined."

tl;dr aside, I propose the addition of this (possibly) little known code into the current list. -- Chirurgien  (talk)  09:02, 2 September 2010 (BST)

Missing danger level

Recently, I've frequently come across situations where I had trouble picking the right situation: Zeds have broken in, but there is still a reasonable survivor presence, so the conflict might go both ways. Currently, all danger levels either have barricades up, or building ransacked/ruined. There's no middle ground (except rebuilding, which gives the wrong message in this case). Granted, the middle ground often only lasts for a few hours, but this might make it all the more important to incorporate it in the danger levels, to signal both parties help is needed.

I propose a new danger level: Contested: 'The building is open but intact, zombies and survivors are battling inside for possession of the building.' --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 09:13, 23 October 2009 (BST)

I agree completely, I just had the same problem. I propose showing a break-in with few zombies. There aren't that many zombies outside, but they are about even to the survivors. Maybe the levels shouldn't go by horde size, but instead a zombie to survivor ratio; as a smaller mall like Lumber for example tends to be less populated. I also think we should show a large break-in. Only having status with cades up isn't really under attack or under siege, having them all in your face is. --Rohndogg1 15:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this completely; a review of the current building danger level codes available for use in the danger reports would be quite welcome. -- Chirurgien  (talk)  09:02, 2 September 2010 (BST)

Single click updates for buildings?

Is it doable? Surely, I'm not alone in being too lazy to make actual updates, but would be more likely to click a single link (especially with the new maps). I'd be happy with just safe, under attack and ruined for the sake of not taking too much space up on the template. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 23:18, 26 October 2012 (BST)

That would require to automatically create text and add signatures, without doing it manually by editing the page. Unfortunately, this in turn would require such extensions as Boilerplate or Inputbox. Unless someone has a really great idea for a workaround or manages to bribe Kevan, I see no way to get it implemented. -- Spiderzed█ 23:32, 26 October 2012 (BST)

No snazzy workaround ideas here. Learn PHP and code a bot with a snazzy interface that allows you to run the bot on the fly with button clicks? Thats about the best you can probably hope for. I don't think even those extensions would help. ~ _{06:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)}

Would something like this work? I use a similar method for my talk pages to preload the headers with a template. Couldn't we then make links and templates for specific danger levels so the updater would only need to save the page? --Klexur 08:03, 27 October 2012 (BST)

I had thought of that but the preload command only adds new wikitext to new or existing sections. It won't delete existing wikitext.

Klex, you're pretty actively writing game scripts. Do you think its feasible to have a greasemonkey script that adds buttons (or links) to the game map that when clicked, instruct a wiki bot to edit the danger report for a specific building? ~ _{16:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)}

Do you mean a button for the in-game map or a button on the wiki maps? I've already been giving some thought for the latter but the former would probably be easier for the non-wikizens. I'm sure it's doable if there exists some api or php styled interface for the bot. --Klexur 22:51, 27 October 2012 (BST)

The former, though I suppose the latter would be a nice alternative. If its doable, why not put the button/link right on the in-game map and eliminate the need to even switch browser tabs to update danger reports. Though I'm not familiar with bot programming, I know that php is a common code because of the ease of form based php interface. Our wiki has integrated api, I believe. Wikipedia:Creating a bot has more info. I'm actually going to start playing around with AWB. ~ _{23:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)}

How dare you edit conflict me. =P Code and function wise, this sounds exactly like the UDBrain extension (I had peaked at the code some months back when I updated it to work for dark buildings). It uses Would it then be possible to fork our own UDWiki version that would send the barricade levels and zombie counts here instead? --Klexur 23:32, 27 October 2012 (BST)

Yeah I imagine some of the coding would be similar to UDBrain. Instead of sending the data to a web server, the script instead sends it to a form which the bot picks up. And instead of the data being collected automatically, its only sent when the player clicks a button. ~ _{00:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)}

This could make a huge difference when it comes to frequent updates! Right now, it's kind of a lot of work when you move a lot. I'll be following this verrrrry closely :) PB&J 16:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

New Danger level idea

I dont really know what you would call it, but im thinking we need one for when there are no barricades, but there is also little to no zombie threat of breaking into the building. The building im currently hold up un (Vawer Walk Police Station) is currently like that, a zombie broke down the barricades but because the doors are secured we have been relativly safe-ish. I have "Safe" as the status right now, but i dont think it would actually fall under the safe status, i dont think it would fall into "Under Attack" either seeing as there is no real zombie presence. I considered putting "Pinata" because all a zombie really has to do to get to the human goodies inside is open the door, but then after reading it and saw the ruined and barricaded part, i thought that no one would come by. Anyone else feel there should be a new level for this kind of situation, seeing as your not really all that safe, but at the same time, not really in any danger?User:Virulas

If it were me, I would label that "rebuilding", as there is no clear and present danger from zombies, but if a group came by there definitely would be. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 16:21, 8 April 2013 (BST)

I agree that Safe doesn't really describe the building's state very well, but I'm not sure that a new danger level, such as "Vulnerable", would get much use. That level is more or less a transition between when a building is Safe and not-Safe. Most of the time, that transition only lasts a few seconds before the zombies storm in. Other times, it may last a few hours before a survivor barricades the building again. Either way, it doesn't last long. In contrast, Safe, Ruined, Pinatad, and the other danger levels can last for months and months at a time. —Aichon— 16:31, 8 April 2013 (BST)

I would say rebuilding as well. --Rosslessness 17:38, 8 April 2013 (BST)

Adjusting levels downwards

So given the decline in population of both humans and zombies, is it a good idea to adjust the descriptions on some of the danger levels? I'm thinking in particular of "under attack" and "under siege" - a 20-zed siege on a one-block building (or an 80-zed siege on a mall, or 100 on a fort) is now a vanishingly rare event. How about decreasing the "under attack" to 3+ (10+ for a mall/fort) and "under siege" to 10+ (40+ for a mall/fort), or some other number combo? Not sure if "in zombie hands" v "ruined" needs adjusting. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 03:32, 10 October 2013 (BST)

I'd bump those up a bit, since 3+ and 10+ for Under Attack are extremely common still. Perhaps 5+/15+ for Under Attack? And for Under Siege, maybe 10+/30+? Having 40+ is still pretty rare these days, but 30+ is imaginable, and 10+ still happens occasionally. —Aichon— 04:29, 10 October 2013 (BST)

"Under attack" is already 4+ for single-block buildings. The rest makes sense. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 04:50, 10 October 2013 (BST)

Time frame for unknown

Is there an accepted time frame before a building should be switched from a known status to unknown? I haven't seen an official one, but it's entirely possible I overlooked something. - Wyronth (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing official. Most folks seems to wait a few months (e.g. 2-4), but for buildings that are updated more frequently and are subject to more back-and-forth between the sides in the game, it may make more sense to update it to Unknown sooner. —Aichon— 16:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

As Aichon says, there is no official timeframe. Rooster's Danger Report Bot used to set them to unknown after 1 month with little contest, which you may still use as a rule of thumb. -- Spiderzed▋ 17:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Danger levels - No hordes?

How many zombies would be needed for a suburb to be classified as non-safe? Current players should be open for an adjustment towards a number that will allow more yellow/red suburbs to appear. I would think 20+ is enough to classify a suburb as "Dangerous", and if most of the buildings are ruined then possibly "Very Dangerous" - or am I totally off? (Biggest organized group is below 40) -- Jack's Inflamed Sense Of Rejection (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think most of us would be amenable to changes. That said, this isn't the place to discuss them, since this is the talk page for Danger Reports (i.e. building statuses), whereas you're talking about the Danger Map (i.e. suburb statuses). We've actually had a number of discussions over this topic in the past, most of which were handled over at Open Discussion. I'd suggest you start a new discussion there to cover the topic, that way others can find it more easily, though before you do so I'd strongly suggest that you read through the last discussion on the issue (and possibly the one before that as well), that way you know what all is involved in these discussions and where things were at the last time we discussed it. —Aichon— 20:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Also worth noting: there are two organized groups over 40 members right now. —Aichon— 20:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I have a formula I use based on DangerReports, can be found at the bottom of MDU/T. For a suburb with mostly intact buildings, I mark it moderately dangerous at around the dozen-zombie mark; for mostly-ruined suburbs it can be lower. Very Dangerous generally requires 30+ zombies in my book. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Removing danger reports for non-trp

So, what would be the procedure to get the okay to remove the danger status for all non-TRP buildings? There is no reasonable chance the wiki is suddenly going to start being heavily edited and the amount of old updates just makes the game look more dead than it really is. I would not suggest removing the pages for the updates just the template inclusion on the pages. This would mean if some group decides they care about some random tower, the danger report template could be stuck back on and used and then removed again later if necessary. For forts, I would assume danger report on the gatehouse only would be sufficient, since it is a decent indicator of the other buildings. --_K 12:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)