Talk:Suburb

Suburb Archive Suburb Archive 2 Suburb Archive 3

Reporting Guidelines

How to Update a Suburb Danger Report

First find the report you wish to update, you can search for it by typing "User:DangerReport/Suburb" in the search box. You can also find it listed in this category, just scroll to the bottom of the page. The is also a link listed on each suburb's page in the template on the right. It can be found just below the 9-suburb map.

You then need to change the |Danger= variable to one of the possible statuses. You can briefly explain the reason for the change in the edit summary. Longer explanations are best left on the page of the suburb in question under the news section, or on the suburb page under the reports section.

Example

Example User wants to change the danger level of Hollomstown from moderately dangerous to safe, since they have scouted that suburb and found almost no zombies outside, and no PKing activity was reported for some time.

Example User then goes to the Hollomstown page and follows this link: Update Hollomstown's Danger Level which leads to the danger report page for Hollomstown.

Now they changes the danger variable from |Danger=moderately dangerous to |Danger=safe

They can then note the change on the Hollomstown page in the news section.

May 10th - No zombie or pking activity in this suburb. This suburb is now safe. --Example User 16:25, 13 August 2006 (BST)

If a suburb is deemed noteworthy, change |Notority=normal to |Notority=notable and this will bold the suburb's name on map output.

Reporting discussion

A disputed report

Moved from the main page

Lukinswood almost half the buildings are under zed control it should be dangerous --Zombieman 11 19:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This report was completely fabricated. The suburb was no more ruined the day of the report than Zombieman 11 is a saint. This section is bullocks. ~ 04:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

i know it wasnt ruined but from a short scout alot of trp were zed homes not ruined yet--Zombieman 11 21:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Lukinswood doesn't have "alot" of TRPs. The few that it has were not recently broken into, either. Unless you are referring to The Coram Building (not technically a TRP) which has been subject to repeated zerg rushes for the last eight or nine months. Stop misleading people. In fact, stop using the Suburb page to post reports. It's retarded to keep posting reports there. Use the news section of the respective suburb pages or just update the damn danger level. ~ 01:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm moving this here since the report is clearly disputed and apparently with good reason. There's no sense in confusing people. —Aichon— 21:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Noteworthy Suburbs

Simple Guidelines for Noteworthiness

For a suburb to be able to be called Noteworthy, important events on the history of Malton must have happened on it. The place where hordes were born, important sieges, or events that gained attention from the entire community.

• An important and unique event must have happened in the suburb

Events like Stanstock, the first and second sieges of Caiger Mall are nice examples of unique events that marked history. The first united the entire urban dead community, and the second and third were HUGE sieges where survivor-kind won against the hordes. Events like the Mall Tour and the Big Bash, on the other hand, doesn't make a suburb noteworthy, as several burbs took part of this event.

• An important and/or historical group was formed in that suburb

When a group manages to draw the attention of the entire community or influence the gameplay centers his actions around a burb of birth, that suburb can be called noteworthy. Examples of this are Ridleybank and Yagoton. The first is the infamous homeland of zombie-kind, homeland of the Ridleybank Resistance Front, while the second is the home of the Yagoton Revivification Clinic, the first and most famous group dedicated to revivification.

• A unique and noteworthy building exists in this suburb

This usually doesn't make a suburb noteworthy at all, unless important events on the history of Malton happened there. Resiting two huge sieges inside Caiger Mall make that unique building noteworthy, while having the only Zoo in the city isn't noteworthy as nothing important of note happened there.

Note that merely fitting in any of these categories doesn't automatically make a suburb noteworthy. It still needs the approval of the community. Nominate and discuss a suburb in the below header.

Nominations

Add your nominations here for noteworthy suburbs.

Suburb/Nomination Archive

Danger colors discussion

All discussions pertaining to the suburb color system and proposals for new maps

main article: Suburb/Color System Discussion

Suburb/Color System Archive

Proposal for Active and Dead

I am proposing two new color status, Active and Dead. These are to indicate areas that are mostly safe or mostly a ghost town, yet have persistent human and zombie activity that is not represented by any of the other colors/descriptions, and is important for players to be aware of.

These cover suburbs that have an active tug of war and are either predominantly in survivor hands, or predominantly in zombie hands. Typically a targeted persistent insurgency is happening, which makes death a daily occurrence, but in the case of zombie controlled, its neither a ghost town nor very dangerous, and in the case of survivor controlled, its neither safe, intact, nor dangerous. One could argue for Moderately Dangerous/Dangerous/Very Dangerous, but I will argue below that these are not accurate representations, since the majority of the suburb is safe, and the attack on the suburb is insurgent in nature (Sporadic / Targeted).

Argument for Dead - Mostly ruined, with occupying zombies and persistent human insurgency.

• Not Safe - Location is not intact, human and zombie activity.
• Not Moderately Dangerous - There is a major horde (15+ zombies in the burb?) but spread out / lethargic, not active, not breaking in.
• Not Intact - It is 95% ruined, with zombies.
• Not Dangerous - Many of the resource buildings are unoccupied (timed out?), hostile zombies but not an active mob/horde.
• Not A Ghost Town - There is a significant zombie occupation (15+?) and significant human insurgency (2+ suicide repairs a day?).
• Not Very Dangerous - Most buildings are open and not zombie infested, there is not a massive zombie mob. Survivors could spend days wandering around without incident.

Argument for Active - Mostly intact, with occupying survivors and persistent zombie insurgency.

• Not Safe - It is 95% intact, inhabited by survivors, lit buildings, but certain people/buildings are likely to regularly die.
• Not Moderately Dangerous - There is a major horde (15+ zombies in the burb?) but attacks are targeted / periodic. Survivors could spend days wandering around without incident.
• Not Intact - There is a survivor population (15+ survivors in the burb?)
• Not Dangerous - Most resource buildings are secure, attacks are a targeted insurgency, most of the burb is safe.
• Not A Ghost Town - It is 95% intact and there is a significant survivor occupation and a persistent zombie insurgency.
• Not Very Dangerous - Most buildings are intact and not zombie occupied, there is a persistent zombie insurgency not a massive zombie mob.

For Reference:

• Safe - Structurally intact and inhabited by survivors, with numerous lit buildings, and few to no zombies.
• Moderately Dangerous - Active zombies and break-ins, but no major hordes.
• Intact - Structurally intact with few zombies, but a very low survivor population and few to no lit buildings.
• Dangerous - Zombies inside many resource buildings and/or significant hostile mobs.
• A Ghost Town - Mostly or entirely ruined, and devoid of significant survivor or zombie populations.
• Very Dangerous - Most buildings wide open or zombie-infested and/or massive hostile zombie mobs.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrMap (talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 November 2023‎.

The danger levels have been an on-off hot topic over the decades. I'm not sure that adding more danger levels in addition to what is already present would be useful, like splitting hairs. But there could be an argument for simplifying to an "Active" (there's action happening here) vs. "Inactive" (nothing much going on), although you'd lose the ruined/intact info. There's some historic interest in making the danger levels not survivor-centric (i.e., not dangerous or safe from the perspective of a survivor). So that's often a discussion that's been had when any changes to the danger levels have been made or discussed. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The previous danger level discussions have all been abandoned or implemented already and the vast majority here should be archived to another page as its mostly clutter at this point. The changes that made it through where incremetal changes, like adding intact, and so this is following in the footsteps of what has worked. The idea is differentiating active burbs that are either in zombie control or survivor control. They both could be argued as very dangerous, or moderately dangerous, but the burbs are in completely different situations, and we have no way to indicate that. Instead ghost towns have been used for zombie occupied dangerous, and survivor occupied range from safe to very dangereous with no decernable way to choose one. If the wiki is not able to provide understandable accurate information, what is the point?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrMap (talk • contribs) 00:19, 2 December 2023.

I like the idea on the new colors, not sold on the descriptions. Dead is Safe for Zombies (Easy to stand back up and reclaim buildings), Very Dangerous for Survivors (Assuming they repair a building). Active is Safe for Survivors (Easy to get a revive and reclaim buildings), Very Dangerous for Zombies (Assuming they break into a building). -- ZPatriot (talk)

Theres 0 reason to add new danger levels to the map other than you just wanting a special tag for you and your group to throw around. Dunnel Hills is indeed a ghost town until you decide to log in your inactive alts because someone did something major. -Matahashi

How about you contribute something constructive? I spent a long time writing up a comprehensive proposal explaining why these new colors are needed. The current colors do not properly communicate the situation on the ground. A ghost town is empty, but there are several suburbs that are ruined but not empty. Safe typically has minimal to no break ins, but there are several suburbs that are clearly in survivor control but have an active tug of war. Your conspiracy theories and animosity are not valid arguments nor productive discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrMap (talk • contribs) 18:09, 14 December 2023.

Hello. There is no consensus to change the Suburb danger scheme, so don't input your own version of the danger statuses. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a specific counter proposal other then going to a binary active/inactive, which you seem to also be against due to the loss of info? Incremental changes seem to be the only thing that works here, we have ruined/caded while devoid of players, but we don't have ruined/caded with active combat. As you say, its all survivor point of view with no indication of cade status. What do we need to arrive at consensus? When bob made the proposal for intact on April 11th, he waited until the 14th when he bumped discussion and one person responded. Then on the 18th he made the changes. Currently we have an "I'm not sure" a "Yes" and a "No" vote from someone whose sole contribution to the wiki is to revert other people's updates. I'd argue that vote is not in good faith, that they are not actually evaluating the merits of the proposal, and are jumping to conclusions based on bias, but whatever. We have a vote from The Dead (ZPatriot) and we have a vote from Soldiers of Crossman (Matahashi), so I think we should consider them team representatives, instead of getting into some pissing contest to see who can recruit the most members of their team to dog pile the vote. As the only other person engaging in the discussion, it seems like you have the tie breaking vote. Or maybe we need to get bob in here to give it an eval/pov? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrMap (talk • contribs) 21:42, 15 December 2023‎.

There was apparently discussion on Discord on the "Intact" level in addition to what was written on the wiki. A good way to test whether there is consensus after discussion is to implement the changes and see what happens. In Bob's case, the changes did not provoke dissent and many members of the wiki have used the Intact level in the following years. In your case, changes have been reverted within the day, so it does not appear that the changes have consensus. It could be that people are not interested in changing the system at all, or they just don't agree with these specific proposed changes. Personally, my preferred system is something that captures three things in an unbiased way: (1) survivor numbers, (2) zombie numbers, and (3) infrastructure (i.e., 'cades, ruins, lighting). But the main issue to overcome in implementing this is finding a way to retain the at-a-glance simplicity with the current design. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The revert was made out of ignorance and then spite. If your requirement is unanimity, certainly we should not include the voice whose only contribution to the wiki is to harass other people. While I am happy to explore and try to solidify a proposal that meets your desires, it is clear that a full revamp will be much harder to reach consensus on, so I'd like to focus on what can be tweaked in this proposal to make it more agreeable. Dead and Active do in fact communicate some of the info you are looking for, particularly low cades with sizable zombie population and high cades with sizeable zombie population, neither of which we can currently communicate. Best current options are very dangerous for no cades zombie controlled and dangerous for mostly caded survivor controlled.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrMap (talk • contribs) 00:07, 17 December 2023.

While I agree Matahashi is a troll and the wiki decision making is as broken as democratic politics can be, I don't agree with marking everything as very dangerous. There would need to be a significant survivor population. Maybe make a new color for moderately dangerous but in zombie control? ZPatriot (talk)

I'd just give it a number system, with pretty little icons and color coding. Scale of 0-10 for each statistic - 0/0/0 is a blacked-out ruin devoid of movement, 0/0/10 is all pretty but uninhabited (which is what most of the map is, let's be real), 10/10/0 is where there's active fighting. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 19:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I actually quite like User:Zombie_Lord/sandbox1 the icons here as something to work with, maybe expand the color scheme to include blue (completely safe, fully intact, mostly inhabited by survivors) and gray (dangerous, wrecked, nothing but zombies) --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 19:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Other Maps

Needs to me morphed into a template. It shouldn't have been added in that manner in the first place and compromises the readability of the page. --Karek^maps?! 08:00, 2 April 2009 (BST)

Small suburb map

Do we have any code on this wiki that displays a smaller map than the Suburb Dangermap? I'm thinking something small in the same vein as File:1001 Days in Urban Dead.gif. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 10:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

{{TenTenMap}}? —Aichon— 12:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much A. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 11:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there any 'old-hat-who-can't-wiki-good-anymore' way to call the suburb results to turn this into a tiny Dangermap? THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 11:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Three steps:

1. Make a template. Let’s say it’s DDRDanger. Its entire contents should be {{{Danger}}}
2. For each suburb in the TenTenMap, do something like 00={{User:DangerReport/Dakerstown|template=DDRDanger}}. This will resolve to something like 00=safe, so you may be able to see where this is going now...
3. In your TenTenMap code, create a style for each of the allowed danger levels like so: safe={{DangerMapnormalsafe}}, which will resolve to creating a “safe” style that uses the actual DangerMap’s own safe styling.

Give that a first crack and see how it goes. If you’re having trouble, let me know and I’ll set it up for you myself. I just didn’t have time to do so at the moment or else I already would have. —Aichon— 13:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I had some time to spare, so I vandalized the project page in your user space. —Aichon— 19:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow. That's incredible, thank you so much Aichon. Getting back into wiki coding has been surprisingly difficult for me... THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 23:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Map

something is wrong with the map. --Storm 04:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone edited the wrong line when updating a suburb danger report. ~ _{05:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)}

Map Errors

Anyone else noticed how inaccurate the maps are becoming since they started basing them on EMR reports instead of eyewitnesses? EMR is a poor indicator of danger level. I think the overall accuracy level has gone down, although at least they all get updated regularly ... even if it is with bad info. -- Grogh 02:49, 11 May 2009 (BST)

The EMR system is the best we've got for suburbs like Miltown and Greentown were there are very few eyewitnesses around that update the wiki. Sure, it's not perfect, but unlike eyewitnesses, it's completely neutral.

By the way, if you've got information, stop complaining and go ahead and update it :P Linkthewindow  Talk  08:19, 11 May 2009 (BST)

No one said you can't edit a map based on eyewitness reports, unless it was while I was away. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:06, 11 May 2009 (BST)

I agree a scout (particularly of the detail NecroWatch provides) will always outdo an EMR, there's just not the detail in the EMR, but they make a good general indicator for keeping the maps recent. Recent, if patchy, data is always preferable to outdated information. The only way 'accuracy' of the levels could degrade was if people were using the EMRs as a definitive yardstick despite recent news suggesting otherwise. --  RoosterDragon  16:43, 22 May 2009 (BST)

General Discussion

Special formatting on group listings

During the Great Suburb Group Massacre, I've noticed some groups using the code for big text (<big></big>) and bolding (<b></b> or ''' '''.) I know that code has been historically used for alliances, but does anyone object to me removing that code when it's individual groups that are using it? Linkthewindow  Talk  07:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason for any groups to be using additional markup to give themselves undue prominence. The bold/big combo was just used to show the name of organisations with their member groups underneath. It's there to to help people navigate, nothing more. The recommended guidelines are well documented on the template page. All group listings should conform accordingly. --  RoosterDragon  17:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Report cycling

Why a month? I don't think we would miss much if we changed it to 2 weeks. Not only is this underused as a source of information when compared to individual suburb pages, but most news would be out of date within a week or so anyway. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:40, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Would anyone like to discuss this? If not, 2 weeks from now, I'll change it to 2 weeks. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:15, 18 May 2009 (BST)

Silence implies consent, in most cases. I don't have a problem with it. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:23, 18 May 2009 (BST)

Silence implies no one was alerted, it's being readded and going to see use. If you see something not getting activity step one is to actually encourage activitiy and this page and it's news played a major role in the game's community when it actually saw use. It's the easy access high visibility way to get the pulse of the game. You're both fail for not having really discussed this at all >_>.--Karek^maps?! 09:21, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Get off ma wikiz! --xoxo 09:27, 21 July 2009 (BST)

is there a reason why...

the south doesn't seem to get as much action as the northern suburbs? Im just curious, cause all the major battles all happened in the upper half of the map. --Mikalos209 01:14, 17 August 2010 (BST)

Geographic tenancies. Predicting zombie movement and survivor resistance is an art. Most people, including myself, agree that the South is more survivor friendly. But the reason is anyone's guess. Let's look at the layout of malls, shall we? You may notice that they group together. Treweeke stands alone, it would be difficult to repair, due to it's distance from other malls, and thus leaves the extreme NE vulnerable. The majority of the Malls form a diagonal vein from the NW to SE corners. This includes the so-called Survivor Security Zone, and the 5 mall loop that includes Caiger. While this would logically mean safety, Malls attract the extremes of the local situation; They're the first building ruined and the first repaired. So the massive dead-zone around Greater Ridleybank spreads though these, with feral ripples hitting even the farthest of the collection. The easiest to defend mall clusters are Marven-Tompson and Pole-Buckley. They're well out of the way of the zombie homeland, invulnerable from feral ripples from a few malls over, and two must be toppled before the complex can fall. Thus the SW and mid-south are easiest to maintain a steady supply to, making them safest for living. However, there are many things which I have not considered; The reputation of an area (it's funner to ruin Caiger than Buckley), local groups (pro-life groups in the South seem to last longer and hold better relations), and local survivor intelligence (or lack thereof) also have an effect. No one can ever fully understand the beautiful display of the danger maps over time, but I encourage you to try. Unless you're pro-life, in which case I'd prefer you die. --VVV ^RPMBG 04:38, 17 August 2010 (BST)

I love being able to legitimately plug my own video [1]! --

 

 

 

 

05:30, 17 August 2010 (BST)

Group in notorious suburb info

why is the kilt store mentioned on this page? what the hell have they done to warrant any special attention?----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 22:38, 18 October 2010 (BST)

+1 --VVV ^RPMBG 23:05, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Good call. Removed. If they get into Cat:HG later then they might consider adding themselves back at that time. —Aichon— 23:11, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Largely Quantifiable Numbers

Since the current danger system utilizes some pretty straightforward numbers in the analysis, 50+ zombie hordes, 150+ zombie hordes, etc., I have found that current circumstances on the ground may warrant updating these numbers. Unlike the heyday of UD, overall participation is way down. Active accounts are down, too. Currently, the game has 8452 survivors standing, 4554 zombies standing, and 3716 dead/revivifying. This means that, per suburb assuming even distribution, there's around 84.5 survivors and 45.5 zombies. I haven't seen a fully-loaded multi-hundred-human defended mall in months, and there's absolutely no indication that the distribution of those survivors is even, meaning few suburbs have enough people to put even a single person inside each building.

All this said, the game is smaller now. Small groups of zombies can crack suburbs this lightly defended with ease. Survivors are spread thin trying to defend everything. Perhaps we should be looking at lower numbers constituting the danger levels? 25 zombie hordes and 75 zombie mega-hordes, perhaps? Either way, the numbers aren't really as useful as they once were, rarely coming into play in the updates. And, if they DO come into play, it's usually AFTER the suburb has already been wiped clean of humans. What updates might make this more useful? --BLusk 14:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Zombie Lord is working on something that moves the system away from population based reporting altogether. It's more of an infrastructure based reporting system that is along the lines of the EMRs we get. Population numbers are included but the danger of a burb is not based on it. I think he's still working out the details and so he hasn't posted anything here but you can see what he's working on at User:Zombie Lord/sandbox1. ~ 14:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the link. Anyone who wants to take all that to a more public page so it can be worked on by anyone who feels the urge, should feel free.---

| T | BALLS! | 19:02 23 February 2011(UTC)

What happens next?

i've noticed that slowly the entire city is falling. Everywhere i go the buildings are ruined and there are only zombies. what happens when the entire city is zombified or dead?Jrs3000 18:07, 14 May 2011 (BST)

it won't come to that, u may notice that search rates for faks and syringes, even in ruins, are supergood right now...   ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} _{18:12, 14 May 2011}

holy shit almost the whole maps red no more greens and only 28% are humans i think malton is finelly falling to zombie hands lol go zeds! i wonder what would happen if all the humans died would kevin finelly end this xD and the best thing would be for the big bash to come around now...

28% is actually much better than it was a short time ago. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:18, 28 May 2011 (BST)

A side note

As you can see, pretty much nowhere is safe. Whenever you try to cade a building, you get killed somehow, so really, what is the point of playing as a survivor? you'll just keep getting killed every few days. So really the game is really favouring zombies. Survivors are being penalised. Seriously, I keep hearing stories that as soon as a building is caded, a rather large group of zombies coming from nowhere appears and kills everyone, how can you compete with that? But what if someone doesn't want to play as a zombie, they go to a revive point. Wait, idiots attack the zombies there too. So basically, survivors are screwed. Without survivors then this is not really much of a game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LoneGuardian09 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 30 May 2011 (BST).

well the game has to come to an end somtime i think that the zombies will end up ruling and the survivors or dying or just never log in again --Jose 16:50, 30 May 2011 (BST)

Simple, humans do what they are known for, surviving. it will simply be as nomads hiding in darkened buildings. which is a well used tactic in dangerous suburbs, hiding in ruined, dark buildings is really easy to do--Mikalos209 06:36, 4 June 2011 (BST)

Jeez, it's like some kind of zombie apocalypse or something! I never signed up for that!! --Cman yall 21:02, 4 June 2011 (BST)

Technically this is how the map should look. You have ot remember, human players for some reason seem to have a crippling hatred of eachother. --Mikalos209 23:39, 4 June 2011 (BST)

REDFEST

For real though, everything is red or orange now. Please take the descriptions of the colors in consideration. I understand people feel the need to make their suburb/temporary safe haven not stand out, but if you want to beat this whole massive zombie attack thing, you have to fight psychologically. Just like they're doing. ("Hey everythings red! This is keeping up our zombie spirits. Let's keep going for a long time." vs "Damn survivors took back the whole west coast! Sheeeiiiit. Let's eventually get bored and so forth.") Also, most of the random suburbs I walked through are pretty safe. Some zombies are standing outside but in no way in mobs of 50 or more or even 150 or more.

In addition: the wiki should be not biased for survivors nor undead, so providing truthful information would be a right thing to do. Also, keeping the danger map updated in this fashion, it's easier to locate the horde.

So please read and adhere the descriptions of the danger levels and don't think you should just put a higher level, just because that's the status of surrounding hoods. --Bean 15:48, 6 June 2011 (BST)

The map went completely red because everyone was dead, not because the zombies were high-fiving each other on the wiki. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 16:53, 6 June 2011 (BST)

And three months ago there was a whole bunch of yellow and green. Which is what it's been consistently for like 2-3 years. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:29, 7 June 2011 (BST)

Here's some learning. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:31, 7 June 2011 (BST)

I've just had a rather long rant about this in frequently asked questions, if everybody is dead, and even if you get revived you are dead the next time you login, people will ask what is the point of playing, or just keep playing as a zombie instead. It's a hell of a lot easier being a zombie. So really, not long before humans are a dieing breed --LoneGuardian09 20:10 8th June 2011 (GMT)

Yeah, better to just give up now. Game over, man, game over! --||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 20:26, 8 June 2011 (BST)

Update At Survivors Risk?

is the status of a "safe" building better left unknown/out-of-date for survivors?

i understand i am updating at my own risk...but recon information is important for survivors (and, yes i know, zombies). i'm trying to have a npov but after witnessing a GKer destroy the genny of a building i updated just a few hours prior pissed me off (as a character). i stayed in the building to witness the effect of updating wiki information. and since my UD & Wiki names are the same, i'm also worried about being PK'd by a pro-survivor (someone who doesn't PK) for giving out their safe-house info...so now i prefer to update TRP only...but it's hard for the survivor community who aren't in groups to know if a suburb is "safe" with only 0-30% of the danger levels. -- Son of Sin -- 21 August 2011, 09:44 (GMT)

Honestly from the zombie perspective the danger map is solely self promotion, most of the determination about where to go on a suburb level has to do with maintaining momentum. Survivors are who the map was largely designed for and functions effectively for as an information tool. Survivors benefit from knowing where survivors are, zombies have to know more about activity times. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 12:26, 21 August 2011 (BST)

Thanks Karek. Son of Sin -- 21 August 2011, 12:06 (GMT)

Open Discussion

I've started an open discussion to try to consolidate all of the currently proposed DangerMap ideas. The discussion here got rather off topic and disorganized and I wanted to help steer it back on track. Feel free to discuss things in a more organized fashion here. ~ _{15:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)}

A question about Vinetown

What exactly is noteworthy about Vinetown? It doesn't have any description or explanation and I was wondering if it was just an oversight, or if it needed to be demoted to just another tar heel suburb.--BrotherMcBeaner 20:36, 12 May 2012 (BST)

Near as I can tell, it was modified without comment or justification less than a year ago. I've gone ahead and set it back to normal. —Aichon— 21:27, 12 May 2012 (BST)

Peddlesden Village and Dunell Hills

I'd rather not touch anything and leave it up to the officials... but Peddles and Dunell aren't exactly ghost towns, or... they will be. There are zombies everywhere, ruining all the buildings, and I have no idea why. I saw at least 7 or 8 zombies on my straight path to Houghton Towers. I think it should be changed to a dangerous area, and not a ghost. Preeetty sure I'll wake up a zombie. --- Alex Yamata 12:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

There are no "officials". You're welcome to change them if you don't think the criteria fit for the current state on the ground. And there might be a strong zombie presence there because The Dead claim the entire DMZ as their home turf, which includes those suburbs. —Aichon— 22:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it seems to be random. I see DHCP survivors everywhere, but the few zombie profiles I do get to see are feral. And by officials, I meant people like you, Aichon... These Danger Levels mess with a lot of things around the wiki, and I don't like editing big things. --- Alex Yamata 00:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Meh, the danger levels are intended to be edited by anyone. Just edit it to say something like "dangerous" or "very dangerous". There are instructions there, and if you screw something up, it'll be obvious (since the changes won't happen and stuff will probably look screwy), so you can just click the history link at the top of the page and undo your changes. Really, you never need to worry about the edits you make on the wiki, since you can undo anything you screw up. :) —Aichon— 01:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

On the wiki we encourage you to edit things like this yourself. Trust us, if you did mess something up (as I did when I did it for the first couple of times), no one will notice. If they do, they'll revert it so it's no longer an issue. Trust us, the more people who update this regularly, the better it will be. A ZOMBIE ANT 08:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

DSS map offline

It seems the DSS map link is no longer active. The one located on all the individual suburb pages. Can that be removed? I would most likely break something so probably better for someone smarter to do it. --_K 20:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Good find, thanks Kirsty. For me it redirected me to unwanted ads and malware download attempts etc so I've removed the hyperlink function. It's just plain text now. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 03:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)