Uniform Barricading Policy/Plan Reviews

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Published Plan Reviews

The table below contains my reviews of all the barricade plans that have come to my attention. Every plan reviewed below should be represented on the Barricade Plan Map. This is obviously my subjective review, based on my intent for the UBP.

  • Buildings is the total # of buildings in the suburb.
  • VSB and EHB are the #'s of buildings designated at each level. Open locations and RPs on buildings are not counted as VSB locations, even though they still function as entryways.
  • 'non-UBP' indicates the number of essential buildings that are designated at a barricade level that is not in compliance with UBP guidelines strictly by building type. Under normal circumstances it is expected there would be a couple such buildings even in a fully compliant plan, such as when two Police Departments are only a couple of blocks apart and one is designated EH.
  • Compliant indicates whether or not it is a UBP style plan.
  • Comments indicate things that affected my final decision and any changes I would recommend for that barricade plan. Where a plan was non-compliant I indicate what would be needed to change it to a UBP plan, if the maintainers so desired.

Any reviews that are not dated were made before October 2006.

Updated --Gilant talk-DEM 20:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Suburb Buildings VSB EHB non-UBP Compliant

Comments

Brooke Hills 50 22 28 2 No

Not enough EH buildings for UBP. Would require at least 4 more buildings be designated EH.

Brooksville 59 20 39 5 No

None of the schools or auto repairs are VSB. Additionally at least one of the NT buildings, since there are more than one, should be VSB. Make one each of the NT, AR & S buildings VSB and change the designation of 4 other non-resource buildings nearby from VS to EH. With 4 FS & 3 PD, changing up to one of each to EH to make the 4 alterations is feasible, if that makes balancing layout easier.

Buttonville 55 14 41 5 Yes

None of the schools are VSB and I can't see why at least one couldn't be. Otherwise it is a well laid out UBP compliant plan.

Danversbank 49 29 20 1 No

Far too few EH buildings to be UBP compliant.

Dulston 58 27 31 0 No

Not enough EH buildings for UBP. Would require at least 8 more buildings be designated EH.

Earletown 58 42 16 ? No

Way too many VS barricade buildings to be compliant. The lone nechrotech building is desgnated as EH. Feel free to change the comments here, just be sure to actually look at the map first.

East Becktown 55 16 39 5 Yes

While technically in compliance other than Auto Repairs, this plan could use other updating as well. At least a couple of the NT buildings could be made EH as well as 2-3 of the 6 hospitals. This would allow some non-resource buildings to be designated VS and improve the distribution as well.

East Boundwood 60 14 46 3 Yes

While this plan is compliant, it really needs another 2-3 VSB locations. While it is hard to evaluate the layout with the image used, I'd suggest at least the Scarman Building (46,2) as VSB. Plan removed and another one substituted since this review. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 18:58, 7 August 2007 (BST)

East Grayside 49 16 33 5 Yes

Not sure about the layout - particularly having the H & PD next to each other both EH. Generally good though with tough terrain.

Eastonwood 61 11 50 5 Yes

Not enough VSB designated locations for starters; the plan needs at least 4 more VSB designated locations. I'm not counting any buildings designated as revive points, as no one sane would consider a building with zombies standing around a safe house, nor could you count the open building used by Fight Club. Those are still etnryways though, so 3 well placed additional VSB locations could do it. Also, at least one NT building needs to be VSB under the USB, and Eastonwood has enough of them it could certainly spare one for the newbs. ;)

Galbraith Hills 52 18 34 2 Yes

Yes - an easy decision! ;)

Gibsonton 60 22 38 3 Yes

Technically this plan should drop 2 VS locations and switch a couple others from non-resource locations to Auto Repairs to be 100%.

Gulsonside 56 15 41 2 Yes

Could really be tweaked a bit by adding a couple more VSB designated buildings to improve distribution, particularly in the western 2 quads.

Houldenbank 54 15 39 3 Yes

Very well laid out plan.

Huntley Heights 61 32 29 1 No

The use of separate colors for HB and EHB is a bit confusing, particularly as green is used in so many plans for VSB. This is a good example of an 'Optimal Defense Plan' and would need to drop 10-14 VSB locations to be UBP compliant.

Jensentown 57 22 34 1 2 ?
Judgewood 48 19 29 1 No

This plan would need to convert 3 currently VSB locations to EHB to be compliant. However the plan states that its intent is to be VSB heavy and newbie-friendly, and is fairly well laid out. Just as an aside, the high # of RPs seems unnecessarily confusing, and none seem to be registered on the List of Revivification Points page. --18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Kempsterbank 50 36 14 0 No

Far too few locations designated EH to be UBP compliant. 1of the NT buildings could be EH, as could 4-5 or the central resource buildings (1-2 Fire Stations and 3-4 hospitals) for starters. But at least 10-12 other buildings would need to be designated EH to be a UP plan.

Kinch Heights 51 17 34 8 Yes

Plan was updated with more VSB locations. While there are still some recomendations I'd make, the plan now meets UBP standards well enough.

Lamport Hills 54 14 40 4 Yes

This plan could use 1-2 more VSB locations as it is near the upper edge of the VS/EH ratio, but the layout is pretty good in general. 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Lockettside 55 16 39 6 Yes

I'd like to see the NT building be maintained at VSB if possible, now that the suburb is resettled, and the only Auto Repair is EHB. But those are relatively small details on a well thought out plan.

Lukinswood 46 17 29 3 Yes

Shortman building should be EH as both the mast and one of two NT buildings in very close proximity. And swap a couple Auto Repairs with pups perhaps.

Millen Hills 52 14 38 2 Yes

I would recommend changing 2-3 NT buildings and 1-2 PD's (though 4 total at most) to EHB in exchange for a like number of non-resource buildings being designated VSB + designate one or both schools VSB.

Miltown 53 11 38 5 No

Needs 2-3 more VSB designated buildings to be compliant which should include a hospital and maybe an auto repair shop. --19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Mockridge Heights 49 14 35 1 Yes

Solid.

New Arkham 54 19 35 6 Yes

The plan is a bit hard to read. One of the Auto Repairs should probably be made VS, perhaps exchanging Lawrence for the junkyard.

Nixbank 47 12 35 1 No

Updated plan using the template (thanks!). It could use maybe one more VSB location, but with the layout and so few buildings, it is a tight call on where to best put one. Regardless, the new plan is definitely UBP compliant.

North Blythville 60 17 43 3 Yes

I have some reservations on this plan. While it certainly has enough locations, the center of town has no entryways. One of the goals of the UBP is to have at least one entryway for any 9 block section. That isn't always possible when balancing all considerations, but in this case I think it certainly is. Unless there is some specific reason for the Travers Building (26, 63) to be VSB, I would recommend simply redesignating that location to EH and setting one of the buildings in the center as an entryway.

Pashenton 56 13 43 0 No

To few VSB designated locations to be USB compliant. 3-4 well placed VSB locations would be sufficient to make this a UBP plan. Also note though that the UBP would allow one NT to be designated EHB, which might be useful - just replace it with a different VSB location. --19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Pegton 59 10 49 12 No

Another plan that is extremely unfriendly to low level survivors, with too few VSB entryways in general and most resource buildings over-barricaded.

Pennville 59 8 51 7 No

Pennville is a deathtrap for newbies, with half of the resource buildings designated EH and only 8 VSB entryways in the entire suburb.

Penny Heights 63 15 48 10 No

There are a number of problems with this map, most critically the junkyards are labeled as open spaces instead of buildings. Over all there are to few locations designated VS, particularly in the middle of the suburb, to meet distribution guidelines. I also don't note any VS entryways adjacent to the Lumber Mall, where there should be at least one. Also both of the suburbs NT buildings are designated EH where one should be VS.

Pescodside 58 15 43 2 Yes

Fairly straight forward plan.

Quarlesbank 61 19 42 5 Yes

The fire station and at least 2 Auto Repairs should be changed to VSB, Pitman SW should be EH and probably one more NT building EH (Milnerr)

Raines Hills 62 14 48 5 No

Needs 2-5 more VSB designated locations to be considered UBP compliant. The layout also needs a lot of work - in this case the default locations leaves some large sections without any entryways. To be a UBP plan, my recommendations would be to change Skarin Way FS to EHB and add 4 well distributed VSB locations. --18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Randallbank 58 12 46 8 No

There needs to be at least 3 more buildings designated VS and preferably 6-8 more. Also one of the hospitals and the police station should be designated VS, as well as a few Auto Repair shops of course.

Reganbank 48 13 35 1 Yes

There needs to be at least 3 more buildings designated VS and preferably 6-8 more. Also one of the hospitals and the police station should be designated VS, as well as a few Auto Repair shops of course.

Rhodenbank 58 24 34 3 No

Overall, there is a high amount of VS buildings, all concentarted along one path. 41% of the buildings are VS in an area that is labeled as dangerous. The Lone AutoShop and School are both EH, and the cell tower appears to be VS (hard to tell). There is no non-resource point VS in the NW quadrent, and there are numerous 9-block violations. The VS buildings would need to be reduced and more spread out before the map could be UBP complaint.

Richmond Hills 45 16 29 5 No

While the numbers and distribution are good, none of the few resource buildings in this suburb are designated VS!

Roachtown 59 14 45 5 Yes

Updated plan comes much closer to UBP, and is now a near miss. One of the NT buildings and one of the schools should be VSB, and in general the suburb could use at least another 1-2 VSB locations anyway. However its proximity to Ridleybank necesitates somewhat higher than usual security, which the UBP allows for, so I'm changing it's clasification to compliant since it is so close anyway.

Rolt Heights 54 12 42 0 No

This one just barely misses. I needs one more VSB building in the center/North portion of the suburb - I'd suggest Cayley Library (84, 12). One more VSB building in addition to that wouldn't hurt, but isn't required.

Roywood 63 28 35 1 No

This suburb has a few too many VSB locations to be fully compliant, but only just. Switching 4-8 locations to EHB would be sufficient.

Ruddlebank 57 20 27 6 Yes

There are some minor tweaks I might make to this plan, like maybe designating one hospital EHB, but not much else.

Santlerville 51 7 44 12 No

IMO this plan makes Santlerville a death trap for new survivor players. 3 of its 4 hospitals, both schools, all 4 auto repairs and both NTs are designated EHB. To be compliant, this plan would need to make 7 - 9 more buildings designated VSB, including 2 more hospitals, 1-2 schools, 2-3 auto repair shops and 1 NT. --19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Scarletwood 62 24 38 6 No

There are a few too many buildings designated VS to be UBP compliant. More importantly however is that a few key resource buildings, particularly the Police Departments, are listed as EH.

Shackleville 56 17 39 7 Yes

Solid plan. The NT building is a tough call due to the distance to other options and the frequency with which it is under attack. One or both Auto Repairs and one more school could be made VSB and perhaps one or two other locations designated EH.

Shearbank 58 14 44 8 No

Needs at least 3 more VSB locations (maybe Denmead School and/or Abrahall Auto Repair among those). The Mallows building, the Rush Building and Club Williames are good candidates to consider. --19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Spracklingbank 50 15 35 0 Yes

I might suggest swapping 2-3 Auto Repair shops and Railway Stations for 3-4 non-resource buildings just to tweak the distribution some, particularly for the NW of the suburb.

Stanbury Village 57 16 41 6 No

Stanbury Village is frequently hit by the RRF for containing the closest Mall to Ridleybank. Given that, this plan comes suprising close to being UBP compliant. It has sufficient VSB locations, just that at least one NT and one PD should be among the VSB designated locations, as well as perhaps the AR. It is a very close call on this one given it's location.

Tapton 52 17 35 4 Yes

Looks good! --19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Tollyton 52 15 37 5 Yes

Again, a plan where I might suggested exchanging the designations of a few buildings, but generally a good plan.

West Becktown 49 16 33 1 Yes

The one Auto Repair should be designated VS, which would help with the large un-enterable area on the West border. There is also a cluster of 5 resource buildings to the south with 2 more nearby. The NT building should and the Fire Station could be switched to EH so two well placed non-resource buildings could be designated VS.

West Boundwood 55 12 43 6 No

W. Boundwood has no schools or auto repair shops designated as VSB, and in general too few VSB designated locations. 2-6 more well placed VSB locations, including at least 2-3 schools and repair shops would do it.

Whittenside 53 16 37 7 No

Tough call! Really it was both Fire Stations being set to EH that made the decision (Creyghton is a Railway Station!). I'd like to see at least one of the FS's set to VSB and maybe 1-2 other resource buildings as well, but in general this is a good plan (IMHO).

Williamsville 58 14 44 6 No

A close one. Needs 3-4 more VSB designated locations of which 1 should be another auto repair and one should be a school. --19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wray Heights 62 17 45 6 Yes

A fairly good plan (UBP speaking ;). With the number of buildings in this suburb it could live with one or maybe even two more VSB locations, but numbers are OK as is. The layout could perhaps use a little tweaking to improve distribution a bit, including perhpas trading a couple auto repairs for schools. Clevely Way would be an ideal spot for an RP, with two NTs within two blocks, one VSB and one EHB, plus Diaper AR as an entryway.

Wyke Hills 55 15 40 5 Yes

Still needs a couple Auto Repair shops VSB, but the plan is pretty tight and still in the proposal phase, so hopefully they'll sort that out. Adding 2 AR's at VSB would also bring them close to an ideal 2:1 EH/VS ratio.

Wykewood 48 18 28 1 Yes

This map is extremely difficult to read.But assuming I've got it right it looks like a fairly good plan.

Yagoton 62 15 47 6 No

The ratio of VS to EH is barely sufficient and there are no schools or Auto Repair shops designated VS. If 2-3 of each were designated as VSB this plan would be fit the UBP.

Plans awaiting review

If you have a plan that has not yet been reviewed above, or was updated since its last review, please provide a link to the plan here, including the date added to the list. Please sign your posts so that we know who to contact when the review is completed.

If you are submitting a plan for a suburb that has never been reviewed, you can also edit the map to include a link to the plan, and set the status to 'MapDanger' which will change its color to orange signifying an unreviewed plan.

Any comments about a plan previously reviewed or awaiting review should be made on the talk page.

Plans requiring re-review

(I added the above plans for rereview based on comments made below --Gilant talk-DEM 20:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

Comments and Feedback

If you have comments about a review above, please make them on the talk page.

Old review comments can be found in the archives.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Uniform_Barricading_Policy/Plan_Reviews&oldid=1384517"