Talk:Uniform Barricading Policy

Discussion of the UBP and barricading plans in general. Please be polite and sign your posts.

Suggestions for modifications

Put suggestions for minor tweaks to the plan. Particularly to deal with changes in the game mechanics. Please review past discussions in the archives before adding one here.

Ruin

It may be worth having some buildings deliberately left ruined to be used as entry points, the advantage of course being that they'd be far more (maybe eight times more) easily visible than VSB entry points, but the cost being that there'd be fewer barricaded buildings in the suburb. Thoughts? --  T   09:24, 23 August 2007 (BST)

With enough entry points around, it is not that important to recognise them easily. Even less for wiki users and other metagamers. When the suburb is under attack, ruins appear naturally anyway and in safe suburbs it's not that deadly to sleep outside, or at least easy enough to get a fast revive.

The now increasing costs to repair ruins make it harder to raise the cades as the need arises. AP need to be spent to maintain ruins, too. Less VSB safehouses come at the costs of less EHB safehouses, so the few of them should not be turned into ruins, providing less security for non-freerunners or less "real" safehouses at EHB.

In short: Voting against. Outside tags including the direction of nearby entry points might be a better solution.--Paul Power 12:31, 7 July 2008 (BST)

Less essential buildings

The increased difficulty to raise cades after a breakin makes EHB buildings more important than ever. Without raising their total number, I'd like to see at least the important TRPs at EHB. Therefore, let's remove Necrotech Buildings and Auto Shops from the list of essential buildings. While they do contain important items, these items are not needed for leveling up (or available elsewhere (Fire Axe) or starter items (Fire Axe, DNA Extractor)) and thus not required to be available for low-levels.

I wouldn't miss schools either, but as they are no important TRPs, they may remain VSB if that helps anyone.--Paul Power 12:31, 7 July 2008 (BST)

UBP Map

Compliant plans follow the concepts at UBP To elucidate, the UBP calls for a certain basic ratio of VS to EH buildings as well as guidelines for dispersal: "no more than a 3-1 ratio of EH to VS. As a rule of thumb there should be between 15-20 well distributed VS locations in any given suburb, and at least 1/4 of those should be non-resource buildings". The only complication is the uneven dispersal of buildings in any given suburb. No specific plan can ever be an exact application of the UBP; each plan should adjust to terrain as needed while sticking as close to the UBP as possible.

Plan Reviews

All published UBP reviews can be found on the UBP Plan Reviews page.

Plans to be (re)reviewed

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.

Gibsonton is not barricated according to their own plan. Vlad Tepes IV 20:40, 3 September 2007 (BST)

Barricade Plan Template

OK, I've got a fairly functional template put together for Barricade Plans - Template:BarricadePlan. I'd appreciate any feedback. I'm lazy, so I put together a web page to generate a usable instance of the template for any specified suburb based purely on the basic UBP specified barricade level by building type. Then it can be tweaked from there. You can take a look at a version of the plan as originally generated by the web tool on my user page. Here I've made some minor tweaks to the auto-generated plan for Kempsterbank.

Kempsterbank Barricade Plan

	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59
70	C
71			J		H
72			Sc
73							H
74							Bl
75							NT
76
77		T								Bl
78						L		Bk
79

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

Banner

UBP needs a banner similar to this one from Sacred Ground Policy.

	Sacred Ground Policy Supporter
	This user or group supports the Sacred Ground Policy and acknowledges that all Cemeteries in the city of Malton are considered Revivification Points.

Here is a rough draft - feel free to edit it!

	Uniform Barricading Policy Supporter
	This User or Group supports the Uniform Barricading Policy by actively maintaining barricades according to local plan or UBP standard.

Also, it gives you a nice list of who supports the UBP. Click HERE to see the list. --LadyAG 23:43, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Wow, fantastic! :) I'll go tweak it a bit now if you don't mind. Let me know what you think. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 16:50, 25 May 2006 (BST)

• Should we just put this on the page for all the groups that pledged support on the main page, and then exchange that list for a link to the Category, or would that annoy people too much?
  • Love your edits! Much better! I would like to see the category list replace the other list, but I'm not sure I like putting the banner on their page without asking. Is there some way we can notify them that it is avaiable. For example, we could put a message on their talk page? --LadyAG 18:42, 25 May 2006 (BST)

Tagging

Could there be a uniform tagging policy as part of the new uniform barricading policy? Outside the building the tag should indicate to newbies where the nearest entry point is located, where the nearest revive point is located. Inside the building the tag should link to a UBP policy page on the wiki and tell what the suggested barricade level is for that building (and the reasons). For example, in Richmond Hills grid 30,31 would read outside UBP: Newbies enter here! and inside UBP: Freerunners go east. Barricade to VS. In Richmond Hills grid 30,30 would read outside UBP: Newbie entry go south! Revives go east.and inside UBP: Freerunners go southeast. Barricade to EH. What else should be communicated in the tagging plan? Also, there should be a piece of the wiki including the suggested tags, so vandalism can be reversed easily. --Agazman 22:15, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Nah. 1) It eould take too long and too many ressources. 2) it would require huge upkeep (spraypaints aren't permanent, and people will spray over). 3) Groups advertise through spraypaints. -Certified=Insane_UG

I think it would be viable if implemented properly. There would have to be guidelines like there are for barricade policies. A rough draft starting point for this might look like:

• VSB buildings should be labeled as such inside and outside
• TRPs should be labeled inside
• revive points should be labeled inside
• non-building non-revive point squares cannot be assigned tags

As to whether or not it would ever get used, if the information were embedded in the barricade policy for the suburb I think good samaritans with extra spray cans would help keep at least a good number of them up. That in itself would make it worthwhile. Personally, I think there should also be a uniform lighting policy, and the best place to put both is inside the barricade policy. Yes, they won't be strictly adhered to, having them around is always helpful. --Wfjeff 01:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Pros & cons of the UBP

General discussion of the UBPs usefulness. Pitch your own versions here. ;) And I'll start with some responses to the older discussions on this page (see below) that I was lax in responding to earlier (again, sorry!). Feel free to interject comments between paragraphs were appropriate. Please be sure to sign your posts and indent responses so it is easier to keep track of the discussion. Thanks! --Gilant 15:46, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

First, the UBP isn't particularly designed for offense or defense. My aim, based largely on the previous work and experiences of others, was to try and develop a balanced plan that tries to accommodate the real-world efforts of survivors in the wild (so to speak ;), which seems to be to lock every building up to EHB, while not shutting out inexperienced characters & players. It is intended as much as an educational tool as a concrete plan.

Indeed in practice I know of no published plan that adheres exactly to this policy. Every specific suburb plan varies slightly to adjust to local needs and traditions, and that is exactly what I expected.

As for making all or most buildings VS+2, I understand the arguments and even agree with some. However, convincing the general populace to not have a host of buildings they like to rest in EH is nearly impossible IMHO. The best I think we can hope for is guide their selection of locations. That is part of the UBP's purpose. I also don't have the AP or interest to spend all my time tearing down barricades throughout a suburb. But with some education a few people can keep a fair number of buildings VS, and that's a good start. I also disagree that the UBP forces survivors into too few targets tempting to zombies. While the policy requires a minimum of 8 VS locations, I have yet to find a suburb where if the building recommendations are followed the number is less than 12-14, and usually closer to 20.

I've also seen it argued the EH doesn't help because two zombies can pull it down in a day. While this is true in the simplest case, it leaves off some real-play factors. Mainly, if a building contains a fair number of survivors, whether VS or EH, chances are barricades will be getting rebuilt as soon as it is noticed they are coming down. Unless the attack by is well coordinated through metagaming or someone is zerging it takes a fair sized mob of loosely coordinated zombies to overcome an actively defended building. And one that starts at EH has more margin for time lapses between active defenders. Buildings that aren't well populated (defended) tend to just be evacuated when the occupant(s) realize the barricades are down or falling.

---

There seems to be an assumption that survivors should be spread out, so that no building will be too good a target for zombies. But from what I've seen so far (as a relative noob), actual practice seems to be the opposite: survivors look for places to cluster. I think actual practice has it right. If there are only a few survivors in a building, they will be wiped out on the first break-in, and the attackers will move on to the next building, rinse and repeat. If there are just a few survivors in each building, it won't be likely that whenever the barricades are attacked there will be someone just logging in who will notice.

If I were designing a barricade policy, I would designate one building next to each resource building as sleeping quarters to be maintained EH at all times, with the same safehouse for multiple resource buildings wherever possible. (Where multiple resource buildings of the same type are clustered, I would designate one as the primary place to search for that resource, so as to optimize the use of common safehouses for multiple resources.) I would designate a number of buildings as entry points to be kept at VS, including one near to each resource building for low-level characters to sleep in. For each EH safehouse I would designate a retreat building or two, where people should go if their normal sleeping quarters are being overrun: these would also be maintained at EH. The rest of the buildings I would leave as optional, for people to barricade to EH, or leave at VS. I would try to discourage leaving buildings at heavy or very heavy; those are neither serving as entry points nor fulfilling their potential as safe places for free-runners to retreat to. --Dan 06:41, 2 April 2006 (BST)

---

I think this policy is a good idea, but the EH:VS ratio needs some adjusting. Are you trying to lock out all newbies? When I was like super new (First day) I found it almost impossible to get a safehouse. After wandering around for 40 ap, I found a school that was at Loosley, and ran in. Naturaly, I was killed the next day, and I didn't play for like 2 weeks. As I like to say "The newb you save today, could be the lvl 20 something head shot-ing a zombies that was chewing on your arm a couple months down that road" --Labine50 ^MHG 02:19, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Being a newb myself, I totally agree with this statement. A big criticism I have is that giving malls Extremely Strong Barricades makes newbie Consumers totally and completely useless. Without access to a mall, we can't even ply our one and only skill. I've played for 2 days, and died twice already, as well as had a hell of a time gaining experience; I do have some plans for what I'd like to do in-game, but if I can't even get past level 1, I'll never get a chance to put them in effect. --Rod The Bod 20:38, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Hey guys I agree with the above statements,one of my alts(NO I DON'T ZERG!)has Free running but it's hard to find an Entry Point when you're low on AP and there's a zed chasing you or you're infected and low on health.Also,if you ask me the UBP should'nt always be put into effect and if so,in situations where it's called for,(i.e. the big bash although a UBP plan alone can't stop something like that.)And these Entry points can easily be destroyed by zeds if there tough and coordinated or by overcaded by zombie spys who can simply visit the wiki.And lastly if ask me,ALL tactics (except zerging) are accecptable and should be used in the proper situation,and only a few entry points per suburb or resource buildings are almost always entry points is messed up logic since one player with construction and free running can easily mess it all up. --Gamestriker4 20:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that the problem is still going on. It may be fair to barricade most police stations, but even auto repair shops and schools are getting the same treatment! Thankfully I managed to find a VS junkyard so I can get some ammo and supplies. The main problem is that people need experience to get free running which that means killing zombies, requiring either a melee weapon or ammo, which can only be obtained from certain places.

I propose at least one PS and one junkyard in the neighborhood without EHB. In most situations the difference between VS and EHB are pretty minimal. Especially in the less troubled places. --AlexFili 10:42, 31 July 2008 (BST)

The Archives

Old suggestions and review comments that have been (I hope) handled can be found in the Archives.

Fire stations and schools

Why are there at VSB??? They're not really essential for anything. Fire stations are only useful for fire axes, and if you're a noob looking for an axe, wait... that won't really happen, ever, because if you have axe training then you already have an axe! Therefore there is no reason to keep fire stations VSB, they aren't even tactical resource points. Also, schools, wtf? Noobs don't need schools. Noobs just need ammo, and FAKs, that's about it. --ScaredPlayer 04:36, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Agreed. JimBraidwood 03:19, 6 October 2009 (BST)