User talk:Aichon

Aichon:Talk

• Main
• Characters
• Sandbox

• Talk
• Userscripts
• Other

Aichon

ˈīˌkän :Talk

Announcement: I'm no longer active. My talk page is still your best bet to get in touch. —Aichon— 04:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Please be aware of the following guidelines before posting here.

• New conversations should be started at the bottom using a level two header (e.g. ==Header==). Or with the +
• I like to keep conversations wherever they start, but if a conversation ends up here, I will keep it here.
• I will format comments for stylistic reasons, delete comments for whatever reason, and generally do anything else within reason.

Thanks. —Aichon—

NOTICE

Archives: 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | To do

New Idea

Hi,

For the past half hour or so, I've been brainstorming about linking the danger reports to the status of suburbs on the suburb map, but for the life of me, I can't figure it out.

The basic idea I had was to assign each status a certain value, which would be processed and result in a conclusion, for instance:

Rot Revive = +5 Safe = +3 Under attack = 0 Under Siege = -1 Ruined = -3 Pinata = -4 Unknown = -5

If the sum of all values is above X, the suburb is considered Safe, if it's between Y and X, it's considered Moderately Dangerous, etc.

Would such a thing be possible? :)

PB&J 17:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You'd need a way to calibrate for proportion of buildings v open blocks, which can vary quite a lot from suburb to suburb, and would miss e.g. large groups of zombies that happen to be standing in open blocks, a situation I've recently encountered in East Becktown. And "unknown" statuses aren't indicative of zombie/survivor levels in-game, just that an area is underrepresented on the wiki. I've tried to make a system to "diagnose" suburbs this way based on EMR (see here, point 8). Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 18:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring Bob's (entirely valid and worthy of consideration) points for the moment and simply answering your question, if we had one of the math extensions installed on the wiki, yup, it'd be basically just one line of code. But I'm afraid we don't, so were it anyone else asking me, I'd just say, "nope, not possible", but because it's you and I know you're willing to go to excruciating lengths to make cool things happen...yes, I think it actually is possible, but it'd be mighty tedious.

Just thinking off the top of my head (i.e. never done this before) doing that sort of math would mean crafting a sorta-recursive algorithm by creating a template for each of the possible values in the total range, so for your example, you'd need 1000 templates to cover every possible value from -500 to +500. Each of those templates would be hand-coded to understand which other values are reachable from it (e.g. Template208 would know it could jump to templates 213, 211, 208 (itself), 207, 205, 204, and 203, depending on what value it was given). A short example of how it would work would be something like:

1. You include Template0 and give it values A, B, and C as parameters to add together.
2. Template0 tells TemplateA to add parameters B and C
3. TemplateA tells TemplateA+B to add parameter C
4. TemplateA+B tells TemplateA+B+C to add nothing
5. TemplateA+B+C provides back A+B+C as the final answer
6. TemplateDangerLevel takes that final number and converts it into a status

So, just to provide some dry-coded pseudo-code (i.e. this is some rough logic that is not guaranteed to work or be anywhere close to correct) for how something like this might work for calculating the total of the first three blocks in a suburb (let's say our example blocks have values +3, 0, and -5):

1. You'd start things off by giving Template0 your individual block values and then passing the result into TemplateDangerLevel: {{TemplateDangerLevel|{{Template0|Block1Value|Block2Value|Block3Value|...|Block100Value}}}}
2. TemplateDangerLevel would have something like: {{switch|{{{1}}}|case: -500=very dangerous|case: -499=very dangerous| ... |case: 499=safe|case: 500=safe}}
3. Template0 would be like: {{if|{{{1|}}}|{{Template{{switch|{{{1}}}|case: 5=5|case: 3=3|case: 0=0|case: -1=-1|case: -3=-3|case: -4=-4|case: -5=-5}}|{{{2}}}|{{{3}}}| ... |{{{100}}}}}|0}}
4. Because Block1 had a value of 3, the above code would concatenate "Template" with "3" to then use Template3, which looks like: {{if|{{{1|}}}|{{Template{{switch|{{{1}}}|case: 5=8|case: 3=6|case: 0=3|case: -1=2|case: -3=0|case: -4=-1|case: -5=-2}}|{{{2}}}|{{{3}}}| ... |{{{100}}}}}|3}}
5. Because Block2 was 0, Template3 would call itself again, which would result in Template-2 being used (because 3 - 5 = -2): {{if|{{{1|}}}|{{Template{{switch|{{{1}}}|case: 5=3|case: 3=1|case: 0=-2|case: -1=-3|case: -3=-5|case: -4=-6|case: -5=-7}}|{{{2}}}|{{{3}}}| ... |{{{100}}}}}|-2}}
6. Because all of the parameters passed into Template-2 were empty, it would fail on the "if" statement and simply provide back "-2", which would be the final answer, which would then go into TemplateDangerLevel.

So, yes, it should be possible, but it'd be a real hassle, the wiki may break from it (I wouldn't know without testing it), and if someone decided to change the system later, it'd involve redoing all of those templates by hand. Not fun. But possible! —Aichon— 18:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll look through the entire idea tomorrow morning (pretty late here), but to comment on the last part: who is still going to change the system at this point? I mean, there are barely enough people active to keep the current system alive, one of the reasons the DC was designed 4 (!) years ago.

The whole point is to automate as much as possible. PB&J 19:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Surely this would be easier with no ghost town criteria? --Rosslessness^{Want to complete a dangerous mission?} 19:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Howdy

If its not too personal, how are the SOC doing? Where are you cruising about these days?--Rosslessness^{Want to complete a dangerous mission?} 19:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

We're doing about as well as can be expected, I think, given the state of the game. We're still on the stats page, so that should give you a rough idea of how our numbers are doing. Probably about half of our members hang out around our Darvall Heights home, working in that area full-time, while the other half go on whatever mission we're up to. Right now, we're in the southwest of Malton doing some work outside of our usual area, though we're probably at the point where we're going to head out soon, since we fully repaired the area, reset all of the repair costs, and are mostly just barricade strafing behind the handful of zombies doing stuff in the area (with the notable exception of one building). —Aichon— 19:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)