UDWiki talk:Open Discussion/DangerMap Version 4

Discuss the proposed changes to the DangerMap system here.

Goals

Currently I've set the goals at:

• Make Danger Reports more relevant to the game's decreased playerbase.
• Make danger levels more NPOV.
• Build on existing system. Don't reinvent the wheel.

Anything we would add as goals? ~ _{15:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)}

Needs to be somewhat clean looking. Like the map is now. Maybe a max of two additional icons in the map square. For example the map at that bottom end of this header with all it's links has too much stuff on it.        15:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we could get by without any icons if we use <noinclude>. Just include the images on the template proper with a link to the template on the included version. One link and no images for the purpose of the map should be fine. ~ _{16:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)}

So you mean no images on the map itself just on the suburb's danger report page? I'm referring to this page. On a side note would it be fair to say we should stick with the current color scheme (green-red) as it is what everyone is accustomed to and the meanings of those colors are pretty universally recognized (ie. red=bad, green=good)? Also, here is what I'm doing in my sandbox.        16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's what I mean. The map would look the same as it did now except for perhaps a link that goes directly to the danger template (User:DangerReport/South_Blythville for example). We can keep the same color schema as now. ~ _{16:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)}

That might work out, although I think most people would skip past the link and just use the map color as we do now. Heck I'd probably not bother clicking the link most of the time.        16:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Relevant Discussion

Any topics of discussion that I've missed? ~ _{15:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)}

Ideas

Any that should be eliminated/merged from the list of ideas? Any to add? ~ _{15:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)}

If nothing else ever results of this discussion, could you chaps at least revise the current numbers downwards? I don't know about the rest of you, but I consider even caded areas not exactly safe at 50 zombies, and I doubt anybody actually thinks a full 150 zombies or more is a requirement for very dangerous suburb. Specifics are up to you, but rewriting the current wording is cheap. Changing the actual system is much crazier. --  RoosterDragon  17:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

General Discussion

Go ahead and place new discussion under this header. ~ _{15:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)}

(Moved comments to the NPOV Infrastructure Based Revised discussion header as it was almost entirely related to that subject, feel free to revert if I was in the wrong) --Mazu 02:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed some of the headers on both the main page and here in discussion to better reflect the type of systems being proposed. ~ _{15:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)}

NPOV Population Based discussion

My vote is for this option. Fairly easy to assess at a glance and subjective enough to be a little fluid as actual player numbers and ratios fluctuate. Perhaps too many "levels", but I strongly believe this is the way to go. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 10:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

no to this 1 ..."survivor-controlled" could be a lie ...if zombies aren't trying to eat survivors in a particular suburb, that doesn't make it survivor-controlled ...some malls appear to be survivor-controlled until a zombie mob decides to attack 1 corner ...and some survivors report running away when ~10 zombies scratch at the doors ...~10 zombies against 30+ "shoppers" ...they don't deserve to be called survivors ...anyway, this idea is worse than the current model. →Son of Sin← 12:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This is my second choice. It is population based but it does get away from using numbers of zombies in a burb as the deciding factor in burb danger. I guess it is more of a population/infrastructure hybrid. Fewer categories and better naming and this could be a real contender for the new system. ~ _{15:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)}

It is basically the same system we have now just basing it more on the ability of the zombies to break in and eat survivors instead of zombies numbers. It's an improvement and if we use the same color scheme as we have now it's only a matter of updating a few templates I believe.        16:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Infrastructure Based discussion

Why do some of the terms have to be so... gay? Fortress? Battleground? The latter should surely be called something better like 'contested', and as for fortress, dunno. But it's lameness annoys me. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not my favorite choice of verbage either. Nor do I really like the colors. Any suggestions? ~ _{01:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)}

I could get used to the colours. I'll think of some potential names perhaps D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

In all honestly, to be a complete negative Nancy, I dislike everything about this option except for that fact it's based on ruins. Is six options really better than four?        02:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

and no ...i don't think NPOV means 2 levels for survivors, 2 levels for zombies and 2 neutral levels →Son of Sin← 12:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC) →Son of Sin← 12:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

EMR Based discussion

Just throwing this out there to make note of it. If we do happen to update our map with icons on it we should look at possibly upping the size of the map some for more space and to look less cluttered. I'm playing with stuff in my sandbox.        16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What if instead of images, color coding is used as I've tired to demonstrate here? ~ _{18:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)}

Seems a tad ambiguous is the only thing. I'm in favor of more direct signage. I've got the full mock up using ZL's method here if you want to see how it looks, sooo many lightbulbs :P. We can debate the icons/colors/etc. later on, are we both in agreement to use Zombie Lord's EMR based ratings? Or a different method? Also, we might break the general discussion into sub headers where each person's favored idea can be refined into a final product if the idea has someone supporting it to do the work.       21:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah Infrastructure Based Refined seems like best option to me. Kind of a merger of Danger Report and EMR in a single map with new bells and whistles. Individual headers for each suggested map type sounds good but we could probably eliminate all but a couple of the suggestions, honestly. ~ _{22:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)}

I think we could get rid of ZL's first infrastructure based system as it's the first rendition of the refined system. Is there a way we could tie a suburbs EMR to the suburb danger report page to make it auto update? I might play with that in my sandbox when I get some time. A map that auto updates itself would be nifty if it doesn't break the wiki.        00:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm also looking to remove the ratio based system if it doesn't get any support. Is burb EMR bot updated still? I don't know about Map auto updating but this would certainly open up the possibility of bot Danger updates. ~ _{00:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)}

I'm pretty sure rooster still runs the EMR bot to update all the pages every now and then. Although it hasn't been done in a few months judging by the page.        00:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If I may. The numbers seem superfluous, as does the mast icon. Both of those are more easily conveyed via the EMR report on the individual suburb pages and do not need to clutter up the Suburb page. The "Ghost Town" and "PKer Presence" seem unnecessary; you won't put the "Ghost Town" on a suburb that is in good condition because that implies survivor presence, and what qualifies "PKer Presence"? A group? One man? Ambiguous and not needed.

Generally speaking I would say that the Infrastructure model is a poor one for the Suburb page. That has always been used to reflect population and I think it should remain so. If we want to make a color-coded map for the EMR reports, then I can see some aspects of this Infrastructure model working just fine as an alternative. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 09:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

...i like this idea as i think i mentioned in another discussion ...but the wording could be simply ...Intact, Minor/Heavy Damage, and Wrecked ...no need for infrastructure/structural ...danger levels should be solely based on infrastructure, not population ...pop. is the main problem w/ the system ... what should this suburb's danger level be: 25.96 MHz: "... maybe fifty in Dartside ... mostly just small groups ... power's on across most of the area ... infrastructure looks intact ... the Bagnall Building has lights on ..." EMR doesn't say anything about structural damage or ruins ...50 zombies in small groups in a seemingly safe, maybe moderately dangerous, suburb which is intact ...buildings are intact, therefore survivors are safe, and obviously zombies are safe because survivors aren't outside killing ~50 wandering zombies ... point is...#s don't matter if neither side is hostile ...just my 2 cents →Son of Sin← 11:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

oh the only thing i don't like are the icons ...ghost town isn't necessary ...whether a suburb is intact & deserted or ruined & deserted, it should be covered in "Intact" or "Wrecked" ...PKer presence isn't part of EMRs ...if PKers are in a suburb, someone should write a report in the suburb's news section →Son of Sin← 11:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

suburb pages should provide detailed information, not the suburb danger map ...and i think the EMRP is fine although i do like the phone mast & lightbulb icons ...add a little style →Son of Sin← 11:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

@Maverick, yes clutter is a big concern. I've been trying to mock something up which looks less cluttered than Zombie Lord's version. It uses small color-coded squares rather than images to indicate power levels, ghost town and PK presence. See here for a rather bleak beginning. I could probably do without ghost town indication but substantial PKer presence in a "safe" burb can easily turn it to "unsafe". PKer presence would need to be quantified of course. One or two guys would not make an impact. A group of PKers would. We still want to convey a sense of Danger using the map but using the most neutral quantifying values, which is burb's infrastructure. Population based reporting may have been ok in a time when the game's population was growing. Due to the steady decline in numbers, though, I sincerely believe it is time for a change. EMR based reporting seems the best way to go IMHO.

@SoS, the EMR report you provided would likely put the burb in "infrastructure Intact" or "Green" status. The update process would mean typing "A" "B" "C" or "D" (or some other system) instead of "safe" "moderately dangerous" "dangerous" or "very dangerous". On the ground reports will still be the best option for updating reports but EMR reports could also be more easily used. ~ _{15:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)}

The PKer presence icon would be used very sparingly, because more often than not we don't really change much anymore. The biggest thing is the state of infrastructure directly relates to the safety of a suburb most of the time. Your not going to see a large survivor presence living in ruins just like a large zombie horde won't leave a suburb barricaded and powered for long. Now depending on the time the EMRs come the info might be out of date the next day, so the danger level can still be manually changed if need be. I just looked through a few danger report pages and there are some that haven't changed since July. Using EMRs might give a nearly total refresh of the map what every 2-3 weeks?       16:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked a bit more into the possibility of an auto updating EMR based map. Unfortunately, the EMRP: Suburb pages (EMRP: Dakerstown for example) are not templates, just tables. Otherwise it would be a rather easy task to make a new EMR Map. It might still be doable, but the EMRP: Suburb pages would need to be converted over to a template format with variables. Then a second formatter template could be could be used to parse EMRP: Suburb pages into a map format. It would take a lot of work but would be doable. Couple of problems though. 1) The bots would need to be updated 2) there is no way to build onto the existing DangerMap system. It would be from scratch and that could be a problem. Literally thousands of pages would need to be updated since the User:DangerReport/Suburb pages would be obsolete. It would be more logical to just turn this idea into EMRM2 and go with a different idea for the Suburb map; one that builds on the existing system. ~ _{06:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)}

Do you mean scraping this whole idea or just the novelty of an auto updating map? Since if we just scrap the auto updating idea then it might just be a matter of changing the inputs of the template that controls the colors. Where as instead of putting safe you'd type in ***. I'm assuming that template is universal to all the pages(so we'd only have a few pages to update instead of thousands)?        15:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just the auto-updating. And I wouldn't say I want to scrap it just that it would probably be best as a different map. I've spent quite a bit of time the last few days looking everything over to see what the impact on the current system would be for each of the proposed changes. I'll put something in the General Discussion area. ~ _{15:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)}

Hey chaps. Figured I'd pop in and give my 2 cents. Something that should be done regardless if converting EMRP: <suburb> pages into a "choose your own template" type of page like current danger reports (both building and suburb). That is to say you should be able to call the page and specify a template so you can format the data however you like. I even made Template:EMR way back when but never got around to using it.

Quick example:

{{{{{t|EMR}}}
|Dakerstown
|~2dzn
|***
|A
|Dec 25
}}

So yeah, you could make a new map that uses the data in but a few moments if you did that. Anyway, onwards.

Regarding my bot updating danger reports: When I actually cared enough to run the bot actively, it would use the infrastructure as a starting point and make an adjustment up/down if the numbers were extreme enough either way. The numbers were hard because even then the definitions on the suburb page had long been outdated and in need of revising downwards. Plus EMR numbers don't count zombies inside of buildings which limits their use. I didn't care about the power or mast or anything, because nobody gives a shit about those things. I think I got complained at for a bug where an old EMR was replacing a newer human update, but I don't think anybody actually complained at me about the levels.

Regarding auto-updating: Well updating an EMR takes fucking forever. There's the EMR page, a log, then maybe a suburb update, some building updates and a news post, for every EMR. There's like 2-7 daily IIRC so you get tired of that pretty fast. I set up the bot page so somebody could just do one edit a day and I could process them semi-automatically. But hey I got unreliable. If you really want anything resembling an auto-updating map I would impress upon the need for somebody to host a fully automated process on a server of their own to do it. This is seriously your biggest issue. Kittithaj is an ultra-dedicated god who has been keeping the "todo" page up to date, but useless somebody processes it all it's a bit worthless.

Seriously if you want to do anything EMR based then discussion about how to convert EMR values into a nice map is totally pointless unless you can actually get the EMR system automated. --  RoosterDragon  17:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Zombie/Survivor Ratio Based discussion

Does anyone support this idea? ~ _{01:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)}

It's a nice idea, but difficult to quantify. Zombies have always been fairly easy to count, but since survivors are naturally hiding inside of buildings, counting them in addition and then coming up with a good ratio seems just silly. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 10:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The nazi fellow proposed this idea and hasn't be around to support it.        16:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)