Talk:Barricade Plan

2018 Barricade Template

So I started paying attention to what the UD wiki has for a "barricade policy template" and I finally understand why I am getting fellow pro-survivors messaging me in game about whether or not it's okay to destroy generators inside the buildings I'm in.

The reason is the barricade policy template labels all buildings capable of being "dark" as dark. SO when folks not affiliated with the RCC check the UD wiki for Roftwood's barricade policy, they see Neal Cinema listed as dark. Believing they are enforcing the "barricade policy", they destroy the generators making the building EHB + dark.

My question is why does the barricade policy template list every single building capable of being dark as dark? This seems incredibly irrelevant unless the plan actually proposes enforcing "dark" status. In fact, it seems misinformative as pro-survivors dutifully seek to enforce "dark" buildings wherever listed in the template.

Why not have the barricade policy template show which buildings have pistol clips and blue T-shirts? Because it's not information that has anything to do with barricade policy. Likewise, displaying every building capable of being "dark" is quite irrelevant to a barricade plan unless it actually has to do with barricading.

I only post this here because this is where Bob M and Stelar have directed me to do so. I am not sure whether it's easier for me to just create a new style of template for my beloved Roftwood or if it's easier to fix the template that's already been established. --ZombGG (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. You sure it's the barricade plan they're following? Sometimes people hide in dark buildings from PKers, or to keep them safer from zombies. But yeah, it doesn't seem necessary to have "dark" in the barricade plan, except as it affects the barricade rates. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

When ZombGG asked me about it, he was more curious as to why the darks were specifically shown on the map. The other building types aren't shown on there, so why the darks? It wasn't so much about the actual barricade levels for those particular buildings.

I've had people in my groups over the past couple of years get confused about what a "dark" building is. Many just believe it to be an unlit building (because no lights = dark), when that term specifically applies in-game/on-wiki to cinemas, clubs, etc. So I can see how it is confusing for new-comers (or anyone really) looking the suburb maps on the wiki. stelar ^{Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge} 09:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason why pro-survivors would want dark buildings? As a generic place to sleep so PKers can't kill them? THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 10:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Dark buildings half the hit-rate for all attacks made inside, human and zombie alike. Though as mentioned below, zombs with tangling grasp will be able to maintain grip (and thus +10% to hit) longer. But that just makes darkness 10% less effective against skilled zeds. It's mostly PK protection. Benaldo138 (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

In my experience, dark buildings are not safe areas to hide from zombies. They never lose their grip in the dark... oo spooky. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 11:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Even with tangling grasp a zed is still less likely to hit you in the dark than otherwise :o Benaldo138 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I think everyone is missing the point here - ZombGG wants the barricade plan changed to represent what the people of roftwood are agreeing on and possibly find a way to show that clubs etc. can be dark, but also the opposite. It IS a problem if people enforce the current plan when several groups are trying to maintain a more modern plan, especially if they think dark means kill the genny. Personally I say go for it, remove the old barricade plan, or put in a fresh one above the old. -- King AudioAttack (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It's actually "can the word 'dark' be removed from the barricade plans", not for the barricade plan to necessarily be changed. People look at the suburb map, see the word 'dark', assume there should be no generator and destroy it as such. It doesn't explain the functionality of those particular blocks being 'dark' buildings. stelar ^{Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge} 07:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I was focused on the last part of his question where he asked if he could change it or make a new one. Hail King AudioAttack (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your constructive comments! I am cool with either removing "dark" from the current template or seeing if we could combine brain power to design something even cooler

My first thought is like the transitional barricade plan EBD has depending on the suburb's danger status. Should we try to make that meta for suburbs with heavily coordinated survivor activity? I know Roftwood could handle it. I wonder if we can link the barricade templates to the actual suburb danger level? Meaning just updating a danger level would automatically transition the local barricade plan? I am a near - total wiki fool and if my idea sounds mad, I'm totally open to others! --ZombGG (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

As an aside- it's unbelievably comical to me that survivors destroy generators because they think it's for the best according to a barricade plan. It feels like if we could remove "dark" from the current template it would be beneficial considering. As for the more grand plan, I'm not good enough at coding to recommend a movement on that. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 11:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

First, I'm 100% in favor of removing "dark" from all barricade plans around the city. It serves not much purpose, and (as said above) leads pretty much only to confusion.

As for making other suburb barricade plans dynamic like East Becktown's — that was one idea behind EB's shift, was that if it went well we might try to implement such a system across the city. I think doing so in highly used suburbs with a lot of wiki co-ordination (Roftwood, maybe Darvall Heights) would be a good start, although for other suburbs it would either be a waste of time (Ketchelbank's been safe for years, so any dynamic isn't too helpful) or would require input from sometimes not-wiki-active but locally-powerful groups (e.g. SoC in Darvall, KT in Kempsterbank). It'd also be a lot of work, so I'm not putting my name forward for it — but if somebody wants to do it, I endorse. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 12:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

	OBJECTION!
	Spiderzed has an objection.

I'd like to point to the Roftwood Barricade Plan, where per 2010 consensus dark buildings have been made designated ruins as guaranteed entry points. Highlighting and quickly identifying dark buildings is still relevant for the barricade plan there. - There is also some edit-warring going on over the Dunell Hills Zombie Barricade Plan. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the current roftwood residents wanted it removed, there is a link somewhere I can't find atm for the discussion. -- 18:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand the logic behind mandating that the zombie plan have survivor elements forced into the plan.-- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 18:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)