Talk:Archetypes: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Thirty7 (historical) |
imported>Eabrace (historical) m (→Alignment) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
== Alignment == | == Alignment == | ||
Does it make sense at this point (now that Freedom has launched) to include the alignment icon of each non-Epic AT in the description box (or anywhere else)? No AT is truly aligned with any one side anymore, after all. --[[User:Thirty7|Thirty7]] 06:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC) | Does it make sense at this point (now that Freedom has launched) to include the alignment icon of each non-Epic AT in the description box (or anywhere else)? No AT is truly aligned with any one side anymore, after all. --[[User:Thirty7|Thirty7]] 06:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
:I went ahead and removed the alignment parameter from the infobox call for each of the non-epic ATs. No need to modify the template since it only went looking for the icon if the parameter was being passed in. Epic ATs are still making the call with the alignment parameter, so they still have the icons displayed. --[[User:Eabrace|Eabrace]] [[File:Healthbar notify phone.png|20px|link=User talk:Eabrace]] 15:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:36, 24 October 2011
Possible Future Archetypes
- Incarnate
- Avilan (wings)
- Blood of the Black Stream (most likely an egyptian theme)
- Coralax (perhaps they were made into an enemy group instead)
AT Modifiers
Should we add them to this page? I'm not vertain what all of them are. A nice list of the modifieres for buffs, damage, etc. would be nice. --Fleeting Whisper 03:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Play Style Archetypes
Seems a bit out of place here, since they aren't official archetypes, but nicknames for different playstyles. Should it be reworded to fit better, or perhaps it should be a separate page altogether? SaintNicster 15:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm thinking the same thing. Each link points to an article in the Definitions category, and frankly the only way anyone's ever going to find out about them is if they see someone else use the term and type it in to see what the wiki says about it. I don't see any real need to have the list laying around, and especially not in this article. I'd be happy to remove it, but I'll wait a day or two to see what others think. --GuyPerfect 04:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- If the play styles were removed from this article, it wouldn't bother me. --Eabrace
07:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't even know why they're in there. They're not archetypes at all; they don't belong in the article. ~ User:Aggelakis/Sig1 09:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody argued for keeping them so I've removed them. -- Sekoia 17:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't even know why they're in there. They're not archetypes at all; they don't belong in the article. ~ User:Aggelakis/Sig1 09:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- If the play styles were removed from this article, it wouldn't bother me. --Eabrace
Alignment
Does it make sense at this point (now that Freedom has launched) to include the alignment icon of each non-Epic AT in the description box (or anywhere else)? No AT is truly aligned with any one side anymore, after all. --Thirty7 06:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I went ahead and removed the alignment parameter from the infobox call for each of the non-epic ATs. No need to modify the template since it only went looking for the icon if the parameter was being passed in. Epic ATs are still making the call with the alignment parameter, so they still have the icons displayed. --Eabrace 15:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)