 The Paragon Wiki Archive documents the state of City of Heroes/Villains as it existed on December 1, 2012.
|
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Archetypes"
From Paragon Wiki Archive
SaintNicster (Talk | contribs) (Q re: Play Style Archetypes) |
GuyPerfect (Talk | contribs) m (→Play Style Archetypes: Give this a look, you Recent Changes monitors you.) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
== Play Style Archetypes == | == 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? [[User:SaintNicster|SaintNicster]] 15:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | 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? [[User:SaintNicster|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. --[[User:GuyPerfect|GuyPerfect]] 04:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:50, 3 April 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)
