FANDOM


Orignal discussion can be found here, User:Shireen/talk - Premade Builds Policy

Page has been blanked in preperation for policy veting procedure. Shireen 04:55, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

- Bump Shireensysop 06:33, 25 July 2007 (CEST)

It seems to me that there is a bit of a problem with this proposal. Specifically, the problem is that many of the primer builds are bad. Several of them are also severely outdated(See Build:P/W Battery Paragon (primer follow-up) for an example). --Edru viransu//QQ about me 03:21, 2 August 2007 (CEST)

Well, I was originally opposed to this, but seeing as the feature is all-but-removed from the game (no more Fi/IVEX/EW premades), I now think it would be a good idea to document them in something like an an archive. Let GW.com document the PvP primers though, we have the better, more mainstream versions already on the wiki. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 20:00, 2 August 2007 (CEST)

The actual premades(and maybe even the weak 5 skill "builds" they give PvP characters) are something that, imo, should be documented. The Primer builds, should not, though, imo. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 23:34, 2 August 2007 (CEST)
I beg to know your reasoning behind keeping a build with five skills and a res sig but not the premade primer builds... -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 05:35, 3 August 2007 (CEST)
Stick with the 'premade' line of thinking I bet. Doesn't make sense to have the old premades but not the current ones. What do you think about the old templates I mentioned (even the bad ones before [EW] got to design a bunch of them)? - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 05:39, 3 August 2007 (CEST)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.