Talk:BattleMaster Basics
New Basics Page
What do you all think? The old page is at Introduction. --Dolohov 30 July 2005 23:42 (CEST)
Shorter
I like this very much, but I would love it if it were a little less elaborate. Remember that for the AOL generation anything that doesn't fit on one page is already half a book.
The examples could be slightly reduced, and the wording be tightened. I'm sure we can save about 25% of the text without losing any meaning. --Tom 1 August 2005 11:17 (CEST)
I hate the create a character section.
It is very subjective and I would almost disagree entirely with it. EI and Atamara are horrid places to learn the game IMO. Realm Summaries are not a good indicator of the realm at all. Size is an individual preferance. Some thrive in large realms others get lost in in even medium size realms.
I think we should link it out to island descriptions and than realm type descriptions.--Eric S P 3 August 2005 07:46 (CEST)
- I appreciate that the original advice was, for an experienced user, absolutely terrible... but the point of this page is as a very quick guide for getting started in the game. Any rules of thumb, however arbitrary, are useful to a brand new player who doesn't know what's going on. Sure, this means that their first character will probably miss a lot of real gems: small realms or realms without summaries that are really good -- but that's not the point.
- I agree that EI and Atamara might not be the best places to learn the game (personally, I think that SEI is the best place to learn), but I oppose linking it to island descriptions and all that -- it's just too much research and thinking for this particular page. It would be entirely appropriate, however, for a page on creating your second character. --Dolohov 3 August 2005 15:31 (CEST)
Rollbacks
I am a complete idiot. For some reason, I thought that the appearance of a "rollback" button, combined with an article which had been rolled back, would show me what had been rolled back. This is, again, because I'm an idiot. I double-checked against the the copy of the original I had open in another tab, and it appears to be the correct one. Sorry about that. --Dolohov 3 August 2005 05:34 (CEST)
