Talk:Flavor of the Month

Well, i think if we list builds, we should list current builds, like:

IWAY, ranger spike, necro spike (FoC / dark pact)

--HJT 02:18, 25 October 2005 (EST)

isn't it caled favorite insted of flavor ? annyway the kontext is the same

clean up ;)
IMHO we should here just list up all CURRENTLY USED builds, its just... history is fine, but u really cant play anymore something like the good old spirit spamming ranger thingy that was used summer 2005, coz half of the then used game mechanics were drastically changed, some skills included.... and, somewhere in the Builds we already HAVE a graveyard ;)

so, what is to do:
 * evaluate the existing 'FOTM's'
 * imho they r (end of june 2006):
 * IWAY
 * touch ranger
 * blood spike
 * FoC spike (rather professional)
 * VIM
 * as teh balanced build has also some flavours, we may mention it here too
 * a few months ago u normally had W, 2E, 2 E-Drainer, 3Mo, nowaday no more e-drainer, but migraine and/or powerblock...
 * eoe bomb

this page would be fine, but it needs regular updates, discussion and so on.

IMO best would be to have some ppl to look after this article

HJT 08:22, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I feel we only need to list a few examples to give an idea of what FotM means, no need to list every single one that has come and gone. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:25, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
 * how many newbies i have seen in heros ascent asking: what is...? /w hat skills has a...? give em here the needed info :) HJT 08:52, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I see your point. We've usually avoided maintaining current records of anything that changes frequently in-game; but I can see an argument for making an exception in the case of FotM. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:58, 23 June 2006 (CDT)

Regular contributors / 'Article Admins'
Please sign up here if u play rather regular PvP and want to keep an eye on this aricle :)


 * HJT 08:23, 23 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I disagree with a list of "authorized" article admins for this article. Such a list goes contrary to the very nature of a wiki.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:26, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
 * well, my idea is to have here some ppl who said: i work on this article and look that its up to date. this doesnt mean no1 else can add info or any other such bs. i 'identify' myself with this article ;) HJT 08:52, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Who maintains it regularly will be viewable from the article history tab. By your own admission, anyone will still be able to edit it, so a list serves no purpose other than to give credits, which the wiki only does through history tabs. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:55, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
 * ur right, u may delete this paragraph when u read this, as this is a discussion only between us ;) HJT 09:00, 23 June 2006 (CDT)