Allow 100% guides?

[Argon]

For me is all or nothing. Whatever the players want to share would be fair game, the only restriction would be insight script confirmation. That way the debate would be around the players' perspective, nothing else.

[Ivan]

Can I post 'em already?

[Argon]

Nah :)

[Cyrus Tegyr]

Its time for this, nothing stops Ivan or myself from handing out guides to those who ask and I've even included them in a couple macros and in some cases make the macro "smart" so it just does what you need to make at your skill level you're at.

Its a strange thing to be opposed to this because the guides already out there aren't 100% efficient, it is not the role of staff to question a guides efficiency IF the staff are not themselves putting them up. Since these are player made, they have always had the caveat of "Staff make no claims to the validity of te following guide". Also I ought to note, as players its, especially considering crafting skills but other skills as well, it is a moot point to make that guides won't be the most effecient since we do not have access to the cfg files and scripts that for instance I could scrutinize and come up with the most efficient way of training most skills.

I don't even view this as a way to open the secrets of Pangaea which will have an effect on new players, I look at it as just a step toward modernizing the Pangaea experience. It will mostly only help veteran players since very very few new to uo players will stumble upon Ultima Online and even less Pangaea but this is not to say we ought not do this. I vote yay!

[Argon]

I too see this as a step forward on the way we look Pangaea. Im considering, if this passes (which seems quite obvious by now) to ask Irming to create a Guides section on the forum.

[Thoran]

I too see this as a step forward on the way we look Pangaea. Im considering, if this passes (which seems quite obvious by now) to ask Irming to create a Guides section on the forum.

Or then how about getting the wiki back?

[Vulcan]

I too see this as a step forward on the way we look Pangaea. Im considering, if this passes (which seems quite obvious by now) to ask Irming to create a Guides section on the forum.

Or then how about getting the wiki back?

Still waiting on that. Though I'd prefer wiki info to be more accurate, so I'd put guides away from there.

[Ivan]

I too see this as a step forward on the way we look Pangaea. Im considering, if this passes (which seems quite obvious by now) to ask Irming to create a Guides section on the forum.

Or then how about getting the wiki back?

Still waiting on that. Though I'd prefer wiki info to be more accurate, so I'd put guides away from there.

Wiki cannot be accurate, if we've got no specifics on the subjects how they're made exactly. Currently wiki is full of information provided by players. It kind of falls in the same category as the guides.

[Tyrion]

Wiki cannot be accurate, if we've got no specifics on the subjects how they're made exactly. Currently wiki is full of information provided by players. It kind of falls in the same category as the guides.

There are no distinctions from the Wiki and the Pangaea site. The only difference between the two is that one is managed by the community and the other is managed by the staff. Recent history aside, everybody is aware, how quickly Pangaea administrations move .

[Glarundis]

speaking of the pangaea website, will we ever get the webshard section back?