Talk:Gem properties

A few things I have to say: Xhamon (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First, Mp5 and spirit are not offensive in essence. If we consider more than the base description we'd have to start enumerating everyting. Yes spirit is partially offensive for a warlock with Fel Armor, but a warlock with Demon Armor won't benefit from anything offensive. Also, it wouldn't make sense to say that armor is offensive just because some warriors have the Armored to the Teeth talent. If this isn't clear: Offensive is if you answer "yes" to "Will it make you kill/heal faster?". Defensive is if you answer "yes" to "Will it make you last longer?".
 * Second, I fail to see why the primary "gem names" were added in the first table, that only duplicates information from the second table.
 * Third, I don't understand why someone removed the "reset" button in the first table, it resets the order to the order of the second table which is useful. I re-added it.

=Overhauling language= Overhauling language to remove impression that gem stats are ingredients that can be used by the player to create uncut gems. Keyesc (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Actions/Longevity
The table is neat but it needs a definition of these terms. I don't understand what it means for a gem to have "longevity" or "actions."Dr. Cheis (talk) 19:25, October 15, 2010 (UTC)