Talk:Gem properties

A few things I have to say:

• 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.

Xhamon (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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)